Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings"

See other formats


?pi^i«fppj6i^^tinm??i-^'e^^^^^^^ 


JV? 


7 


C»  w^-  ^  » — /  >J 1  ■^  ' 


Given  By 


^ 


t 


^ 


^^    ^  .7    /^.S 


^2d  Seifo?^}  COMMITTEE  PRINT 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

PRESIDENT'S  COMMISSION 

ON 

IMMIGRATION  AND  NATURALIZATION 


SEPTEMBER  30,  OCTOBER  1,  2,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10, 
11,  14,  15,  17,  27,  28,  29,  1952 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


^o?  ^°^?^^s^\  COMMITTEE   PRINT 

2d  Session    J 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE   THE 


U.S. PRESIDENT'S  COMMISSION 

V 


ON 


IMMIGRATION  AND  NATURALIZATION 


SEPTEMBER  30,  OCTOBER  1,  2,  6,  7,  8,  9, 10, 
11,  14, 15, 17,  27,  28,  29,  1952 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


UNITED   STATES 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
25356  WASHINGTON   :   1952 


^^OSTXT^ 


REPLY  TO  REQUEST 

President's  Commission  on 
Immigration  and  Naturalizx^tion, 

Executive  Office, 
Washington,  October  27, 1952. 

Hon.  Emanuel  Celler, 

House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  G. 

Dear  Congressman  Celler  :  Pursuant  to  the  request  in  your  letter 
of  October  23,  1952,  we  shall  be  happy  to  make  available  to  you  a 
copy  of  the  transcript  of  the  hearings  held  by  this  Commission.  We 
shall  transmit  the  record  to  you  as  soon  as  the  notes  are  transcribed. 

The  Commission  held  30  sessions  of  hearings  in  11  cities  scattered 
across  the  entire  country.  These  hearings  were  scheduled  as  a  means 
of  obtaining  some  appraisal  of  representative  and  responsible  views 
on  this  subject.  The  Commission  was  amazed,  and  pleased,  at  the 
enormous  and  active  interest  of  the  xlmerican  people  in  the  subject  of 
immigration  and  naturalization  policy. 

Every  effort  was  made  to  obtain  the  opinions  of  all  people  who 
might  have  something  to  contribute  to  the  Commission's  considera- 
tion. All  shades  of  opinion  and  points  of  views  were  sought  and  heard. 
The  response  was  very  heavy,  and  the  record  will  include  the  testimony 
and  statements  of  some  600  persons  and  organizations. 

This  record,  we  believe,  includes  somie  very  valuable  information,  a 
goodly  proportion  of  which  has  not  hitherto  been  available  in  dis- 
cussions of  immigration  and  naturalization.  It  is  of  great  help  to 
the  Commission  in  performing  its  duties.  We  hope  that  this  material 
will  be  useful  to  your  committee,  to  the  Congress,  and  to  the  country. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Philip  B.  Perlman,  Chairman. 


CONTENTS 


Sessions: 

New  York,  N.  Y.: 

First:   September  30,  1952,  morning  session. 

Second:  September  30,  1952,  evening  session. 

Third:   October  1,  1952,  morning  session. 

Fourth:  October  1,  1952,  evening  session. 
Boston,  JNIass.: 

Fifth:   October  2,  1952,  morning  session. 

Sixth:   October  2,  1952,  evening  session. 
Cleveland,  Ohio: 

Seventh:   October  6,  1952,  morning  session. 

Eighth:   October  6,  1952,  evening  session. 
Detroit,  Mich.: 

Ninth:  October  7,  1952,  morning  session. 

Tenth:   October  7,  1952,  evening  session. 
Chicago,  111.: 

Eleventh:   October  8,  1952,  morning  session. 

Twelfth:   October  8,  1952,  evening  session. 

Thirteenth:   October  9,  1952,  morning  session. 

Fourteenth:  October  9,  1952,  evening  session. 
St.  Paul,  Minn.: 

Fifteenth:   October  10,  1952,  morning  session. 

Sixteenth:   October  10,  1952,  evening  session. 
St.  Louis,  Mo.: 

Seventeenth:   October  11,  1952,  morning  session. 

Eighteenth:   October  11,  1952,  evening  session. 
San  Francisco,  Calif.: 

Nineteenth:  October  14,  1952,  morning  session. 

Twentieth:   October  14,  1952,  evening  session. 
Los  Angeles,  Calif.: 

Twenty-first:   October  15,  1952,  morning  session. 

Twenty-second:  October  15,  1952,  evening  session. 
Atlanta,  Ga.: 

Twenty-third:   October  17,  1952,  morning  session. 

Twenty-fourth:  October  17,  1952,  evening  session. 
Washington,  D.  C: 

Twenty-fifth:   October  27,  1952,  morning  session. 

TwentV-sixth:   October  27,  1952,  evening  session. 

Twenty-seventh:   October  28,  1952,  morning  session. 

Twenty-eighth:  October  28,  1952,  evening  session. 

Thenty-ninth:   October  29,  1952,  mornings  session. 

Thirtieth:  October  29,  1952,  evening  session. 
Appendix:  Special  studies. 
Indexes : 

Persons  heard  or  who  submitted  statements  by  session  and  order  of  appearance. 
Organizations  represented  by  persons  heard  or  by  submitted  statements. 
Persons  heard  or  who  submitted  statements  by  alphabetical  arrangement 

of  names. 
Subject  matter. 

(Page  numbers  may  be  obtained  from  indexes) 


HEARINGS  BEFORE  THE 

PRESIDENT'S  COMMISSION  ON  IMMIGRATION 

AND  NATURALIZATION 


TUESDAY,   SEPTEMBER  30,    1952 

FIRST    SESSION 


New  York,  N.  Y 


The  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization 
met  at  9 :  40  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  call,  in  room  1506,  Admiralty  Court, 
Federal  Courthouse  Building,  Foley  Square,  New  York  City,  N.  Y., 
Hon.  Philip  B.  Perlman,  chairman,  presiding. 

Present:  Chairman  Philip  B.  Perlman  and  the  following  Commis- 
sioners :  Mr.  Earl  G.  Harrison,  Vice  Chairman,  Msgr.  John  O'Grady, 
Dr.  Clarence  E.  Pickett,  Mr.  Thomas  G.  Finucane. 

Also  present :  Mr.  Harry  N.  Kosenfield,  executive  director. 

Chairman  Perlman.  The  Commission  will  be  in  order. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  we  are  about  to  hold  the  first  hearing  before 
this  Commission  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to 
study  and  evaluate  the  immigration  and  naturalization  policies  of  the 
United  States  and  to  recommend  policies  for  the  Government  relating 
to  immigration  and  naturalization. 

The  last  Congress  devoted  a  great  deal  of  time  and  effort  to  this 
subject  and  enacted  a  bill  which  was  vetoed  by  the  President  because, 
as  he  stated  in  his  veto  message,  he  did  not  think  that  its  provisions 
established  a  policy  adequate  to  meet  the  present  world  conditions. 
The  bill,  which  is  known  as  Public  Law  414,  was  passed  over  the 
Presidential  veto  and  subsequently  the  President  established  a  Com- 
mission, its  purpose  to  make  a  new  study  of  the  subject  and  to  make 
a  written  report  to  him  by  January  1, 1953. 

We  will  insert  in  the  record  at  this  point  the  statement  concerning 
the  establislnnent  of  the  Commission,  issued  by  the  President  on 
September  4,  1952,  and  also  Executive  Order  10392,  establishing  this 
Commission,  and  issued  on  the  same  date. 

Statement  by  the  President 

September  4, 1952. 

I  have  today  established  a  special  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturaliza- 
tion, to  study  and  evaluate  the  immigration  and  naturalization  policies  of  the 
United  States. 

Our  immigration  and  naturalization  policies  are  of  major  importance  to  our 
own  security  and  to  the  defense  of  the  free  world.  Immediately  after  the  war 
ended,  we  recognized  the  plight  of  the  displaced  persons ;  we  acted  to  cooperate 
with  other  nations  and  to  admit  a  share  of  these  victims  of  war  and  tyranny 
into  our  own  country.  The  displaced  persons  program  has  now  heen  successfully 
concluded,  but  the  free  world  faces  equally  grave  and  equally  heart-rending 

1 


2  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

problems  in  the  continual  stream  of  refugees  and  escapees  from  the  iron  curtain 
countries  into  Western  Europe.  These  people  add  to  the  pressures  of  over- 
population in  certain  countries.  Overseas  migration  from  Europe  has  been 
dammed  up  by  years  of  war  and  international  economic  disorder.  While  we  have 
joined  with  other  nations  to  meet  such  problems  as  these,  our  own  immigration 
laws  based  on  conditions  and  assumptions  that  have  long  ceased  to  exist,  present 
serious  obstacles  in  reaching  a  satisfactory  solution. 

Humanitarian  considerations,  as  well  as  the  national  interest,  require  that  we 
reassess  our  immigration  policies  in  the  light  of  these  facts.  The  United  States 
must  remain  true  to  its  great  traditions  and  have  an  immigration  policy  that 
strengthens  our  Nation  at  home  and  furthers  our  world  leadership. 

The  Eighty-second  Congress  devoted  much  time  and  effort  to  this  problem,  but 
the  bill  which  it  passed  was  so  defective  in  many  important  provisions  that  I 
could  not  give  it  my  approval.  In  my  veto  message,  I  expressed  the  hope  that 
the  Congress  would  agree  to  a  careful  reexamination  of  the  entire  matter.  I 
suggested  that  the  Congress  create  a  representative  commission  of  outstanding 
Americans  to  make  a  study  of  the  basic  assumptions  of  our  immigration  policy, 
the  quota  system  and  all  that  goes  into  it,  the  effect  of  our  immigration  and 
nationality  laws,  and  the  ways  in  which  they  can  be  brought  into  line  with  our 
national  ideals  and  our  foreign  policy.  The  Congress  did  not  act  upon  these 
suggestions. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  matter  should  remain  where  the  Congress  left  it.  The 
problems  of  immigration  policy  grow  more  pressing,  and  the  inequities  fostered  by 
the  new  law  require  careful  examination.  I  am,  therefore,  appointing  this 
Commission  in  the  belief  that  its  recommendations  will  enable  the  next  Congress 
to  consider  the  subject  promptly  and  intelligently.  This  Commission  will  have 
the  benefit  of  much  information  already  drawn  together  in  the  field  of  immigra- 
tion, including  that  developed  by  the  committees  of  Congress  in  their  long  study 
of  the  problem.  It  should,  therefore,  be  in  a  position  to  complete  its  study 
before  the  reconvening  of  the  next  Congress. 

I  have  directed  the  Commission  to  give  particular  consideration  to : 

(a)  The  requirements  and  administration  of  our  immigration  laws  with  resiject 
to  the  admission,  naturalization,  and  denaturalization  of  aliens,  and  their 
exclusion  and  deportation ; 

(7>)  The  admission  of  immigrants  into  this  country  in  the  light  of  our  present 
and  prospective  economic  and  social  conditions  and  of  other  pertinent  considera- 
tions ;  and 

(c)  The  effect  of  our  immigration  laws,  and  their  administration,  including 
the  national  origin  quota  system,  on  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  policies  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  need  for  authority  to  meet  emergency  conditions  such  as 
the  present  overpopulation  of  parts  of  Western  Europe  and  the  serious  refugee 
and  escapee  problems  in  such  areas. 

The  members  of  the  Commission  are  as  follows : 

Philip  B.  Perlman,  of  Maryland,  Chairman   (formerly  Solicitor  General  of  the 

United  States,  formerly  city  solicitor  of  Baltimore,  secretary  of  the  State  of 

Maryland,  assistant  attorney  general  of  Maryland) 
Earl  G.  Harrison,  of  Pennsylvania.  Vice  Chairman   (attorney,  formerly  United 

States  Commissioner  of  Immigration  and  Natui'alization,  and  formerly  dean 

of  the  Law  School  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania ) 
Msgr.  John  O'Grady,  of  Washington,  D.  C.   (secretary,  N'ational  Conference  of 

Catholic  Charities) 
Rev.  Thaddeus  F.  Gullixson,   of  Minnesota    (president,  Lutheran   Theological 

Seminary  of  St.  Paul,  Minn. ;  chairman,  Minnesota  State  Displaced  Persons 

Commission) 
Clarence  E.  Pickett,  of  Pennsylvania    (honorary  secretary,  American  Friends 

Service  Committee) 
Adrian  S.  Fisher,  of  Tennessee   (legal  adviser  to  State  Department,  formerly 

general  counsel  of  Atomic  Energy  Commission  and  Solicitor  of  the  Department 

of  Commex'ce) 
Thomas  C.  Finucane,  of  Mai-yland  (Chairman,  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals, 

Department  of  Justice) 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  3 

p]xECUTivE  Ori)i;u  1031>2  Estaislishixg  the  Pkesiuent's  Commission  on 
Immigration  and  Naturalization 

By  virtue  of  the  authority  vested  in  me  as  President  of  the  United  States,  it  is 
hereby  ordered  as  follows : 

Sec.  1.  There  is  hereby  established  in  the  Executive  Otlice  of  the  I'resident  a 
commission  to  be  known  as  the  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and 
Naturalization,  which  shall  be  composed  of  a  Chairman,  a  Vice  Chairman,  and 
five  other  inenibers,  all  of  whom  shall  1)0  designated  by  the  I'resident. 

Sec.  2.  The  Commission  is  authorized  and  directed  to  make  a  survey  and  eval- 
uation of  the  immigration  and  naturalization  policies  of  the  United  States,  and 
shall  make  recommendations  to  the  President  for  such  legislative,  administrative, 
or  other  action  as  in  its  opinion  may  be  desirable  in  the  interest  of  the  economy, 
security,  and  responsibilities  of  this  country.  The  Commission  shall  give  par- 
ticular consideration  to : 

(a)  The  requirements  and  administration  of  our  immigration  laws  with  respect 
to  the  admission,  naturalization  and  denaturalization  of  aliens,  and  their  exclu- 
sion and  deportation ; 

(&)  The  admission  of  immigrants  into  this  country  in  the  light  of  our  present 
and  prospective  economic  and  social  conditions  and  of  other  pertinent  consid- 
erations ;  and 

(c)  The  effect  of  our  immigration  laws  and  their  administration,  including 
the  national  origin  quota  .system,  on  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  policies  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  need  for  authority  to  meet  emergency  conditions  such  as 
the  present  overpopulation  of  parts  of  western  Europe  and  the  serious  refugee 
and  escapee  problems  in  such  areas. 

Sec.  3.  In  performing  its  functions  under  this  order  the  Commission  may  pre- 
scribe such  rules  of  procedure,  and  may  hold  .such  public  hearings  and  hear  such 
witnesses  as  it  may  deem  appropriate. 

Sec.  4.  All  executive  departments  and  agencies  of  the  Federal  Government  are 
authorized  and  directed  to  cooperate  with  the  Commission  in  its  work  and  to 
furnish  the  Commission  such  assistance,  not  inconsistent  with  law,  as  it  may 
require  in  the  performance  of  its  functions. 

Sec.  5.  The  expenditures  of  the  Commission  shall  be  paid  out  of  an  allotment 
made  by  the  President  from  the  appropriation  entitled  "Emergency  Fund  for 
the  President — Natitmal  Defense"  in  title  I  of  the  Independent  Oftices  Appro- 
priation Act,  1953  (Public  Law  455,  S2d  Cong.),  approved  July  5,  1952.  Such 
payments  shall  be  made  without  regard  to  the  provisions  of  (a)  section  3681  of 
the  Revised  Statutes  (31  U.  S.  C.  672),  (&)  section  9  of  the  act  of  March  4,  1909, 
35  Stat.  1027  (31  U.  S.  C.  673),  and  (c)  such  other  laws  as  the  President  may 
hereafter  specify.  The  members  of  the  Commission  shall  receive  such  compen- 
sation and  expeii.se  allowances,  payable  out  of  the  said  allotment,  as  the  President 
shall  hereafter  fix,  except  that  no  compensation  shall  be  so  tixed  with  respect  to 
any  person  while  receiving  other  compensation  from  the  United  States. 

Sec.  6.  The  Commission  shall  make  a  final  written  report  to  the  President  not 
later  than  January  1,  1953,  including  its  recommendations  for  legislative,  admin- 
istrative or  other  action.  The  Commission  may  also  make  such  earlier  reports 
to  the  President  as  it  may  deem  appropriate.  The  Commission  shall  cease  to 
exist  30  days  after  rendition  of  its  final  report  to  the  President. 

IlARRT  S.  Truman. 
The  White  House, 

September  //,  1952. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  here  today  because  the  Commission  is  seek- 
ing guidance  from  individuals  and  from  organizations  who  are  espe- 
cially interested  in  the  subject  matter  dealt  with  in  the  Executive 
order  establishing  this  Commission.  A  number  of  persons  either  as 
individuals  or  as  representatives  of  organizations  have  indicated  a 
desire  to  appear  before  the  Commission  and  to  submit  information 
which  they  lielieve  will  help  guide  the  Commission  in  making  its  report 
to  the  President  when  its  work  is  completed. 

The  representative  of  the  World  Council  of  Churches,  Dr.  Edgar 
Chandler,  will  be  our  first  witness.  Dr.  Chandler,  I  shall  appreciate 
it  if  you  will  give  us  the  benefit  of  your  views  on  this  subject  matter. 


4  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  EDGAR  H.  S.  CHANDLER,  DIRECTOR  OF  FIELD 
OPERATIONS  FOR  THE  REFUGEE  SERVICE  FOR  THE  WORLD 
COUNCIL  OF  CHURCHES 

Dr.  Chandler,  My  name  is  Edgar  H.  S.  Chandler,  and  I  am  director 
of  field  operations  for  the  refugee  service  for  the  World  Coimcil  of 
Churches,  the  headquarters  of  which  are  in  Geneva,  Switzerland. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  tell  us  something  about  the  organization 
you  represent,  the  World  Council  of  Churches,  and  of  what  it  consists? 

Dr.  Chandler.  The  World  Council  of  Churches,  the  Department  of 
Inter-Church  Service  to  Eefugees  is  made  up  of  the  Protestant  and 
Orthodox  churches  of  the  world — some  160  denominations  in  every 
country.  In  its  service  to  refugees  it  is  concerned  with  a  welfare 
program  distributing  food  and  clothing,  medicine,  and  institutional 
care  among  refugees  and  uprooted  people  and  carrying  on  resettlement 
of  people  in  areas  in  Europe  to  all  countries  over  the  past  years  and  as 
far  as  we  can  see  into  the  future. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  give  us  an  idea  approximately  of  how 
many  churches  are  in  this  federation  ? 

Dr.  Chandler.  There  are  160  major  denominations,  including  all 
the  major  denominations  in  the  United  States — all  the  Protestants 
and  orthodox  churches. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  members  of  the  council  ? 

Dr.  Chandler.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  account  it  a  real  privilege  to  start  off  this  series 
which  apparently  are  to  be  quite  impressive  and  exhaustive  on  tliis 
subject  which  is  of  very  vital  interest  to  every  American  and  certainly 
to  every  humanitarian. 

You  will  pardon  me  if  I  approach  the  subject,  naturally,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  one  who  is  in  daily  contact  with  centers  of  surplus 
l^opulation,  particular  refugee  populations,  throughout  the  world. 
My  point  of  view  is  colored,  of  course,  by  daily  contact  with  people 
Avho,  as  an  American  in  the  first  place,  I  feel  would  make  excellent 
additions  to  our  own  citizenry  and  in  the  second  place,  as  one  repre- 
senting a  religious  and  humanitarian  organization,  people  who  are  in 
desperate  need  of  just  the  hope  which  increased  opportunities  for 
resettlement  in  a  country  like  the  United  States  would  bring. 

I  must  report  that  having  arrived  from  this  situation  just  2  days 
ago  and  having  traveled  in  the  last  year  to  all  the  concentrated  areas 
of  refugee  populations  in  the  Far  East,  Middle  East,  as  well  as  in 
Europe,  I  am  terribly  concerned  that  the  present  outlook  and  psychol- 
ogy of  many  of  these  people  is  at  an  all-time  low.  One  of  the  reasons 
for  the  sense  of  pessimism  and  almost  hopelessness  among  many  of 
them  is  the  wdiole  series  of  closed  doors,  beginning  with  the  almost 
complete  closing  of  our  own,  which  has  been  followed  by  the  almost 
complete  closing  of  doors  in  Canada  and  Australia.  This  means  that 
the  three  major  outlets  for  surplus  populations  and  for  refugees,  at  the 
very  time  when  the  need  of  these  people  in  concentrated  areas  of  popu- 
lation, and  the  need  of  these  people  who  have  lost  their  homes  is  at 
its  greatest,  are  blocked. 

I  feel  at  a  time  when  we  have  a  program,  for  which  we  are  very 
grateful,  inaugurated  by  the  United  States  Government  and  put  in 
operation  by  the  President,  called  the  escapee  program,  and  we  are 


COMMISSION    ON    IMJMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  5 

able  to  go  to  refu<iees  niul  say  that  the  United  States  Government  is 
interested  in  your  pliglit,  that  we  will  provide  facilities  to  improve 
your  housing  and  your  welfare  conditions  in  the  countries  to  which 
you  have  fled,  and  we  will  even  pay  your  transportation  costs  to  the 
countries  of  resettlement — but  we  will  accept  none  of  you  in  the  United 
States — I  feel,  sir,  as  an  American,  this  not  only  puts  us  personally  in  a 
very  embarrassing  position  but  it  has  had  a  decidedly  unfavorable 
effect  even  toward  our  Government  at  a  time  when  this  very  program 
is  designed,  and  rightly  designed,  to  improve  attitudes  toward  us  and 
toward  our  Government  and  to  improve  the  whole  psychological  cli- 
mate of  those  people  who  for  the  most  part  are  uprooted  and  for  the 
most  part  are  committed  to  the  very  ideals  for  which  we  as  a  people 
stand. 

I  am  convinced,  sir,  that  among  the  remaining  displaced  persons, 
250,000  or  so,  there  are  still  large  numbers  of  those  who  would  make 
desirable  resettlers  in  this  country.  In  fact,  among  them  are  some  of 
the  best  potential  immigrants  who  because  of  some  temporary  physical 
condition  or  some  family  situation  or  simply  because  of  the  crowding 
of  the  pipeline  are  unable  to  enter  the  United  States  under  the  original 
program. 

In  addition  to  that,  I  feel  we  have  a  very  vital  and  real  responsi- 
bility for  those  who  not  only  since  1949  but  last  night  and  ever  since 
the  end  of  the  war  have  been  escaping  over  the  borders  very  largely 
because  they  prefer  the  ideals  which  our  country  stands  for  rather 
than  the  ideals  prevalent  in  the  countries  where  they  were.  When  you 
see  the  degree  of  sacrifice  and  even  the  suffering  which  many  of  these 
people  are  going  through  now  as  they  escape  over  the  borders  and 
realize  they  are  coming  into  situations  where  they  know  perfectly  well 
there  are  families  who  have  been  enduring  that  suffering  for  4,  5,  or  6 
years  you  can  understand  the  degree  of  commitment  to  their  ideals. 

I  would  hope,  therefore,  sir,  that  in  considering  any  changes  in  pres- 
ent legislation  or  any  new  legislation  that  our  Government  might  take 
the  broadest  possible  view  toward  providing  immigration  opportuni- 
ties, after  due  security  screening  and  careful  selection,  for  people  in 
this  category  of  refugees. 

I  would  also  hope  that  our  Government  might  use  the  broadest  pos- 
sible category  in  describing  a  refugee.  I  would  hope  that  arbitrary 
date  lines  and  arbitrary  geographical  definitions  might  be  eliminated 
or  at  least  minimized;  that  uprooted  people,  regardless  of  whether 
they  happen  to  be  of  the  same  ethnic  origin  of  the  country  from  which 
they  come  or  whether  they  may  even  be  within  their  own  country  but 
dislocated  by  internal  revolution,  might  be  provided  for  under  any 
new  act. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  World  Council  of  Churches,  I  would 
like  to  advocate  that  our  interests  are  not  confined  to  our  particular 
faith  or  profession.  We  are  interested  in  people  in  terms  of  their  needs 
and  we  are  interested  in  people  whom  we  feel  would  make  good  citizens 
in  the  freedom-loving  countries  of  the  world. 

Now,  I  would  like  to  sav  in  conclusion  just  two  things:  (1)  we  are 
verj^  much  concerned,  dealing  as  we  have  been  in  the  last  2  months  with 
the  Government  of  Canada  and  the  South  American  comitries  and  of 
Australia,  to  find  that  the  attitude  of  our  own  Government  has  a  tre- 
mendous effect  upon  the  attitudes  of  these  other  governments,  and 
although  within  the  last  few  months  we  have  been  able  to  open  the 


6  COMMISSIOX    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

doors  just  a  crack  in  some  of  these  other  countries,  I  think  tliere  is 
nothing  that  would  give  more  impetus  and  new  life  to  the  whole  pro- 
gram of  immigration  than  a  broadening  of  immigration  possibilities 
in  our  own  country. 

Finally,  sir,  I  would  like  to  say  that  all  day  yesterday  we  met  with 
the  leaders  of  churches  from  all  over  the  United  States,  leaders  who 
are  responsible  for  bringing  in  at  least  100,000  persons  on  assurances 
provided  by  them  under  the  provisions  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act. 
These  are  the  persons  who  have  personally  received  these  immigrants. 
They  are  the  people  who  had  to  take  the  responsibility  when  there  were 
breakdowns  in  the  cases.  I  am  conscious  that  sometimes  we  sent  dif- 
ficult cases  from  overseas  for  these  people  to  deal  with,  but  I  want  to 
tell  you,  sir,  that  all  of  us  were  moved  and  impressed  by  the  fact  that 
this  representative  gi'oup  of  responsible  people  were  not  only  willing 
but  were  enthusiastic  about  the  possibilities  of  having  further  oppor- 
tunities to  resettle  such  people  in  our  country.  In  spite  of  all  the 
difficulties  and  the  negative  cases  which  could  be  presented,  the  over- 
whelming feeling  was  one  of  gratitude  that  there  has  been  the  oppor- 
tunity of  getting  this  kind  of  citizen  into  our  country  through  the 
displaced  persons  legislation  over  the  past  3  years. 

Finally,  sir,  I  hope  this  Commission  will  be  able  to  make  recommen- 
dations which  will  enable  us  as  Americans  and  as  lovers  of  humanity 
to  hold  our  heads  up  and  to  glory  in  the  fact  that  our  country  has  civeii 
this  effort,  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  own  self-interest  and  Ifrom 
the  point  of  view  of  its  humanitarian  concern,  and  from  the  point  of 
view  of  its  leadership  among  the  world  of  freedom-loving  people,  that 
Avill  bring  an  immigration  policy  that  will  bring  new  hope  and  new 
life  not  only  to  those  who  actually  may  come  to  this  country,  but  to 
the  whole  group  of  uprooted  and  needy  people  throughout  the  world. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  Have  you  a  prepared 
statement? 

Dr.  Chandler.  No,  but  I  will  have  one  for  you  before  I  leave  the 
city. 

(The  prepared  statement  referred  to,  consisting  of  three  separate 
documents,  follows :) 

Statement  of  Dr.  Edgar  H.  S.  Chandler,  Director  of  Field  Operations  fob 
THE  Refugee  Service  for  the  World  Council  of  Churches 

I.  statement  by  the  standing  conference  of  voluntary  agencies  working  for 
refugees,   submitted  at  united  nations  general  assembly,   September  it, 

1952 

The  Standing  Conference  of  Voluntary  Agencies  Working  for  Refugees  wel- 
comes the  opportunity  of  again  expressing  its  views  on  the  situation  of  refugees 
under  the  mandate  of  the  High  Commissioner. 

During  the  past  year  it  has  been  a  source  of  satisfaction  and  encouragement  to 
our  members  that  the  Office  of  the  High  Commissioner  has  developed  close  work- 
ing relationships  with  voluntary  agencies  in  caiTying  out  its  program  throughout 
the  world.  We  are  sure  that  this  cooperation  is  laying  the  groundwork  for  find- 
ing more  adequate  solutions  to  the  urgent  problems  of  refugees.  As  the  High 
Commissioner  has  already  explained  in  the  documents  which  he  has  submitted 
for  your  consideration,  the  principal  difficulty  confronting  him  in  trying  to  find 
such  solutions  is  the  lack  of  sufficient  financial  support  and  a  lack  of  sufficient 
resettlement  opportunities  in  countries  of  potential  immigration. 

Since  the  total  resources  available  for  work  with  refugees  are  so  drastically- 
reduced  in  comparison  with  the  program  of  the  IRO,  it  is"  inevitable,  as  the  vol- 
untary agencies  have  repeatedly  pointed  out,  that  vast  areas  of  need  among 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  7 

refugees  are  left  unmet,  and  an  additional  burden  has  thus  been  thrust  upon  the 
voluntary  ajiencies  far  beyond  their  capacity  to  meet  satisfactorily.  We  note 
with  gratitude  the  generous  grant  of  the  Ford  Foundation  for  which  the  High 
Commissioner  is  the  trustee  and  under  which  projects  will  be  carried  out  by  vol- 
untary agencies  acting  under  his  instructions.  The  voluntary  agencies  wish  to 
express  their  appreciation  for  the  outstanding  role  which  the  United  Nations 
High  Commissioner  for  Refugees  played  in  procuring  this  grant.  We  are  also 
grateful  for  the  financial  assistance  for  a  part  of  the  program  of  work  among 
refugees  which  is  available  through  the  President's  escapee  program  carried  out 
with  Mutual  Security  Administration  funds  of  the  United  States  Government. 
In  addition,  the  funds  from  the  liquidation  of  IRQ  operation  will  be  of  invaluable 
aid  in  dealing  with  the  problems  of  IRO  residual  displaced  persons  and  refugees. 
Finally,  we  wish  to  express  our  appreciation  to  all  those  governments  who  have 
made  contributions  to  the  High  Commissioner's  assistance  fund  and  associate 
ourselves  witli  him  in  the  appeal  for  further  contributions  from  other  govern- 
ments as  well  as  from  other  sources. 

It  is  imfortunately  true,  however,  that  having  taken  into  consideration  all  the 
foreseeable  funds  from  these  various  sources,  the  total  amount  in  sight  is  still 
woefully  inadequate  to  meet  the  desperate  situation  in  which  many  refugees 
find  themselves.  For  example,  as  a  result  of  the  terrible  shortage  of  available 
funds  to  assist  European  refugees  in  China,  the  High  Commissioner  has  been 
forced  to  reduce  the  level  of  assistance  from  50  cents  to  25  cents  a  day,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  no  aid  whatever  is  provided  by  the  local  authorities  for  these 
refugees.  Even  this  grant  is  available  only  to  a  limited  percentage  of  the  total 
niuuber  of  refugees  in  China,  because  of  the  limitations  on  the  IRQ  residual 
funds  made  available  for  this  purpose.  Thus,  the  voluntary  agencies  operating 
in  the  Far  East  are  confronted  with  an  intolerable  burden. 

But  even  more  discouraging  than  the  lack  of  financial  resources  has  been  the 
tendency  during  the  past  year,  at  a  time  when  the  only  possible  solution  of  the 
problem  of  many  refugees  is  that  of  resettlement,  to  find  opportunities  for  re- 
settlement in  immigration  countries  increasingly  restricted.  In  spite  of  these 
difficulties,  the  voluntary  agencies  have  foimd  it  possible  to  resettle  over  12,000 
refugees  under  agreements  with  the  Provisional  Intergovernmental  Committee 
for  the  Movement  of  Migrants  from  Europe,  and  in  addition  have  been  respon- 
sible for  finding  resettlement  opportunities,  for  procuring  visas  and  document- 
ing at  least  an  additional  30,000  refugees,  who  have  found  new  homes  overseas 
since  January  1  of  this  year. 

In  certain  countries  of  first  asylum,  the  opportunities  for  local  integration 
have  been  improved  during  the  past  year,  in  some  instances  through  the  initia- 
tive of  voluntary  agencies  in  developing  pilot  projects  with  the  cooperation  of 
the  governments  concerned  along  the  lines  suggested  by  the  High  Commissioner 
in  his  report  on  economic  integration.  In  addition,  many  governments  have  pro- 
vided opportunities  for  integration  of  refugees  among  their  own  people.  Never- 
theless, in  many  areas  such  as  Trieste,  Italy,  and  Greece,  where  such  local  inte- 
gration is  diflBcult,  if  not  impossible,  the  problem  is  more  urgent  than  ever.  The 
voluntary  agencies  urgently  request  the  member  governments  to  take  whatever 
steps  may  be  possible  to  increase  possibilities  for  immigration  of  refugees  to 
their  respective  countries  and  to  explore  ways  of  further  means  of  local  inte- 
gration for  those  refugees  who,  for  various  reasons,  are  not  able  to  be  resettled 
overseas. 

The  voluntary  agencies  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to  assure  the  Higli 
Connnissioner  and  the  member  governments  of  his  Advisory  Connnittee  that  they 
will  continue  to  make  every  effort,  in  cooperation  with  the  High  Commissioner 
and  witliin  the  limits  of  tlieir  resources,  to  assist  in  the  solution  of  the  problems 
of  extreme  need  which  exist  among  refugees  today. 


II.  A  SERVICE  AGENCY  OF  THE  CHURCHES 

The  World  Council  of  Churches'  department  of  interchurch  aid  and  service 
to  refugees  is  a  service  agency  through  which  the  Protestant  churches  of  the 
U.  S.  A,  Canada,  Switzerland,  Scandinavia,  Britain,  Australia,  and  New  Zealand 
combine  to  aid  European  refugees  and  European  churches  in  a  wide  variety  of 
relief  and  reconstruction,  spiritual  ministry  and  welfare  projects. 

World  Council  funds  make  possible  interchurch  aid  projects  administered 
directly  by  the  European  churches  who,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  themselves  carry 
the  biggest  load  in  their  own  budgets  not  only  of  emergency  and  relief  aid  for 


8  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

their  own  congregational  life  and  work,  but  also  for  thousands  of  homeless  refu- 
gees in  their  midst. 

The  World  Council  service  to  refugees  is  an  operational  program  with  a 
basic  $400,000  budget  provided  by  church  funds.  The  refugee  program  com- 
prises a  local  settlement  program,  an  emigration  service,  a  welfare  service,  and 
pastoral  care  for  refugees  and  churches  in  exile  in  Germany,  Austria,  France, 
Greece,  Trieste,  Italy,  and  Belgium.  An  international  and  indigenous  stafE  is 
maintained,  numbering  300. 

In  1951  a  total  of  $3,300,000  was  given  by  the  churches,  through  the  World 
Council,  including  $1,806,000  in  the  form  of  relief  shipments  of  food,  clothing, 
and  medicaments.  Nearly  $-5  million  was  contributed  in  1950,  and  some  7  million 
in  1949.  Additional  funds  were  raised  and  spent  in  the  U.  S.  A.,  Great  Britain, 
Scandinavia,  and  Canada  in  order  to  sponsor,  receive,  and  to  settle  refugees  from 
continental  Europe. 

A  network  of  international  resettlement  offices  and  bureaus  of  National 
Councils  of  Churches  in  a  score  of  countries  enable  the  World  Council  to  coordi- 
nate the  churches'  efforts  in  European  aid  on  a  world  scale.     ( See  attached  list. ) 

By  means  of  conferences  on  refugee  problems  and  continuous  representation 
to  governments  and  international  agencies  the  World  Council  has  repeatedly 
helped  to  arouse  and  to  form  public  opinion,  and  to  enlist  the  active  concern  of 
both  churches  and  other  groups  in  the  plight  of  European  refugees. 

Along  with  other  voluntary  agencies  the  World  Council  has  been  entrusted 
with  the  administration  of  considerable  funds  by  intergovernmental  bodies  such 
as  UNRRA  and  the  IRQ  on  behalf  of  refugees.  The  IRO  Director  General  and 
the  present  U.  N.  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees  have  paid  tribute  to  the 
humane  and  individual  approach  to  refugee  problems  which  have  characterized 
Christian  ngeneies.  It  is  the  ties  of  Christian  community  which  enable  local 
member  churches  of  the  WCC  to  understand  the  problems  of  the  DP's.  just  as  it 
is  basic  Christian  concern  which  prompts  Protestant  churches  in  the  WCC  to 
provide  help  for  uprooted  and  poverty-stricken  orthodox  churches  in  exile. 

A  brief  outline  of  some  of  the  high  lights  in  1951  will  serve  to  illustrate  the 
World  Council's  1952  program  and  plans : 

(A)  Service  to  refugees 

Thirty-one  thousand  refugees  were  resettled  in  a  score  of  countries  overseas. 
Nearly  2,000  old,  sick,  or  ineligible  "hard  core"  refugees  were  given  permanent 
homes  in  institutions  thanks  to  help  found  through  member  churches  in  a  dozen 
countries  in  Europe  and  America. 

Some  120  refugee  orthodox  priests  and  Protestant  pastors  were  maintained 
in  their  ministry  and  aid  for  refugee  congregations  in  Europe. 

The  agency  was  entrusted  by  IRO  with  funds  to  achieve  final  solution  of  the 
problem  of  a  residual  group  of  125  European  refugees  stranded  on  the  island  of 
Samar  in  the  Philippines. 

Offices  were  opened  in  Hong  Kong  and  Tehran  for  services  to  refugees  in 
China  and  Iran. 

A  ti'avel-loan  fund  machinery  was  established  with  offices  in  Europe  and  in 
both  North  and  South  America,  to  help  with  the  movement  of  individual  refugees. 

Local  churches  in  Germany  and  Aiistria,  in  Belgium.  France,  and  Italy,  or- 
ganized to  meet  refugee  needs  and  to  help  with  care  of  residual  DP's. 

Vocational  training  program  and  workshop  projects  were  established  and  sup- 
ported in  several  countries. 

The  service  to  refugees,  oiierating  on  a  basic  $400,000  budget,  spent  two  or 
three  times  that  amount  due  to  extrabndgetary  gifts  from  nonchurch  organiza- 
tions, and  to  approximately  a  million  dollars  expended  by  local  churches  over- 
seas in  assisting  refugees  in  countries  of  settlement. 

(B)  Material  relief 

Most  of  the  $1,806,000  distributed  by  the  World  Council  staff  was  given  to 
refugees  in  Germany,  Austria,  Trieste,  Greece,  Italy,  and  France:  the  balance 
went  to  needy  church  institutions  in  Yugoslavia,  Greece,  Germany,  Belgium,  etc. 

(C)  Interchurch  aid 

Ecumenical  assistance  provided  $112,000  for  exchange  of  personnel  in  work 
camps  (867  in  camps)  ;  frateiMial  workers;  and  the  scholarship  program  (130 
students  in  12  countries)  ;  $107,000  for  health,  literature,  and  yotith  projects; 
and  $78,000  for  the  interchurch  aid  staff  service,  information,  publicity,  con- 
ference and  liaison  with  other  bodies.  A  staff  of  25  is  maintained  at  Geneva 
headquarters  by  the  service  to  refugees  and  interchurch  aid  sections  of  the 
Department. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  9 

Eight  hundred  thousand  dollars  was  made  available  by  member  churches  for 
a  variety  of  interchurch  aid  projects — for  education  and  evangelism,  catechist 
training,  social  service,  buildings,  apprentice  homes  and  diaspora  chapels,  com- 
munity centers,  students,  women's  work,  assistance  for  church  workers  and  so 
forthJ_in  Germany,  east  and  west,  Austria,  Hungary,  Yugoslavia,  Greece,  France, 
Italy,  Spain,  Lielgium,  Portugal,  and  East  Europe.  In  the  latter  countries  help 
is  limited  to  small  shipments  of  books  and  medicines,  which  altogether  small 
in  value  are  of  inmiense  symbolic  sifinificance  representing  as  they  do  the  un- 
broken fellowship  of  the  member  churches  of  the  WGC  in  a  divided  world. 

In  1952  the  churches  realized  they  faced  new  responsibilities  in  relation  to  the 
whole  problem  of  movements  of  people.  The  refugee  problem,  far  from  diminish- 
ing, even  increases.  And  the  Department  of  interchurch  aid  and  service  to  ref- 
ugees has  maintained  and  is  strengthening  its  basic  overseas  staff  in  order  to  be 
of  the  utmost  service  to  homeless  refugees,  wherever  opportunities  arise. 


III.     SUMMARY    OF    TESTIMONY    PRESENTED     AT    THE     SESSION     OF    THE    PRESIDENT  S 

COMMISSION  ON  IMMIGRATION 

1.  There  are  thousands  of  displaced  person  families  left  in  Europe  and  other 
countries  at  the  conclusion  of  IRO  and  the  ending  of  the  United  States  displaced 
persons  program  who  constitute  desirable  immigrants  to  countries  of  resettle- 
ment. Many  of  these  families,  through  temporary  illness,  family  situations,  or 
arbitrary  datelines,  were  unable  to  emigrate  when  the  opportunity  was  avail- 
able, have  extremely  limited  opportunities  for  integration  in  the  local  economy, 
and  in  some  instances  find  themselves  no  longer  able  to  remain  in  the  countries 
of  first  asylum  because  of  political  and  economic  pressures  over  which  they 
have  no  control. 

2.  Other  categories  of  refugees,  including  the  refugees  of  the  same  ethnic 
origin  as  the  country  of  their  present  asylum,  contribute  to  the  serious  problem 
of  overpopulation  in  European  countries. 

3.  Since  all  experts  in  this  field  are  agreed  that  for  the  political,  social,  and 
economic  health  of  the  world  these  centers  of  overpopulation  can  only  be  dealt 
with  adequately  through  a  program  of  resettlement  in  overseas  countries,  we 
urge  that  the  United  States  adopt  an  immigration  policy  which  will  make 
possible  the  entry  into  the  United  States  of  the  largest  number  of  refugees 
commensurate  with  the  capacity  for  absorption  in  our  country. 

4.  At  a  time  when,  following  the  lead  of  the  United  States,  immigration  pos- 
sibilities have  been  restricted  in  other  countries  also — particularly  in  Canada 
and  Australia — it  is  hoped  that  a  more  liberal  policy  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  Government  will  have  a  helpful  and  beneficial  effect  on  the  immigration 
policies  of  other  governments  as  well. 

5.  It  is  our  conviction  that  an  immigration  policy  allowing  for  the  maximum 
number  of  refugees  and  other  persons  from  overpopulated  areas  of  Europe  will 
do  much  to  make  the  President's  escapee  program  more  logical  and  consistent, 
and  will  be  a  major  factor  in  increasing  a  feeling  of  good  will  and  confidence 
toward  the  United  States  on  the  part  .of  the  European  countries  as  well  as  among 
many  nationals  represented  by  the  refugee  groups. 

6.  Meeting  with  denomination  leaders  from  most  of  the  large  denominations 
and  from  many  parts  of  the  country  during  the  past  few  days,  I  am  convinced 
that  these  leaders,  who  represent  churches  who  are  responsible  for  giving  as- 
surances for  over  100,000  persons  under  the  former  Displaced  Persons  Act,  are 
now  ready  to  give  support  for  a  further  program  of  receiving  and  helping  to 
assimilate  refugees  and  other  immigrants  who  may  be  permitted  to  come  to  the 
United  States. 

The  Chairman.    Will  Mr.  Ennis  appear? 

STATEMENT  OF  EDWAED  J.  ENNIS  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  AMERICAN 

CIVIL  LIBERTIES  UNION 

Mr.  Ennis.  I  am  Edward  J.  Ennis,  and  I  am  appearing  this  morn- 
ing as  a  member  of  the  board  of  directors  and  as  chairman  of  the  alien 
civil  rights  committee  of  the  American  Civil  Liberties  Union. 


10  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

The  union  is  a  Nation-wide  nonpartisan  organization  which  is 
devoted  exclusively  to  the  protection  and  the  advancement  of  the  civil 
rights  guaranteed  by  our  Constitution  and  by  our  democratic  tradi- 
tion. I  think  I  should  say  at  this  point  that  the  union  as  such  is  not 
concerned  with  the  many  major  questions  of  policy  which  this  Commis- 
sion will  consider,  such  as  the  national  origins  quota  basis  or  the  num- 
ber of  aliens  which  should  annually  come  into  the  United  States.  It 
is  not  because  as  individuals  we  are  not  intensely  interested  in  that 
subject,  but  the  union  feels  that  it  can  be  most  effective  if  it  sticks  to 
the  last  and  devotes  its  official  attention  to  the  questions  which  concern 
it ;  namely,  that  aliens  as  well  as  citizens  receive  not  only  that  minimum 
due  process  protection  which  our  Constitution  requires  but  that  thejf 
also  receive  in  the  protection  of  their  status,  their  rights  and  privileges 
the  fairest  procedure  which  our  democratic  tradition  demands  and 
which  our  experience  with  administrative  procedures  can  devise. 

It  is  for  that  I'eason  that  I  would  like  to  restrict  my  brief  remarks 
to  the  administrative  procedures  and  judicial  review  available  under 
the  present  h\\x  and  under  the  new  act  and  which  should  be  available 
under  our  system,  both  in  respect  to  visas  and  immigration  procedures. 

I  would  like  to  just  state  as  a  word  of  qualification  that  my  own 
qualifications  to  discuss  this  subject  are  that  I  was  general  counsel  of 
the  Immigration  Service  immediately  prior  to  the  war  and  also  I  was 
Director  of  the  Alien  Enem}'  Control  Unit  of  the  Department  of 
Justice  during  the  war  years.  I  supervised  the  administrative  pro- 
cedures under  which  alien  enemies  were  classified  for  security  purposes 
and  in  turn  to  ]:»arole.  At  present  I  am  a  member  not  only  of  the 
Civil  Liberties  Union  but  of  such  social  organizations  as  the  common 
council  and  other  social  organizations  which  are  interested  in  this  field. 

Now,  as  to  visa  procedures,  very  briefly,  it  was  in  1917  as  a  war 
measure  that  our  country  first  by  departmental  order  and  then  by 
statute  in  1918  first  decreed  that  for  an  alien  to  travel  into  the  United 
States  he  must  not  only  have  a  passport  but  must  have  a  visa  of  an 
American  consular  office  thereon.  This  wartime  requirement  has  been 
continued  not  only  by  our  requirements  here  but  also  in  other  countries. 
Unhappily  the  world  has  not  reached  the  place  which  I  think  the 
Foreign  Minister  of  Great  Britain  said  once — that  a  man  should  be  able 
to  get  on  a  train  or  plane  or  boat  without  a  passport  and  travel  all 
over  the  world. 

The  original  departmental  order  and  the  original  statutes  which 
have  been  continued  today  have  placed  the  sole  authority  to  issue 
visas,  both  passport  visas  or  noninnnigrant  visas  which  are  stamped 
in  the  aliens'  passports,  in  the  hands  of  our  consular  officers  abroad.  It 
is  a  curious  fact  that  with  the  whole  development  of  administrative  law 
in  the  United  States  since  this  procedure  was  first  established  in  1917 
that  this  little  island  of  administrative  action  has  resolutely  resisted 
the  application  of  the  administrative  review  procedures  which  we 
have  developed  in  other  fields.  So  today,  under  the  new  1952  immi- 
gration act,  as  in  1917,  consular  officials  abroad  are  the  only  officials 
of  the  United  States  who  are  authorized  to  issue  visas. 

As  a  result  of  the  fact  that  there  are  very  numerous  grounds  of 
exclusion  upon  which  a  visa  can  be  denied  and  that  there  are  neces- 
sarily many  hundreds  of  consuls  of  the  United  States  throughout  the 
world,  persons  concerned  witli  the  uniform  application  of  the  law  in 
so  important  a  thing  as  obtaining  a  visa  have  urged  from  time  to  time 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  H 

tliat  there  be  some  establislied  review  procedure  for  the  denial  of  visas. 
Because  experience  teaclies  us  tliat  the  only  adequate  way  to  make 
uniform  the  action  of  numerous  ollicials  tliroughout  the  world  on 
numerous  grounds  of  exclusion,  for  example,  that  the  entry  of  the 
applicant  would  be  prejudicial  to  tlie  public  interest — obviously  a 
<>Tound  subject  to  a  great  variety  of  interpretations — it  has  been  pro- 
posed that  both  by  bills  in  Congress  and  by  way  of  statute  anci  by 
proposals  to  the  Department  of  State  by  way  of  regulation  that  some 
review  procedure  for  the  denial  of  visas  be  set  up.  It  has  not  been 
at  all  successful.  Such  efforts  have  received  no  assistance  either  from 
the  majority  of  Congress  or  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

These  pressures  and  valid  arguments  have  merely  resulted  in  what 
is  little  better  than  a  makeshift  procedure  whereby  if  a  consul  wishes 
to,  although  he  is  not  required  to  under  the  regulations,  he  may  request 
the  Visa  Division  for  an  advisory  opinion  on  a  particular  case.  It  is 
a  curious  fact  that  the  regulations  provide  that  if  the  consul  feels  that 
if  there  is  any  possible  ground  for  denying  a  visa — for  instance,  if 
the  entry  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  United  States — he  cannot  issue 
the  visa.  He  can  deny  it  without  review,  but  he  cannot  issue  it  without 
obtaining  a  visa  review. 

In  other  words,  the  State  Department  has  set  up  a  review  so  far  as. 
the  Government  is  concei-ned,  but  it  has  granted  no  review  so  far  as 
the  alien  is  concerned. 

Now,  it  would  be  less  than  fair  to  say  that  this  advisory  procedure 
has  not  resulted  in  some  review  of  consular  action,  particularly  if  the 
alien  is  fortunate  enough  to  be  able  to  interest  a  member  of  Congress. 
to  bring  his  case  to  the  attention  of  the  State  Department,  or  if  Tie  is 
able  to  retain  the  services  of  a  lawyer  who  knows  this  informal  pro- 
cedure and  perhaps  can  induce  the  consul  to  ask  for  an  advisory 
opinion.  But  practice  shows  that  such  an  informal,  wholly  discre- 
tionary catch-as-catch-can  review  procedure  in  a  particular  case  is  a 
very  poor  substitute  for  an  api^eal  procedure  as  of  right  whereby  an 
alien  who  is  denied  a  visa  can  appeal  to  the  superior  officials  in  the 
State  Department  for  a  final  determination  of  his  case. 

Now,  why  has  this  appeal  procedure,  which  has  been  adopted 
throughout  our  Government  in  all  other  Government  matters  where 
the  rights  involved  are  much  less  important  than  the  sometimes  life- 
and-death  matter  of  whether  an  alien  can  come  into  the  United  States, 
why  has  any  appeal  procedure  not  been  devised  '^  One  reason  is  given 
by  the  Senate  Judiciary  Special  Subcommittee  To  Investigate  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalization  which  recommended  the  bill  wliicli  became^ 
the  1952  act.    In  its  report  that  subcommittee  states,  and  I  quote : 

Refusal  of  a  visa  is  not  invasion  of  the  alien's  rights.  Permitting  review  would 
permit  an  alien  to  get  his  case  into  United  States  courts  causing  a  great  deal  of 
difficulty  in  the  administration  of  the  immigration  laws. 

Now,  with  great  respect  to  the  able  lawyers  and  al)le  legislators  who- 
constitute  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee,  I  must  submit  that  it  does 
not  touch  the  question  when  you  say  that  you  don't  have  to  have  review 
jn-ocedure  because  an  alien  is  not  entitled  to  one  as  a  matter  of  right.. 
Let's  concede  that  point.  The  point  is  not  "the  alien's  right"  but 
whether  the  United  States  should  set  up  an  adecpiate  i)rocedure  be- 
cause only  a  review  procedure  can  give  that  equitable  administration 
of  the  law  which  gives  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws  enshrined  ii\ 

25356—52 2 


12  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

our  Constitution.    We  owe  it  to  ourselves  as  well  as  to  the  alien  to  have 
adequate  procedures  in  this  area. 

Insofar  as  the  other  object,  which  is  really  the  heart  of  the  matter^ 
that  if  there  is  any  review  procedure  for  denial  of  a  visa  in  some  man- 
ner the  alien  will  get  his  case  into  the  United  States  courts.  Well, 
I  think  there  are  two  answers  to  that.  The  first  is  that  it  might  very 
well  be  possible  to  have  a  review  procedure  and  to  expressly  provide 
if  it  were  thought  necessary  that  tlie  decision  of  the  reviewing  author- 
ities in  the  State  Department  would  be  final  and  not  subject  to  judi- 
ciary review.  I,  however,  would  like  to  rest  on  the  additional  ground 
that,  what  harm  would  it  do  if  our  courts  were  entrusted  v/ith  that 
narrow  judiciary  review  of  denials  of  visas  which  is  granted  to  the 
denial  of  an  applicant  who  is  excluded  at  our  borders  when  he  arrives- 
in  the  United  States. 

I  say  that  this  refusal  of  any  review  procedure  because  of  a  fear  of 
some  limited  judicial  action  is  something  which  sliould  be  examined 
and  dispelled.  Efforts  have  been  made  to  have  review  in  innnigration 
cases.  Indeed,  in  the  heat  of  the  war  the  President  set  up  a  President's 
Review  Board  of  three  members  in  Washington  who  denied  the  issuing 
of  visas  in  Washington.  It  was  a  special  wartime  matter  set  up  for 
examination  of  visas  because  our  consuls  were  not  in  some  of  the  places 
in  wartime.  Records  of  that  Commission  will  be  available  to  this  Com- 
mission. I  think  they  did  a  good  job  and  I  hope  the  Commission  will 
examine  its  work  in  determining  whether  there  is  not  ground  for  a 
permanent  review  procedure. 

The  section  225  of  the  Humphrey-Lelnnan  bill  introduced  in  the 
last  session  did  contain  provisions  for  the  establishment  of  a  visa  re- 
view board  for  the  review  of  the  limited  classes  of  cases  of  applications 
for  visas  by  either  nono,uota  or  quota  immigrants.  That  is  a  model 
which  I  hope  the  Commission  will  consider  and  examine. 

I  might  say  that  just  in  the  last  few  weeks  another  area  of  resistance 
to  any  administrative  review  procedure,  namely,  the  issuance  of  pass- 
ports to  American  citizens,  is,  I  think,  a  bastion  of  even  Americanism 
which  has  finally  yielded  to  pressures  and  court  litigations,  and  finally 
regulations  have  been  issued  providing  for  review  of  denial  of  pass- 
ports by  the  Passport  Division.  The  establishment  of  such  review 
procedure  is  in  the  air  in  our  inodern  postwar  America.  I  hope  that 
that  good  example  can  be  followed  with  respect  to  visas. 

1  would  turn  now  to  remarks  on  administrative  procedures  available 
to  immigration  cases.  I  would  say  at  the  outset  that  this  situation  is 
different  from  the  visa  situation  because  immigration  procedures  take 
place  in  the  United  States  and  there  is  the  due-process-clause  require- 
ment. So,  insofar  as  deportation  is  concerned  we  have  an  orderly 
procedure,  and  with  this  procedure  a  record  is  made  and  a  decision  is 
made  on  the  record.  He  has  his  turn  and  there  is  an  appeal  of  right, 
so  I  am  not  going  to  dwell  on  what  are  really  some  minor  defects  in 
those  procedures  such  as  the  fact,  for  example,  that  membership  by  an 
alien  in  one  of  the  organizations  on  the  President's  subversive  list — 
which  was  issued  really  to  determine  questions  of  Federal  employ- 
ment— being  used  to  deny  an  alien  with  wife  and  children  entrance 
or  permission  to  stay. 

I  am  going  to  speak  a  few  words  on  two  questions.  One  is  the 
exclusion  of  arriving  aliens  on  the  basis  of  testimony  or  evidence  which 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  13^, 

is  withheld.  Testimony  is  withheld  from  an  alien  and  he  has  no 
chance  to  refute.  Then'there  is  the  problem  of  exclusion  of  reentering 
permanent  residents. 

Now,  as  to  the  first  question,  the  exclusion  of  an  alien  on  secret 
testimony,  I  won't  dwell  on  it  because,  of  course,  the  whole  problem 
was  dramatized  very  well  in  tlie  Knauff  case,  with  which  the  Chair- 
man and  all  the  members  of  the  Commission  are  intimately  familiar. 
I  would  merely  like  to  say  that  the  wartime  regulations  which  first 
provided  that  in  exceptional  cases  an  alien  might  be  excluded  from  this 
country  on  the  basis  of  evidence,  the  disclosure  of  which  the  Attorney 
General  certified  was  contrary  to  the  public  interest,  were  adopted  im- 
mediately prior  to  our  entry  into  the  war.  I  was  general  counsel  of 
the  service  at  the  time.  It  was  the  thought  that  there  might  be  ex- 
traordinary cases  in  which  this  very  special  power  might  be  used  dur- 
ing the  wartime. 

We  put  in  this  requirement  that  the  Attorney  General  certify  that 
the  disclosure  of  the  evidence  would  be  contrary  to  the  public  interest 
as  a  necessary,  we  thought,  and  workable  check  on  the  routine  use  of 
this  procedure  by  subordinate  officials. 

I  submit  to  the  Commission  that  full  examination,  and  I  hope  you 
do  examine,  of  all  the  cases  in  which  this  special  procedure  has  been 
used  since  the  termination  of  hostilities  and  I  feel  you  will  find — but 
the  public  does  not  have  access  to  these  records — that  even  in  the  post- 
war cases  this  procedure  devised  as  a  most  special  and  extraordinary 
one  has  not  been  kept  strictly  in  the  hands  of  the  Attorney  General 
personally  as  we  envisaged,  but  that  it  has  become  not  a  routine  but 
a  regular  procedure  under  which  a  substantial  number  of  persons  have 
been  excluded  fi'om  the  United  States  on  the  basis  of  secret  denuncia- 
tions, which  if  they  had  a  chance  to  meet  them  might  have  been  able 
to  refute  them  as  Miss  Ellen  Knautf,  as  was  explained  by  the  Board 
of  Immigration  Appeals  analyzing  the  testimony  in  that  Board  of 
Appeals  case. 

INIy  recommendation  is  that  (1)  the  Commission  make  a  study  of 
those  cases  as  a  necessary  factual  basis  for  any  recommendations  as 
to  what  should  be  done.  I  hope  that  in  any  recommendations  the 
Commission  makes  in  this  difficult  question  it  will  consider  it  a  re- 
quirement that  the  Attorney  General  personally  pass  on  such  cases. 
They  should  be  very  few.  The  Attorney  General  has  no  more  im- 
portant duties  than  to  determine  such  delicate  questions  as  to  wdiether 
a  person  should  be  barred  on  evidence  not  known  to  them.  He  should 
be  committed  to  personally  pass  on  this,  wdiich,  in  the  public  interest 
requires  the  evidence  not  to  be  revealed. 

I  \yould  suggest  that  the  Commission  also  consider  that  in  case  of 
any  judicial  review  that  there  be  a  requirement  that  the  evidence  be 
revealed  to  the  district  judge.  Surely  our  Federal  judiciary  can  be 
entrusted  even  with  such  secret  evidence.  I  suggest  further  that  a 
district  judge  have  the  authority  to  disagree  with  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral that  this  evidence  should  not  be  ^disclosed  and  that  in  a  proper 
case  if  he  so  disagrees  the  district  judge  should  have  the  authority  to 
gjye  the  Department  of  Justice  the  alternative  of  either  revealing  the 
evidence  or  of  admitting  the  individual. 

Now,  that  is  not  surprising  because  we  know  in  many  situations  the 
Government  foregoes  prosecution  or  other  administrative  action  where 
the  going-ahead  would  require  revealing  evidence.     It  is  not  improper 


14  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

because  Government  faces  it  every  day — the  choice  of  protecting  its 
sources  of  information  or  proceeding  with  prosecutive  or  other  action.. 

Now,  I  leave  that  subject  and  speak  just  a  word  on 

The  Chairman.  You  have  far  exceeded  your  time. 

Mr.  Ennis.  Then  I  will  be  glad  to  leave  the  rest  of  it  with  you  in. 
a  written  statement. 

The  Chairman.  I  don't  want  to  stop  you,  but  if  you  have  such  a 
formal  statement  we  would  appreciate  your  leaving  it  with  us. 

Mr.  Ennis.  I  have  supplied  copies  of  it  and  w^ould  be  glad  to  leav& 
it  in  that  form. 

Frankly,  I  am  so  interested  in  these  subjects,  you  understand  I  could, 
talk  all  day. 

Let  me  say  just  a  sentence  in  conclusion.  I  hope  in  considering  the 
great  major  social  situation  that  the  Commission  will  not  lose  sight  of 
the  fact  that  often  justice  lies  in  good  procedure  and  that  we  shall  by 
setting  up  a  good  procedure  avoid  the  almost  shameful  spectacle  of 
having  these  cases  decided  by  trial  by  publicity  in  which  a  visa  is- 
denied,  and  then  if  the  person  has  means  to  get  to  the  press  there  is  a 
big  hullabaloo,  the  case  is  reconsidered  and  the  person  admitted. 
These  matters  in  our  great  country  should  not  be  decided  that  way. 
They  should  be  decided  by  fair  procedure  for  in  the  absence  of  fair 
procedures  these  cases  are  being  tried  in  the  press,  simply  because 
there  is  no  other  place  to  decide  them. 

The  Chairman.  I  agree  with  you  on  that.  I  think  you  Avill  agree 
that  injustice  is  done  on  desistance  of  Government  officials  because  a, 
successful  effort  was  made  to  try  the  case  in  the  press  instead  of  by 
discretion. 

I  happen  to  know  a  great  deal  about  the  case  you  are  talking  about,, 
and  it  is  just  one  case  and  it  is  important  in  this  great  picture  that  we 
face,  but  it  may  have  been  that  the  Government  was  unable  to  prose- 
cute publicly  all  the  information  they  had  in  that  matter. 

Mr.  Ennis.  I  understand  that  entirely. 

In  closing  I  would  like  to  say  a  personal  word.  I  think  it  inost; 
auspicious  that  the  Commission  is  beginning  its  public  hearing  in  this 
great  city  through  which  have  come  so  many  of  the  immigrant  parents 
of  our  American  population,  and  I  wish  you  Godspeed  in  your  work.. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you. 

(The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Ennis  follows:) 

Statement  of  Edward  J.  Ennis  Repkesenting  the  American  Civil  Liberties- 
Union 

I  shall  testify  briefly  on  the  subject  of  the  administrative  procedures  available- 
in  visa  and  immigration  cases  under  the  present  law  and  the  new  Immigration 
and  Nationality  Act  which  becomes  effective  on  December  24,  1952,  and  the  scope- 
of  judicial  review  of  administrative  decisions.     I  speak  today  as  a  member  of" 
the  board  of  directors  of  the  American  Civil  Liberties  Union  and  as  chairman, 
of  its  alien  civil  rights  committee.     The  ACLU  is  a  Nation-wide  nonpartisan 
organization  devoted  to  the  protection  and  advancement  of  the  fundamental 
democratic  liberties  guaranteed  by  the  United  States  Constitution.     The  union, 
is  not  concerned  with  purely  immigi-ation  policies,  such  as  the  number  of  aliens- 
allowed  to  immigrate  annually,  but  is  vitally  concerned  that  aliens  be  granted 
not  only  the  minimum  of  constitutional  protection  but  also  that  there  be  made- 
available  procedures  for  determining  their  status,  rights,  and  privileges  as  fair- 
and  equitable  as  our  democratic  tradition  demands  and  as  our  long  experience- 
witli  administrative  procedures  can  devise. 

My  qualifications  to  discuss  these  matters  are  based  on  my  experience  witlfc 
immigration  problems  for  nearly  20  years  first  as  an  attorney  in  the  Department 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  15 

of  Justice  and  since  1046  as  an  altovnoy  in  private  practice  and  as  a  nioniber  of 
the  boards  of  directors  of  a  number  of  or.i^anizatioiis  interested  in  immi,^rati(ni 
and  naturalization.  Immediately  prior  to  the  entry  of  the  United  States  into 
World  War  II.  I  was  the  first  general  counsel  of  the  Inimi.Lcration  and  Naturaliza- 
tion Service,  and  during  the  war  years  I  was  Director  of  the  Alien  Kncniy 
■Control  Unit  of  the  Department  of  Justice  charged  with  tlie  adniiiiistraiiun 
of  the  procedures  for  security  screening  of  aliens  of  enemy  nationality  subject 
!to  internment  and  parole. 

I  shall  discuss  first  visa  procedures  and  then  immigration  procedures. 

I.  VISA  PUOCEDURES 

Consular  oflScers  abroad  are  authorized  under  the  new  law  (sec.  221)  as  well 
sis  under  the  present  law  (sec.  2  of  the  1924  act,  8  U.  S.  C.  202;  sec.  30  of  the 
Alien  Kegistration  Act  of  1940;  8  U.  S.  C.  451)  to  deal  with  applications  for 
passport  (nonimmigrant)  visas  and  immigration  visas.  The  requirement  that 
•aliens  have  passports  and  procure  visas  from  American  consuls  abrojui  in  order 
to  travel  into  the  United  States  was  established  as  a  wartime  emergency 
security  requirement  by  a  joint  departmental  order  of  the  State  and  Labor 
J^epartments  in  1917  which  was  confirmed  by  the  wartime  act  of  INIay  22,  1918 
(22  U.  S.  C.  223-227)  and  is  continued  in  section  215  of  the  1952  act.  The 
passport  and  visa  requirements  was  expressly  continued  after  World  War  I  by 
the  act  of  March  2,  1921  (22  U.  S.  C.  227).  The  Immigration  Act  of  1924 
(8  U.  S.  C.  202)  pi-ovided  permanent  legislation  for  issuance  of  immigration 
visas  by  consular  officers. 

Consular  ofiicers  abroad  alone  have  the  statutory  authority  to  issue  visas. 
The  alien  has  no  appeal  as  a  matter  or  right  from  an  adverse  decision,  which 
may  determine  the  whole  course  of  his  life.  A  visa  may  be  denied  on  any  one 
of  numerous  grounds  of  exclusion  including  such  a  general  ground  as  that  the 
consul  has  reason  to  believe  that  an  alien's  entry  would  be  "prejudicial  to  the 
interests  of  the  United  States  (22  C.  F.  R.  53.33).  In  view  of  the  numerous 
possible  grounds  of  exclusion  interpreted  by  hundreds  of  consuls  throughout 
the  world  the  risk  of  lack  of  uniformity  and  consequently  unequal  protection 
of  the  laws  is  very  great.  In  the  absence  of  a  regular  appeal  procedure,  the 
only  satisfactory  way  to  promote  uniformity,  it  is  of  interest  to  note  the  pro- 
visions of  the  published  regulations  which  do  provide  for  some  examination  of 
<;onsular  action  by  the  State  Department. 

The  consul  may,  if  he  wishes,  although  not  required  to  do  so,  request  an 
advisory  opinion  from  the  Visa  Division  (22  C.  F.  R.  42.119).  A  visa  may  be 
refused  but  cannot  be  issued  without  an  advisory  opinion  in  any  case  in  which 
the  consul  believes  there  is  doubt  whether  the  alien's  admission  would  be 
prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States  and  in  other  stated  classes 
of  cases  (22  C.  F.  R.  53.40).  This  in  effect  provides  the  Government,  but  not 
the  alien,  with  an  appeal  in  such  cases.  Request  to  the  Visa  Division  for 
review  of  denials  of  visas  are  ordinarly  met  with  the  reply  that  the  statutory 
iiuthority  rests  with  the  counsul.  But  the  regulations  do  provide  that  intei'ested 
parties  are  entitled  to  an  adequate  explanation  from  the  consul  concerning 
why  an  alien  has  been  unable  to  qualify  for  a  visa  (22  C.  F.  R.  42.40(J).  Con- 
sequently when  a  visa  is  denied  it  is  often  iwssible  by  a.sking  the  consul  for  an 
explanation  to  induce  him  to  seek  an  advisory  opinion  and  in  this  way  get 
some  review  of  the  case.  Within  the  limits  of  this  discretionary  advisory 
opinion  procedure  it  is  often  possible  to  submit  additional  information  to  a 
consul  and  ol)tain  some  consideration  of  the  case  by  the  Visa  Division.  But 
■obviously  this  discretionary,  somewhat  makeshift,  procedure  is  a  poor  sub- 
stitute for  an  ade<iuate  hearing  and  review  procedure  as  a  matter  of  right  in 
which  the  reviewing  authority  can  be  asked  to  reverse  a  consular  decision. 
Inevitably  the  absence  of  a  review  procedure  means  that  in  cases  in  which 
the  assistance  of  Members  of  Congress,  or  of  lawyers  fanuliar  with  the  practice, 
•can  be  obtained  some  sort  of  review  is  possible  but  this  is  not  so  in  tlie  great 
majority  of  cases. 

Efforts  to  obtain  the  establishment  of  a  r<'vi(>w  procedure  by  statute  or  regula- 
tion have  met  with  no  acceptance  either  in  Congress  <ir  in  the  State  Department. 
Bills  introduced  for  this  jturpose  have  failed  to  receive  substantial  support.  The 
Senate  Judiciary  Special  Subconunittee  To  Investigate  Inuiiigration  and  Naturali- 
zation which  recommended  the  bill  which  became  the  1952  act  rejected  the  sug- 
gestion for  review  procedure  and  stated  (Kept.  No.  1515,  81st  Cong.,  2d  sess., 
p.  622)  :  "Refusal  of  a  visa  is  not  an  invasion  of  his  [the  alien's]  rights.     Per- 


16  COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

mitting  review  would  permit  an  alien  to  get  his  case  into  United  States  courts, 
causing  a  great  deal  of  difficulty  in  the  administration  of  the  immigration  laws." 
In  disagreement  with  this  view  it  is  urged  that  an  adequate  visa  review  procedure 
is  sought  not  because  it  is  the  alien's  right  Imt  because  it  should  be  the  policy  of 
the  United  States  to  provide  an  equitable  procedure  for  the  uniform  application  of 
the  law  in  the  spirit  of  that  equal  ))i'Otection  of  the  laws  which  is  a  principle  of 
our  Constitution.  If  necessary,  judicial  review  of  final  administrative  decisions 
could  be  wholly  or  largely  eliminated.  In  fact,  however,  there  appears  to  be  no 
compelling  reason  why  there  should  not  be  available  the  limited  judicial  review 
available  in  exclusion  cases  in  order  to  have  a  means  of  correcting  possible  mis- 
takes in  particular  cases. 

Section  225  of  the  Humphrey-Lehman  bill  (S.  2S42)  does  provide  for  a  visa 
review  board  for  nonquota  or  preference  quota  immigrants  who  are  denied  visas. 
During  World  War  II  a  Presidential  review  board  of  three  members  reviewed 
denials  of  visas  with  good  results  and  no  doubt  its  records  are  available  to  this 
Commission.  What  was  done  during  the  war  certainly  we  can  afford  to  do  now. 
Hecently  the  Passport  Division  of  the  State  Department  has  yielded  to  urgings 
for  many  years  to  set  up  a  procedure  for  review  of  denial  of  passports  to  citizens, 
and  tlie  State  Dppartment  has  issued  regulations  for  this  purpose.  This  reform 
•should  be  followed  by  establishing  a  review  procedure  in  visa  cases  also. 

II.    IMMIGRATION  PROCEDURES 

Unlike  vi.sa  procedures,  immigration  procedures  are  carried  on  in  the  United 
States  directly  under  the  influence  of  the  constitutional  requirement  of  due  proc- 
ess of  law  and  therefore  have  been  relatively  ample.  In  deportation  proceedings 
an  orderly  hearing  is  held  and  recorded  and  the  decision  is  made  on  evidence  in- 
troduced into  the  record.  The  alien  may  have  the  assistance  of  counsel  and 
introduce  his  evidence.  There  is  an  api)eal  as  of  right.  There  are  some  i"elat- 
ively  minor  procedural  difficulties,  such  as  use  of  a  medical  certificate  that  an 
alien  is  insane  and  therefore  subject  to  deportation  without  producing  the  certify- 
ing doctor  for  cross-examination  as  judicial  decisions  require,  but  for  i)resent 
purposes  I  would  like  to  discuss  two  more  general  problems  involving  exclusion 
of  arriving  aliens  and  exclusion  of  returning  i-esidents. 

1.  Exclusion  on  secret  (letiunciations. — The  Elleri  Knauff  case  (338  U.  S.  537) 
•dramatized  the  prolilem  of  exclusion  of  arriving  aliens  on  the  basis  of  confidential 
information  "the  disclosure  of  which  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  pulilic  interest." 
(8  C.  F.  R.  175.57).  Originally  these  regulations  were  published  in  November 
1941  while  the  war  was  raging  in  Europe  for  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  excep- 
tional and  extraordinary  spy  cases  which  might  arise.  It  was  believed  that  the 
requirement  tha  the  Attorney  General  certify  that  disclosure  would  lie  against 
the  public  intei-est  would  insure  the  most  sparing  use  of  this  extraordinary  pro- 
cedure. It  was  not  thought  at  the  time  that  after  the  end  of  hostilities  this 
procedure  might  be  used  in  the  relatively  large  number  of  cases  involving  persons 
not  a  serious  menace  to  our  safety.  Unfortunately  the  Knauff  and  similar  cases 
■suggest  that  the  certification  safeguard  has  not  been  wholly  satisfactory  and  that 
the  exceptional  authority  has  been  delegated  to  subordinates  who  may  not  fully 
appreciate  the  gravity  of  condemning  an  individual  on  secret  evidence.  The 
dangers  of  this  procedure  are  best  realized  by  reading  the  opinion  of  the  Board 
of  Immigration  Appeals  in  the  Knauff  case  (conveniently  contained  as  an  ap- 
IDendix  to  The  Ellen  Knauf  Story)  which  analyzes  the  evidence  upon  which  the 
alien  was  deprived  of  her  liberty  for  more  than  a  year. 

The  1952  act  incorporates  these  wartime  regulations  into  permanent  legisla- 
tion without  even  the  requirement  that  the  Attorney  General  certify  that  public 
interest  requires  withholding  of  the  information.  It  is  sufficient  if  the  Attorney 
'General  so  concludes.  The  Supreme  Court  has  ruled,  and  even  the  minority 
opinions  agree,  that  Congress  may  authorize  exclusion  without  a  hearing.  That 
does  no  relieve  Congress  of  its  grave  responsibility  to  provide  a  fair  procedure. 
It  is  recommended : 

(a)  A  study  of  the  cases  in  which  this  power  has  been  used  since  the  termina- 
tion of  hostilities  in  World  War  II  should  be  made  and  reported  so  that  the  scope 
of  the  exercise  of  this  power  can  be  determined.  A  precedent  is  found  in  the 
action  of  Secretary  of  State  George  Marshall  In  appointing  a  committee  to 
examine  action  on  visa  cases  following  the  charge  that  Communist  spies  were 
entering  the  country  as  members  of  the  UN  Secretaiiat. 

(&)  Safeguards  should  be  erected  ar.ound  the  use  of  this  exceptional  pro- 
<cedure  if  it  is  retained  at  all.    The  Attorney  General  should  be  required  person- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  17 

«lly  to  certify  that  williholdiiii,'  the  information  is  necessary  in  the  public  interest. 
In  the  case  of  court  revii'w  tlie  secret  evidence  should  be  revealed  to  the  district 
jud5,'e  and  he  should  have  the  power  to  disagree  with  the  Attorney  General  and 
re^iuire  the  Gov(>rniiieiit  to  reveal  the  evidence  or,  in  the  alternative,  admit  the 
alien.  It  is  not  unprecedented  for  the  Government  to  foreso  prosecutive  or  other 
action  in  the  interests  of  protecting  its  sources  of  information. 

2.  Rccntnj  of  resilient  rt//r/(.s'.— The  present  law  and  the  l()o2  act  provide  for 
a  reentry  permit  which  a  permanent  resident  alien  may  obtain  to  iwrmit  his 
reentry  without  obtaining  a  visa.  There  is  n(»  statutory  provision  that  permits 
A  predetermination  of  any  possible  ground  of  exclusion,  and  under  the  law  a 
returning  resident  is  subject  to  all  of  the  grounds  of  exclusion  to  the  same  extent 
as  a  new  immigrant.  It  has  been  the  practice,  however,  where  the  Immigration 
Service  is  aware  of  a  possible  ground  of  exclusion  to  so  advise  the  applicant  for 
a  reentry  permit  and  to  question  him  on  the  possit)le  ground  of  exclusion.  In 
some  cases  reentry  permits  have  been  refused  where  it  appears  that  the  alien 
might  be  exchidable  on  return  and  in  any  event  the  alien  has  been  amply  warned  of 
this  possibility.  Tlie  press  reports  in  the  recent  Charles  Chaplin  case  suggest 
that  this  informal  procedure  may  not  have  been  followed  and  the  alien  may  not 
have  known  until  he  left  the  United  States  of  the  Government's  intention  to 
question  his  right  to  reenter.  If  this  be  true  the  procedure  should  be  corrected 
by  statutory  amendment  giving  the  alien  an  opportunity  to  obtain  a  decision  on 
any  question  of  exclusion  known  to  the  Innnigration  Service  at  the  time  an 
application  for  a  reentry  permit  is  made. 

III.    JUDICIAL  KEVIEW 

The  Administrative  Procedure  Act  of  1945  (5  U.  S.  C.  1001)  attempts  to  embody 
the  experience  of  Congress  and  many  Federal  agencies  over  many  years  in  pro- 
viding a  statutory  code  of  the  best  administrative  practice  which  could  be  devised 
and  agreed  upon.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  it  applied  to  immigration  pro- 
cedures and  thus  held  that  an  alien's  personal  rights  are  entitled  to  the  same 
l)rotection  as  a  citizen's  property.  This  decision  unfortunately  was  promptly 
nullified  by  the  most  unsatisfactory  form  of  legislative  enactment  in  the  form 
of  a  substantially  irrelevant  rider  to  an  important  appropriation  bill  which  faced 
Congress  and  the  President  with  the  unpleasant  alternative  of  foregoing  the 
necessary  appropriation  or  eliminating  the  application  of  the  act  to  immigration 
cases.  Although  the  application  of  the  act  to  immigration  cases  was  i-epealed 
the  House  managers  of  the  bill  which  became  the  1952  act  stated  that  the  pro- 
cedures "renjain  within  the  framework  and  the  pattern  of  the  Administrative 
Procedure  Act"  (Kept.  No.  2090,  S2d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  127).  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  this  is  true,  but  comparison  of  tlie  Administration  Procedure  Act  with  the 
1952  act  leaves  great  doubts.  For  example,  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act 
in  section  9  (5  U.  S.  C.  1009)  provides  that  the  courts  shall  hold  unlawful  admin- 
istrative artion  not  supported  ])y  "substantial  evidence."  Some  courts  have  sug- 
gested that  this  language  affords  a  broader  scope  of  judicial  review  that  the  rule 
stated  in  prior  decisions  that  the  courts  will  not  interfere  with  an  immigration 
administrative  decision  supported  by  "some  evidence." 
_  The  1952  act  provides  in  many  cases  for  a  change  from  an  objective  determina- 
tion of  facts  to  a  determination  "in  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,"  or  to 
the  "satisfaction  of  the  Attorney  General."  It  is  submitted  that  there  is  no  basis 
in  the  judicial  application  of  prior  statutory  jirovisions  or  elsewhere  for  this 
change  from  an  objective  determination  of  fact  to  subjective  determination  of 
the  Attorney  General's  opinion  or  satisfaction.  Such  statutory  changes  are 
retrogressive  as  a  matter  of  administrative  law.  They  may  unduly  hamper 
judicial  review  if  the  question  submitted  to  the  courts  is  whether  the  Attorney 
General  has  the  opinion  he  says  he  has.  It  is  submitted  that  the  application 
of  the  Administrative  I'rocedure  Act  should  be  restored. 

cx>Ncr.usioN 

In  considering  the  major  problems  of  immigration  policy,  it  is  felt  that  the 
Commission  should  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  good  procedure  is  one  of  the 
hest  guarantees  of  justice  in  particular  cases.  To  our  shame  we  witness  the 
spectacle  of  the  United  States  and  its  Government  being  held  up  to  ridicule 
tihroad  because  of  the  denials  of  visas  and  passports  or  the  exclusion  of  aliens 
mider  inadequate  procedures  followed  by  the  grant  of  passports  and  visas  and 
the  admission  of  tlie  aliens  after  sufficient  public  attention  has  been  brought  to 
hear  on  the  ca.ses.  In  place  of  trial  by  the  battle  of  publicity  there  should  be 
substituted  a  fair  and  adequate  administrative  procedure. 


18  COMMISSIOX    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

The  Chairman.  The  next  witness  is  Prof.  Phillip  Edward  ]Mosley. 

STATEMENT  OF  PHILLIP  EDWAED  MOSLEY,  PROFESSOR  IN  THE 
DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  LAW  AND  GOVERNMENT  AT  COLUMBIA 
UNIVERSITY,  MEMBER  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  INSTITUTE  OF  COLUMBIA 
UNIVERSITY,  AND  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  EAST  EUROPEAN  FUND, 
INC. 

Professor  Moslet.  I  am  Phillip  Edward  Mosley,  professor  in  the 
•department  of  public  law  and  government  at  Columbia  University.  I 
am  a  member  of  the  Russian  Institute  of  Columbia  University,  which 
was  established  in  1046  for  the  purpose  of  training  experts  for  both 
university  and  government  needs  in  the  field  of  east  Europe.  I  am 
also  president  of  the  East  European  Fund,  Inc. 

I  am  testifying  in  my  individual  capacity,  not  as  a  representative 
of  an  organization. 

Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  Commission,  I  want  to  thank  you 
first  for  the  privilege  of  commenting  on  one  or  two  aspects  of  this 
very  important  problem.  I  might  suggest  a  word  about  my  experi- 
ence since  I  am  not  appearing  as  a  representative  of  an  organization. 

I  have  been  a  student  of  Soviet  and  east  European  problems  for 
some  24  years  before  the  war  and  again  since  1946  I  have  been  en- 
gaged in  teaching  and  research  as  well  as  consultation  on  problems, 
especially  concerning  this  area  and  the  problems  it  raises  for  us  as 
a  nation.  During  the  war  I  served  as  chief  of  a  research  division 
in  the  Department  of  State  and  also  took  part  in  negotiations  for  the 
attempted  peace  settlements  in  Europe.  During  and  after  the  war 
I  became  very  much  concerned  with  the  division  of  Europe  which 
was  already  beginning  to  take  place  in  1944  and  1945  with  the  plight 
of  those  tens  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  who  simply  could 
not  reconcile  themselves  to  living  under  conditions  where  they  would 
be  deprived  of  religious  and  intellectual  and  political  freedom  and 
who  have  therefore  come  to  our  side. 

Since  1951  I  have  been  a  trustee  and  since  January  of  this  year 
president  of  the  East  European  Fund,  Inc.,  a  philanthropic  organiza- 
tion established  and  maintained  solely  by  the  Ford  Foundation.  Its 
principal  task  is  to  assist  in  the  adjustment  and  integration  of  exiles 
coming  from  the  Soviet  Union  in  this  country.  I  might  say  that  it 
does  not  engage  in  any  political  activities.  It  does  not  work  abroad, 
contrary  to  what  the  Soviet  press  frequently  asserts.  It  is  concerned 
with  the  problem  of  the  ex-Soviet  refugees  and  escapees  after  they 
arrive  in  this  country  and  it  endeavors  to  assist  in  developing  their 
integration  into  American  life  in  all  respects. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  let  us  have  your  views  on  this  subject? 

Professor  Moslet.  I  should  like  first  to  speak  to  the  question  of 
problems  and  special  opportunities  offered  to  our  country  through  the 
situation  of  refugees  and  escapees  coming  from  the  iron-curtain  coun- 
tries. I  have  already  mentioned  the  basic  reason  why  these  people 
are  escaping  individually  and  in  substantial  numbers  even  today  de- 
spite all  the  efforts  made  to  cut  them  off  and  bottle  them  up  in  their 
own  countries.  In  the  countries  from  which  they  come  the  individ- 
ual is  regarded  as  property  of  the  state  and  these  people  are  escaping 
to  the  free  world  where  they  want  to  find  individual,  intellectual,  and 
religious  freedom. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  19 

I  feel  that  tlie  policy  to  Avliicli  we  are  committed  at  present  is  not 
fully  understood  in  tliis  country  and  that  it  is  not  the  intention  of  our 
people  to  cooperate  to  bottle  these  people  up  within  the  iron  curtain. 
But  consider  the  situation  of  a  Hungarian,  a  Czech,  a  Russian,  or  a 
Pole  who  has  escaped.  I  mi<rht  say  that  it  is  probable  that  half  the 
people  who  are  now  tryin«>-  to  esca])e  are  captured  and  severely  pun- 
ished in  the  etfort.  He  is  then  thrown  upon  the  economy  of  a  country 
of  which  he  does  not  know  the  lani>iiaoe,  which  in  the  case  of  Germany 
has  a  great  economic  and  social  implication  which  is  hardly  conducive 
to  providing  real  opportunities  to  the  new  escapees  Avho  are  strangers 
there. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  some  people  having  made  this  great  effort 
to  escape  give  up  the  struggle  to  adjust  themselves  in  the  free  world 
and  return  to  their  own  countries.  This  happens  in  small  numbers, 
but  it  does  happen.  Each  time  it  is  widely  publicized  and  it  is  devel- 
oped as  a  deterrent  to  any  similar  idea  of  loyalty  to  the  ideal  of  the 
free  world  or  to  any  similar  idea  of  escaping  from  totalitarian  control. 

I  feel  from  m}'  own  constant  observation  of  many  hundreds  of  these 
people  who  have  come  to  this  country  since  1946  that  they  bring  a 
high  level  of  motivation  and  a  deep  gratitude  to  America  for  the  op- 
portunity they  have  received  and  have  many  contributions  to  make. 
I  feel  that  it  is  not  fair  to  leave  this  entire  problem  to  the  countries 
to  which  these  people  first  come  or  to  Western  Europe.  I  feel  that 
we  can  be  greatly  strengthened  in  taking  care  of  this  problem  if  we 
can  do  our  share  and  receive  our  share  of  these  people  of  high  motiva- 
tion and  of  unusually  good  economic  and  professional  experience  in 
many  cases.  I  feel  that  we  will  strengthen  our  own  country  and  the 
free  world,  the  countries  of  which  we  are  working  to  defend  the  area 
of  freedom  if  we  will  open  a  door,  or  rather  if  we  will  reopen  a  door 
to  the  people  who  under  intolerable  pressure  are  escaping  every  clay 
and  every  week  from  the  iron-curtain  countries. 

I  feel  we  will  strengthen  ourselves  in  a  long  drawn-out  conflict,  a 
cold  conflict  with  the  Soviet  Union  and  will  gain  a  great  deal  of  addi- 
tional strength  on  our  side  in  this  struggle  which  w^e  did  not  choose 
but  cannot  avoid  if  we  readopt  a  more  enlightened  policy  towards 
these  people,  disregarding  the  deadlines  and  arbitrary  dates  which 
have  been  adopted  in  the  past  and  establish  a  flexible  review  of  the 
requests  to  come  to  this  country. 

I  want  to  insert  parenthetically  that  I  feel  our  country  is  the 
strongest  and  most  prosperous  and  most  advanced,  and  that  it  is 
easier  to  assimilate  these  people  in  our  country  than  anywhere  else, 
as  shown  by  the  great  growth  of  our  people,  and  that  we  should  con- 
tinue to  follow  an  enlightened  policy  in  this  respect. 

I  would  like  to  say  a  w^ord  about  one  special  problem  concerning 
the  so-called  "haixl  core"  refugees.  Tender  our  requirements,  which 
are  strict,  people  Avho  have  relatively  minor  disabilities  are  often 
barred  from  receiving  an  immigration  visa.  I  feel  that  we  have  the 
facilities  and  Me  should  have  the  generosity  to  take  a  certain  pro- 
portion of  people  who  have  some  ]:)hysical  disabilities  and  help  them 
to  adjust  themselves  here  and  to  make  their  own  way.  Other  coun- 
tries are  doing  this  to  some  extent.  Sweden  has  recently  taken  people 
who  have  tuberculosis.  Certainly,  we  have  that  disease  under  control 
in  this  country  and  we  certaiidy  could  do  something  in  this  country 


20  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

and  take  them  and  cure  them.  I  think  we  would  gain  immensely  in 
prestige  throughout  the  free  world  if  we  would  restudy  this  problem 
of  physical  disabilities  to  immigration  and  undertake  a  small  but 
definite  part  of  the  burden  which  should  be  shared  in  the  free  workL 

I  would  like  to  say  a  few  words,  if  I  may  trespass  on  your  time^ 
about  one  other  problem  which  is  not  directly  related  to  the  first 
problem.  This  is  the  problem  of  the  political  test  for  admission  both 
for  temporary  visitors  and  for  permanent  immigration.  I  am  not 
a  lawyer  and  I  would  not  attempt  to  suggest  precise  language  or 
l^rocedure,  but  in  my  experience  since  the  war  on  visits  to  Europe  I 
have  been  greatly  concerned  that  we  are  confusing  in  too  many  cases 
the  field  of  opinion  with  the  field  of  action.  I  would  yield  to  no 
one  in  my  support  of  measures  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  persons 
who  wish  to  undertake  actions  detrimental  to  our  country  and  its 
policy,  but  I  feel  that,  and  I  have  confidence  in  the  authorities  who 
are  concerned  with  watching  this  aspect  of  the  problem,  we  have 
tended  in  the  past  2  or  3  years  particularly  to  confuse  the  area  of 
opinion  with  the  area  of  action.  This  is  bad  for  our  position  in  the 
free  world — the  position  of  leadership  whicli  we  must  exert.  We  are 
committed  to  the  free  circulation  of  ideas  in  our  own  country  and 
when  we  apply  a  too  narrow  definition  of  idea,  permissible  ideas  or 
approved  ideas,  in  the  admission  of  intellectuals,  writers  and  pro- 
fessors, and  so  on,  from  other  countries  it  could  do  serious  damage, 
and  I  think  more  than  most  of  our  people  realize. 

We  tolerate  criticism  within  our  own  country.  We  can  take  criti- 
cism from  individuals  so  long  as  it  is  sincere  thought  and  so  long 
as  it  is  not  organized  hostile  action.  I  think  that  in  the  consideration 
of  our  immigration  laws  it  would  be  especially  important  to  consider 
this  aspect.  One  thing  which  perhaps  we  do  not  realize  enough  is 
that  when  a  foreign  scholar  or  writer  or  musician  is  denied  a  visa 
purely  on  grounds  of  opinion  or  some  past  association,  this  creates  a 
presumption  in  the  minds  of  his  fellow  countrymen  that  those  who 
received  visas  are  somehow  committed  to  a  detailed  platform  of 
American  thought  or  policies  and  this  is  also  bad  for  our  side  because 
it  contradicts  the  very  assumption  that  we  can  stand  up  in  the  free 
market  of  ideas  and  have  the  give  and  take  which  we  want  for  our- 
selves and  which  we  can  tolerate  certainly  in  our  visitors  from  abroad. 

Thank  you,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  The  next  witness  will  be 
Mr.  Eussell  W.  Davenport.  The  Commission  will  be  glad  to  hear 
your  views,  Mr.  Davenport. 

STATEMENT  OF  RUSSELL  W.  DAVENPORT,  WRITER  AND  FORMER 

EDITOR  OF  FORTUNE 

Mr.  Davenport.  I  am  Eussell  W.  Davenport.  I  am  a  writer,  for- 
mer editor  of  Fortune,  and  am  appearing  as  an  individual,  and  not 
as  a  representative  of  any  organization.  I  have  a  prepared  state- 
ment which  I  will  read  or  outline,  as  you  wish. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  going  to  be  pressed  for  time,  and  we  are 
most  reluctant  to  take  advantage  of  those  who  are  good  enough  to 
come  here  and  then  tell  them  to  cut  their  remarks  down  in  time,  but 
we  would  appreciate  it  if  you  will  let  us  have  your  statement  and 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATITRALIZATION  211 

then  you  may  make  any  comment  briefly  on  it  that  you  tliink  would: 
be  of  special  interest  to  the  Commission. 

(The   prepared   statement   of  Mr.   Russell   W.   Davenport   is   as 
follows:) 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Commission,  I  first  want  to  congratulate 
the  Commission  on  nndertakinii:  this  broad  and  comprehensive  survey  into  the- 
important  question  of  immigration.  Nothing  perhaps  has  affected  the  world' 
standing  of  tlie  United  States  so  deepl.v.  in  so  many  ways,  over  so  long  a  period 
as  its  immigration  policy.  The  United  States  has  always  stood  forth  before  the 
nations  as  a  haven  of  refuge  from  tyranny  and  disorder,  and  this  fact  has  pro- 
foundly affected  the  traditions  of  our  country  and  of  our  free  way  of  life. 
Moreover,  as  we  look  toward  the  future,  our  immigration  policy  appears  to  be- 
come more  important,  rather  than  less.  We  are  a  symbol  of  freedom  and  the- 
world  looks  to  us  to  define  in  concrete  ways  how  freedom  can  be  achieved.  Our 
immigration  policy  is  vital  to  that  definition. 

I  want  to  make  it  clear,  before  presenting  my  thoughts  on  this  subject,  that 
I  am  in  no  sense  an  expert  in  this  field.  As  some  members  of  the  Commission? 
know,  I  have  interested  myself  in  this  suljject  at  various  times,  but  purely  as  a 
citizen  with  what  he  considers  to  be  the  welfare  of  his  country  at  heart.  I  can- 
not, therefore,  lay  before  the  Commission  any  carefully  assembled  body  or 
statistics  nor  can  I  offer  expert  analysis  of  the  various  specific  problems  that 
the  Commission  faces.  My  concern,  on  the  contrary,  is  with  certain  basic  prin- 
ciples, the  formulation  of  which  is  the  result  of  many  years  of  observation  and' 
analysis.  These  principles  have  to  do  directly  with  the  survival  of  our  free  way 
of  life,  in  economic  as  well  as  in  political  terms.  I  offer  them  as  a  kind  of 
background  for  your  work,  and  I  shall  not  attempt  to  minimize  the  difficulty 
of  achieving  them. 

In  February  1951  I  collaborated  with  the  editors  of  Fortune  magazine  to 
produce  an  anniversary  issue  entitled  '"U.  S.  A.,  the  Permanent  Revolution."  Our 
assignment  in  that  issue  was  to  examine  the  sources  and  reasons  for  the  develop- 
ment in  the  United  States  of  the  free  way  of  life.  In  the  chapter  entitled  "U.  S-l 
Foreign  Policy"  we  had  a  suggestion  to  make  that  bears  directly  upon  immigra- 
tion policy  and  I  would  like  to  quote  a  section  of  that  chapter. 

"If  United  States  capitalism  is  ever  to  perform  its  task  of  raising  living 
standards  in  the  so-called  backward  areas  of  the  world,  it  will  need  the  co- 
operation of  European  industry  just  as  surely  as  our  military  strategy  requires 
Euroi^e's  steel  *  *  *.  But  unless  we  are  merely  to  pick  up  the  check  for  an- 
other experiment  in  state  plaiuiing,  [our  policy]  must  be  preceded  by  some  degree 
of  assimilation  among  the  three  great  centers  of  industrial  strength,  Britain's,, 
continental  Europe's,  and  ours.  It  is  now  clear  that  there  will  never  be  an 
economic  or  military  integration  of  Britain  and  Europe  (or  even  of  Europe- 
alone)  except  as  they  march  together  toward  economic  integration  with  the 
United  States  in  an  Atlantic  Community.  The  most  skillful  'donation  diplo- 
macy,' Payments  Union,  Schuman  plan,  and  all,  could  not  break  up  the  nest  of 
little  obsolete  autarchies  that  Europe  insists  on  retaining  until  it  has  something^ 
better  in  sight. 

"Yet  the  United  States  has  it  in  its  power  to  put  something  better  in  sight:  to 
demolish  these  autarchies,  undermine  all  their  dead-end  dreams  of  state  social- 
ism, and  set  their  extraordinary  citizens  on  a  new  and  more  promising  economic 
path.  To  employ  this  power  will  require  a  radical  change  in  United  States 
economic  policy ;  but  it  is  a  change  that  should  be  made  anyway  for  the  sake  of 
American  capitalism,  the  American  taxpayer,  the  American  dollar,  and  the 
American  manpower  supply— which  last  is  already  putting  too  low  a  ceiling: 
on  our  own  economic  and  military  horizons. 

"Like  other  obsolete  United  States  policies,  the  Hull  reciprocal  trade  treaties 
were  based  on  Pax  Britannica  assumptions — in  this  case  the  assumption  that  a 
world  market,  which  the  British  had  created  by  their  willingness  to  make  a 
I)rice  for  any  quantitj'  of  anything  offered  for  sale,  could  survive  the  British 
withdrawal  Irom  that  market  in  the  early  thirties.  A  world  market  will  not 
exist  again  until  another  strong  nation  makes  one.  We  have,  as  a  Nation,  no 
adequate  incentive  to  make  a  true  world  market.  But  we  have  very  good 
national  reasons  to  extend  our  own  internal  free-trade  area  to  certain  nations 
that  may  be  willing  to  reciprocate. 

"An  offer  of  free  trade  and  free  migration,  coming  from  the  protectionist 
United  States,  would  create  a  sensation  in  Canada,  Britain,  western  Europe,  or 


22  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

wherever  we  might  feel  militarily  safe  in  making  it.  Since  the  terms  of  the- 
offer  would  require  the  abandonment  of  all  exchange  controls,  quantitative- 
restrictions,  and  other  devices  that  obstruct  a  progressive  division  of  labor,  it 
would  bowl  over  Europe's  socialist  politicians  like  ninepins.  The  fusing  of  these 
markets  wovild  intermix  men  and  corporations  now  walled  apart,  in  such  a  way 
that  the  most  successful  business  practices  (by  and  large  the  American)  would 
become  the  prevailing  practices  throughout  the  area.  Whatever  its  boundaries,, 
this  new  super  market  would  be  by  definition  larger  and  by  economic  axiom 
richer  than  the  present  U.  S.  A. 

"The  dislocations  for  the  present  United  States  would  be  considerable.  Even 
some  militarily  vital  industries  like  chemicals  and  aluminum  would  be  put  at 
risk.  For  that  reason  the  free-trade  offer,  without  qualifications,  could  be  made 
only  to  nations  with  which  we  share  a  strategic  frontier  and  with  whom  we  feel 
militarily  secure.  Such  a  policy,  a  major  break  with  the  obsolete  universality 
of  the  Hull  approach,  would  be  a  new  beginning.  It  would  require  a  passionate - 
congressional  debate ;  for  protection  is  one  of  our  oldest  political  habits.  Yet 
we  have  one  older  one :  the  habit  of  extending  the  American  proposition  of  free- 
dom as  far  as  our  safety  permits,  and  sometimes  further.  If  America  is  really 
a  system,  rather  than  just  another  nation,  this  debate  would  give  us  a  crucial 
chance  to  prove  it." 

This  quotation  opens  up,  of  course,  a  very  large  and  controversial  field  of 
inquiry.  It  is  not  possible,  in  the  brief  time  at  my  disposal,  to  undertake  a  thor- 
ough examination  of  all  the  questions  involved.  I  shall  content  myself,  there- 
fore, with  the  bare  statement  of  the  following  principles : 

1.  It  is  impossible  to  formulate  an  intelligent  immigration  policy  without 
reference  to  American  economic  policy.  The  question  of  who  is  to  be  admitted. 
to  the  United  States  and  who  is  not,  is  not  merely  one  of  altruism  or  kindness. 

We  do,  of  course,  have  moral  obligations  toward  displaced  persons  and  home- 
less peoples  throughout  the  world.  But  that  is  not  the  problem  that  I  want 
to  lay  before  you.  What  I  have  in  mind  is  something  very  much  larger,  and, 
if  you  like,  more  selfish.  The  free  capitalistic  system  is  essential  to  the 
maintenance  of  our  free  way  of  life.  Our  foreign  policy  must  take  cognizance 
of  this  important  fact.  An  immigration  policy  that  weakens  the  free  capital- 
istic system — however  desirable  in  other  respects — is  not  a  wise  policy.  We 
]uust  be  sure  that  our  immigration  policy  strengthens  us.  That  is  the  first 
essential.  And  it  means,  to  repeat,  that  we  cannot  Intelligently  determine  our 
immigration  policy  without  reference  to  our  economic  policy. 

2.  I  realize  that  the  economic  policy  of  the  United  States  is  not  directly  the 
concern  of  this  Commission.  But  since,  as  already  stated,  economic  policy  and 
immigration  policy  cannot  be  wholly  separated,  I  offer  the  following  points  by 
way  of  perspective. 

(a)  Internally,  it  is  axiomatic  that  the  States  of  this  Union  should  practice 
free  trade.  We  do  not  permit  economic  barriers  between  States.  Everyone 
recognizes  that  this  is  one  source  of  our  economic  strength,  and  that  if  we  were 
to  permit  interstate  trade  obstructions — as  for  example.  State  tariffs — we  would 
at  once  destroy  one  of  the  greatest  assets  of  the  American  economy,  namely, 
the  vast  American  mass  market. 

It  is  less  often  recognized,  however,  that  the  maintenance  of  free  trade  between 
the  States  of  our  Union  involves  categorically  the  maintenance  of  free  immigi-a- 
tion  between  those  States.  There  is  an  economic  law  here  that  nobody  can 
escape,  however  much  he  might  like  to  do  so.  Let  us  suppose,  for  example,  that 
the  State  of  Michigan  were  to  bar  immigration  from  the  State  of  Mississippi. 
It  would  not  be  long  before  the  economic  relationship  between  Michigan  and 
Mississippi  would  l)e  profoundly  dislocated.  The  economics  of  the  State  of 
Michigan  have  reached  a  very  high  industrial  level ;  those  of  Mississippi  have 
not.  In  order  to  maintain  free  trade  between  them,  it  is  necessary  to  permit 
their  respective  populations  to  shift  back  and  forth  in  accordance  with  their 
respective  economic  requirements  and  opportunities.  If,  for  example,  there  is 
a  labor  shortage  in  Michigan,  both  wages  and  prices  would  tend  to  spiral  upward 
unless  it  were  possiljle  for  persons  in  less  favored  areas  to  immigrate  to 
Michigan  and  thus  to  correct  the  balance.  Similarly,  if  there  should  be  a  super- 
fluity of  labor  in  Michigan,  very  severe  strains  would  be  placed  upon  the  economic 
system  of  that  State  unless  it  were  possible  for  citizens  who  could  not  find 
jobs  there  to  emigtafp  to  Mississippi  or  some  other  State. 

Moreover,  to  complete  this  pictui'e,  we  must  remember  that  the  capitalist 
system  flourishes  on  opportunity.  Certain  new  economic  opportunities  might 
open  up  in  the  State  of  Mississippi.     If  Mississippi  had  an  immigration  policy 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  23 

barring  citizens  from  ^licliigan  or  some  other  highly  industrialized  State,  those 
nativeopportunities  could  not  be  seized  or  would  be  developed  much  more  slowly. 
It  is  only  by  admitting  citizens  from  more  highly  industi'ialized  areas  that 
Mississipjii  can  hope  to  develop  the  opportimities  inherent  to  that  State.  Vice 
versa,  certain  citizens  of  Mississippi  might  be  able  to  find,  in  Michigan,  oppor- 
tunities that  the  natives  of  the  latter  State  either  had  not  seen  or  would  not 
know  liow  to  develop. 

In  brief,  the  maintenance  of  a  flexible  free-trade  system  requires  flexibility 
of  population.  Any  effort  to  block  the  tlow  of  population  will  have  inescapable 
economic  results,  which  will  take  the  form  of  large  State  debts  for  unemploy- 
ment relief,  or  the  continuance  of  a  backward  economic  development,  or  a  failure 
to  seize  opportunities  that  exist  in  a  given  area. 

All  this  is  axiomatic,  so  far  as  our  domestic  economic  policy  is  concerned. 

(ft)  In  foreign  policy,  however,  Americans  have  been  strangely  inconsistent. 
Their  inconsistency  arises,  tirst,  from  the  fact  that  there  was  a  long  period  of 
a.  hundred  years  or  so  wlien  they  were  faced  witli  tlie  necessity  of  building  up 
their  manufactures  against  the  competition  of  more  developed  countries.  This 
led  to  a  policy  of  protectionism,  which  was  essential  at  the  time,  and  which  bore 
very  fruitful  results.  Moreover,  so  long  as  this  policy  was  in  force,  it  was 
iibsolutely  logical  to  follow  it  up  with  a  policy  of  immigration  restriction. 
America  then  had  the  problem  of  achieving  a  liigh  standard  of  living.  The 
restriction  of  immigration  was  one  necessary  step  in  that  direction. 

What  we  must  recognize,  however,  is  that  the  American  problem  has  changed. 
We  are  no  longer  faced  with  the  task  of  acliieving  a  high  standard  of  living ; 
we  have  it.  Our  problem  today  is  to  maintain  a  high  standard  of  living.  And 
this  radically  alters  our  economic  and  immigration  requirements. 

Our  economic  aim  today  cannot  be  to  exclude  other  nations  from  our  market. 
Rather,  it  must  be  to  increase  the  area  of  our  market  as  much  as  possible.  If  we 
could  gradually  double  the  size  of  our  market  two  objectives  would  be  attained. 
On  the  one  hand,  we  would  increase  the  number  of  our  own  opportunities ;  on  the 
other,  we  would  enlarge  the  area  of  free  capitalism,  and  thus  make  a  substantial 
gain  in  our  struggle  against  communism  and  other  totalitarian  doctrines.  While 
it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  such  an  expansion  of  the  free-trade  area  would  do 
temporary  harm  to  certain  specific  American  industries,  nevertheless,  the  expan- 
sion of  our  general  market  which  would  result  from  such  a  step  could  only 
work  in  the  direction  of  increasing  the  security  of  employment  in  America  and 
of  multiplying  the  opportunities  of  all  concerned. 

(c)  On  the  other  hand,  a  continuation  of  the  present  policy  of  restriction, 
whether  in  the  area  of  tariffs  or  in  the  area  of  immigration,  cannot  fail  to  lead 
us  deeper  into  the  difficulties  that  we  now  face.  These  difficulties  have  been 
brought  about,  in  large  part,  by  the  fundamental  economic  imbalance  between 
the  United  States  and  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  only  way  we  have  found  to 
palliate  these  difficulties  is  by  handing  out  large  sums  of  money.  But  these 
hand-outs,  however  beneficial  in  other  ways,  fail  to  increase  the  area  of  free 
capitalism  because  we  have  offered  no  real  inducements  for  such  a  development 
beyond  our  borders. 

Now  these  hand-outs  represent,  to  some  extent  at  least,  the  imbalance  that 
exists  between  the  economic  potential  of  the  United  States  and  that  of  the  rest 
of  the  world.  And  it  would  be  much  less  costly  if  we  could  find  some  means  to 
correct  that  imbalance.  Such  a  means  is  suggested  in  the  Fortune  article  first 
quoted.  By  creating  an  enormous  new  free-trade  area,  we  would  at  one  and 
the  same  time  increase  the  size  of  our  potential  market,  and  give  other  countries 
the  opportunity  to  reestablish  a  working  economic  balance  through  their  own 
energies. 

But,  as  already  pointed  out,  an  economic  policy  directed  toward  that  end 
would  not  work  unless  it  were  supported  by  an  immigration  policy  designed  to 
meet  the  same  end.  That  is  to  say,  if  we  are  to  expand  the  free-trade  area  we 
must  liberalize  our  immigration  policy  to  permit  the  free  immigration  and  emi- 
gration of  all  people  within  that  area. 

3.  There  is  still  another  aspect  of  this  question  that  I  would  like  to  call  to  the 
Commission's  attention.  Recent  wars  and  economic  disasters  have  disrupted 
the  economy  of  the  world  and  have  left  people  with  a  sort  of  hopeless  feeling. 
that  it  is  impossible  to  reestablish  a  free  economic  system  on  an  inteniational 
basis.  This  world  hopelessness  or  despair  can  be  dissipated  only  if  the  United 
States  shows  the  quality  of  leadership.  I  think  the  spectacular  success  of  EGA 
in  countering  the  Russian  threat  provides  us  with  a  perfect  example  of  what 
United  States  leadership  can  do.     ECA  was  a  limited  program  and  had  many 


24:  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

defects.     It    nevertheless    did    inspire   Europe    to    make    new    efforts    against 
■totalitarianism. 

EGA  has  done  its  task  and  the  question  now  is  whether  the  United  States  is 
going  to  follow  it  up.  I  think  it  is  self-evident  that  what  tlie  western  world 
needs  is  a  great  new  idea — A  policy  that  would  stand  forth  in  history  as  typi- 
cally and  courageously  American — comething  equivalent  to  the  illustrious  policy 
that  the  British  Empire  followed  for  so  many  years,  called  the  balance  of  power, 
I  do  not  believe  that  a  balance  of  power  policy  is  congenial  to  the  American 
temperament  or  the  American  form  of  government.  We  must  develop  our  own 
ipolicy.  And  this  typical  American  policy,  it  seems  to  me,  should  be,  essen- 
'tially,  an  extension  of  the  basic  principles  of  our  domestic  political  economy  into 
a  broader  field. 

What  is  this  broader  field?  It  must  surely  be  that  area  of  the  world  where 
people  still  live  in  the  hope  of  freedom  and  are  able  and  eager  to  maintain  the 
free  way  of  life.  Roughly  this  area  includes  the  nations  of  western  Europe, 
.except  Spain,  Great  Britain  and  the  British  Commonwealth ;  the  United  States, 
and  perhaps  certain  portions  of  South  America.  I  do  not  wish  to  infer  that  this 
list  is  definitive,  but  the  area  described  is  roughly  what  I  have  in  mind.  If  we 
could  reestablish  free  capitalism  in  that  vast  area  we  would  lead  the  way  to  an 
^enormous  advance  against  communism. 

The  best — indeed,  the  only — means  of  accomplishing  that  end  is  to  set  up 
.a  free-trade  system  for  these  peoples.  We  should  offer  tliem  a  kind  of  package. 
We  should  ask  them  to  take  certain  steps  in  the  direction  of  establishing  a  free, 
•  competitive,  capitalistic  system  and  to  abandon  the  kind  of  governmental  re- 
strictions and  controls  that  have  characterized  socialist  regimes  and  have  tied 
the  economics  of  the  world  into  knots.  In  return  for  such  steps  we  should  offer 
;them  a  long-range  program  that  would  provide  for  the  gradual  institution  of 
free  trade  between  them  and  us,  and — since  the  two  are  necessarily  tied  together — 
the  gradual  establishment  of  free  immigration  and  emigration. 

Such  an  offer  would  have  tremendous  repercussions  throughout  the  world. 
It  would  rally  the  free  i>eoples.  It  would  undermine  socialist  regimes.  It 
would  serve  notice  on  the  Communist  world  that  we  really  mean  business.  And 
;it  would  provide  new  hope  for  those  countries  who  are  captured  behind 
the  iron  curtain,  because  they  could  be  made  to  understand  that  if  they  could 
break  the  Communist  yoke  they  would  become  eligible  for  the  benefits  inherent 
in  our  proposal. 

All  this  may  sound  very  remote  from  your  studies  in  immigration  policy. 
Nor  am  I  unaware,  as  already  stated,  that  the  economic  policy  of  this  Nation 
Is  not  strictly  speaking  the  subject  of  your  inquiry. 

My  hope  is,  however,  that  I  have  at  least  made  the  point  clear,  that  our  immi- 
gration policy  cannot  be  separated  from  our  economic  policy  and  treated  as  a 
thing  in  itself.  And  I  A'ery  deeply  hope  that  in  its  final  report  this  Commission 
will  stress  that  vital  point. 

If  we  in  this  country  are  headed  for  a  closed  system,  a  system  of  high  tariff 
walls,  a  system  of  exclusion,  then  of  course  it  would  be  logical  to  erect  very 
stiff  and  even  arbitrary  immigration  barriers.  However,  we  should  be  aware 
that  such  a  restrictive  system  must  lead  us  in  the  direction  of  socialism.  Free- 
dom has  never  been  won  by  exclusion.  The  whole  history  of  freedom  has  been 
.a  history  of  expansion ;  of  how  to  embrace,  through  homogeneous  laws,  larger 
and  larger  areas,  and  more  and  more  diverse  interests.  That  is  the  very  secret 
of  American  freedom.  A  policy  of  exclusion  is  a  policy  that  leads  eventually 
to  totalitarism.  Where,  for  example,  is  exclusion  practiced  with  the  most  rigor 
today?     It  is  by  the  Soviet  system,  which  can  exist  on  no  other  basis. 

It  is  always  easy  to  make  a  case  for  exclusion ;  it  is  difficult,  and  always  has 
been  difficult,  to  make  the  case  for  freedom. 

Finally,  I  think  a  great  deal  of  damage  has  been  done  to  the  cause  of  freedom 
"by  those  who  advocate  the  immediate  and  wholesale  cancellation  of  our  immi- 
gration restrictions.  I  hope  you  will  note  that  in  this  statement  I  have  advocated 
no  such  thing.  It  would  seem  to  me  the  height  of  folly  to  admit  people  into 
;this  country  just  out  of  kind-heartedness.  We  would  all  like  to  be  kind-hearted, 
but  we  must  protect  our  system;  and  to  this  extent  I  am  in  favor  of  the  main- 
tenance of  immigration  restrictions  of  various  kinds.  AVhat  I  have  urged  here 
!is,  that  the  restriction  lie  liberalized,  and  even  abandoned,  in  special  cases ; 
■with  regard  to  countries,  that  is  to  say,  who  are  willing  and  able  to  join  us  in 
the  building  of  a  certain  kind  of  system  in  which  we  believe.  Such  a  long-range 
■policy,  it  seems  to  me,  is  in  conformance  with  our  enlightened  self-interest ;  and 
:lt  is  our  enlightened  self-interest  that  our  immigration  policy  should  serve. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  25 

Let  us  not.  therefore,  base  our  decisions  about  the  admission  of  new  citizens 
on  eithw  sentiment  or  prejudice.  Let  us  face  the  cold  fact,  that  in  order  to 
-encourage  the  development  of  the  kind  of  world  we  want,  our  immigration  policy 
should  be,  on  the  whole,  restricted  ;  but  that,  in  special  cases,  where  we  can  make 
basic  agreements  working  toward  the  development  of  a  free  system,  we  are  ready 
to  modify  our  restrictive  policy  in  radical  ways,  looking  toward  the  complete 
elimination  of  restrictions  within  a  vast  area  of  the  world  dedicated  to  economic 
political,  and  spiritual  freedom. 

Mr.  DA^'EXPORT.  I  will  just  point  out  the  purpose  of  the  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Fine, 

Mr.  Da\-export.  I  don't  appear  here  as  an  expert  on  immigration. 
However,  I  feel  that  the  immioration  policy  is  very  deeply  interwoven 
with  our  whole  world  standing  and  the  future  of  this  country  and  the 

world. 

The  Chairman.  It  might  be  helpful,  Mr.  Davenport,  if  you  would 
let  the  record  show  how  it  is  that  you  are  interested  in  this  and  what 
your  prior  experience  has  been. 

Mr.  Davenport.  My  prior  experience  is  that  of  a  citizen  who  has 
interested  himself  in  the  question.  I  collaborated  with  the  editors  of 
Fortune  magazine  a  couple  of  years  ago  in  putting  out  a  special  issue 
which  we  called  the  U.  S.  A.,  the  Permanent  Kevolution.  And  in  that 
issue  we  made  certain  points  that  I  think  bear  on  the  problem  that  faces 
the  Commission.  The  chief  point  is  what  can  America  do  at  the  present 
juncture  in  the  world  to  reanimate,  you  might  say,  the  present  cause 
of  freedom  in  other  countries,  and  we  put  forward  a  proposal  which  is 
somewhat  radical,  and  I  don't  pretend  that  it  will  bear  directly  on 
your  problem,  but  I  think,  as  background,  it  may  be  useful. 

First  of  all,  we  felt  that  it  is  essential  to  recognize  that  immigration 
jwlicy  is  not  something  that  can  be  separated  from  economic  policy. 
I  think  a  good  deal  of  harm  is  done  to  our  conceptions  of  freedom  by 
people  who  argue  immigration  policy  on  sentimental  grounds — either 
that  they  are  prejudiced  against  certain  peoples;  or,  on  the  opposite 
side,  they  feel  that  the  United  States  should  be  friendly  and  should 
welcome  evervone.  To  me,  those  are  not  really  the  criteria  that  should 
be  applied,  that  we  have  to  develop  an  immigration  policy  that  will 
coincide  with,  and  reinforce  whatever  our  economic  policies  are.  I 
realize  that  this  Commission  is  not  concerned  with  the  economic  policy 
of  the  United  States;  nevertheless,  I  would  hope  very  much  that  in 
your  final  report  you  would  make  the  connection  clear  that  in  the  final 
analysis  the  judgment  of  our  immigration  policy  must  rest  upon  our 
economic  objectives.  That  is  the  first  point  I  wanted  to  make.  It  is  a 
very  general  one,  but  I  do  feel  that  a  good  deal  of  damage  is  done  to 
the  formulation  of  an  intelligent  immigration  policy  by  persons — 
many  of  them  my  friends,  very  liberal-minded  people — who  advocate 
the  immediate  and  across-the-board  abolition  of  all  restrictions.  I 
don't  myself  feel  that  that  is  an  intelligent  way  to  go  about  it.  I  think 
it  would  cause  a  great  deal  of  damage.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  policy  of 
restriction,  but  arbitrary  and  wholesale  restriction  is  just  as  bad  as  too 
much  liberalization. 

Wliat  this  paper  urges  is  that  we  begin  to  formulate  our  immigration 
policy  on  the  basis  of  our  economic  objectives.  Now,  in  that  issue  of 
Fortune  we  made  the  proposal,  which  is  a  little  difficult  to  outline  very 
briefly  here,  that  we  should  turn  to  certain  countries  which  are  mani- 
festly struggling  for  the  free  way  of  life  against  great  difficidties.  and 
make  them  a  kind  of  an  offer  of  a  free-trade  area,  set  out  with  them  a 


26  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

free-trade  area,  perhaps  set  it  up  gTadiially.  And  in  this  offer,  an  offer 
which  would  be  a  sort  of  a  package — in  other  words,  it  would  include 
several  elements.  On  our  part  we  would  ask  them  to  take  some  serious 
measures  in  the  direction  of  reestablishing  a  free,  capitalistic  system 
in  their  economy,  and  in  our  quid  pro  quo  would  be  free  trade  and  free 
immigration  with  those  particular  countries.  In  short,  I  am  in  favor 
of  a  liberalization  of  our  immigration  laws  in  special  cases,  and,  after 
a  good  deal  of  thought,  in  this  issue  of  Fortune,  we  felt  that  the  tradi- 
tional policy  as  followed,  let's  say,  by  former  Secretary  of  State  Hull, 
of  granting  across-the-board  a  most-favored-nation  treatment  to  every- 
body, was  a  self-defeating  policy.  We  must  not  change  our  policy  to 
make  specific  agreements  with  specific  nations.  Those  nations  which 
would  come  with  us,  most  enthusiastically  and  most  effectively  in  the 
recreation  of  a  free,  capitalistic  system  would  get  benefits  which  other 
nations  would  not  get,  and,  among  those  benefits,  would  be  a  very  free 
immigration. 

It  so  happens  that  the  nations  with  whom  we  would  obviously  begin 
such  an  undertaking,  that  is  to  say,  the  nations  of  the  British  Empire, 
and  Western  Europe,  are  not  the  most  difficult  nations  in  respect  to 
immigration,  they  are  not  planning  to  flood  us,  and,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  if  there  were  no  quotas  at  all,  I  doubt  that  the  rate  of  immigration 
M'ould  go  up  very  much  in  those  particular  cases.  So  that  I  feel  that 
there  is  an  opportunity  here  on  which  I  would  be  glad  to  expand 
further,  but  I  don't  want  to  take  too  much  of  your  time,  to  set  a  policy 
that  would  create  a  great  deal  of  hope  in  the  world :  that  we  in  America 
were  willing  to  expand  our  free  market  and  our  free  immigration  in 
cases  of  countries  that  would  work  in  the  direction  of  the  further 
development  of  free  capital ;  that  this  would  formulate,  at  a  very  small 
price  to  us  in  terms  of  an  immigration  problem,  a  new  idea  in  the 
world,  and  thereby  try  to  free  people.  I  think  it  would  have  a  great 
effect  iDehind  the  iron  curtain  because  those  people  would  understand, 
if  they  could  ever  shake  themselves  loose,  these  same  benefits  would  be 
available  to  them. 

Now,  that  is  a  very  quick  and  rough  resume  of  the  ideas  that  I  have 
in  this  short  document. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  contemplate  that  we  would  pass  on  the 
nature  of  the  government,  that  might  be  in  existence,  with  some  coun- 
try that  wanted  to  come  under  some  umbrella  that  you  would  call  a 
package. 

Mr.  Daahenport.  Yes,  of  course,  to  a  certain  extent,  but  not  in  terms 
of  dictation ;  in  other  words,  it  is  a  free  and  open  offer.  Those  who 
really  believe. 

The  Chairman.  Whether  they  were  qualified  to  get  the  benefits  that 
we  would  hold  out  to  them  is  a  question  that  we  would  have  to 
determine. 

Mr.  DAVExroRT.  Yes,  we  would  have  to  determine ;  we  are  making 
the  offer.  But  it  is  an  offer,  and  it  is  an  open  offer,  and  nobody  has  to 
accept  it,  nor  are  we  going  to  punish  anyone  that  doesn't  accept  it. 

The  Chairman.  Except  by  exclusion, 

Mr,  Davenport.  Well,  except  by  the  continuation  of  policies  which 
we  have  now  had  in  effect  for  a  great  many  years,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  must  do  something  to  entourage  the  growth  of  what  we 
believe  in.  I  think  EC  A  showed  that  something  can  be  done,  when 
ECA  with  very  limited  policy — I  think  we  should  be  searching  for 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  27 

somethino;  new  and  bigger,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  in  our  immigration 
policy  \v(>  have  groat  opportunity. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  one  thing,  ^Ir.  Chairman,  and  that  is  in 
regard  to  what  must  be  familiar  to  you,  but  1  think  it  is  worth  while 
to  stress  it,  that  the  intimate  connection  between  a  free  economy  and 
free  immigration  and  emigration  here  in  the  United  States — it  is 
axiomatic  that  between  the  States  we  have  free  trade,  and  that  is  really 
the  basis  of  our  economic  strength — that  enormous  mass  market  which 
is  built  up  by  free  trade.  But  the  free  trade  categorically  requires 
free  innnigration.  If  we  were  to  block  immigration  and  emigration, 
let's  say,  between  the  States  of  jNIichigan  and  Mississippi,  we  would 
introduce  economic  distortion  into  the  economics  of  Michigan  and  the 
economics  of  Mississippi,  because  the  economic  imbalances  aren't  taken 
up  and  compensated  by  the  flow  of  population  from  one  place  to  an- 
other, and,  consequently,  in  thinking  of  an  innnigration  policy — this 
is  what  I  meant — we  must  thiidf  of  it  in  relation  to  our  economic  policy. 

If  we  are  going  to  have  an  economic  policy  of  exclusion  and  high 
tariffs  mairitaining  the  economic  imbalance  of  the  world,  then  it  seems 
to  me  to  follow  that  our  immigration  policy  should  remain  restricted, 
and  we  will  find  ourselves  little  by  little  digging  ourselves  into  a  deeper 
hole  and  becoming  more  and  more  isolated,  and  less  and  less  able  to 
make  a  free  system  work.  If.  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  got  the 
courage  to  begin  to  work  toward  a  free-trade  system  with  certain 
peoples  similar  to  our  own  domestic  free-trade  system,  then  in  order  to 
make  that  work  we  must  adjust  our  innnigration  policy  accordingly. 
I  think  there  is  a  very  close  relationship  there,  and  my  feeling  is — 
without  going  into  all  of  these  suggestions  that  I  have  made,  Avhicli, 
perhaps,  from  your  point  of  view  are  a  little  wild — that  if  the 
Conunission 

The  CiiATR:\rAN.  I  Avouldn't  say  that.  I  think  they  are  very  inter- 
esting, and  I  certainly  appreciate  your  bringing  them  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Commission. 

Mr.  Davenport.  But,  as  I  say,  without  going  into  them,  I  feel  most 
strongly  that  the  Commission  would  render  a  great  service  if  it  pointed 
to  that  intimate  tie  between  the  economic  policy  and  the  immigra- 
tion policy,  and  made  the  point  that  we  should  not  judge  immiu^ra- 
tion  on  either  prejudice  or  sentiment.  We  have  to  protect  ourselves, 
but  what  do  we  mean  by  protection?  What  Ave  really  mean  by  pro- 
tection it  seems  to  me,  in  these  days,  is  to  find  a  way  to  ex})and  our  free 
way  of  life — that  is  the  greatest  protection  we  could  have;  there- 
fore, let's  adapt  our  immigration  ])olicy  to  a  certain  extent  in  special 
cases  to  that  requirement.  That  is  the  gist  of  what  I  have  to  say, 
Mr.  Chaii-man. 

The  (^HAimrAN.  Is  it  that  you  do  not  consider  that  has  been  accom- 
plished in  existing  legislation? 

Mr.  Davkxport.  I  certainly  do  not.  I  don't  thiidc  the  existing  legis- 
lation— without  being  an  expert  on  it,  but  I  don't  think  one  has  to 
be— has  even  got  that  thought  in  it.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  web  of 
prejudice,  and  rather  arbitrary  conclusions — reached  sometimes  by 
compromise  or  however  they  are  reached — they  are  quite  arbitrary 
and  very  full  of  prejudice. 

I  don't  see  the  rationale  of  the  existing  legislation  except  this  one 
point :  that  we  must  protect  ourselves,  and  that  is  all  the  way  through 

2.5356—52 3 


28  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

it.  But  I  would  disagree  with  the  definitiou  of  the  word  ''protect" 
because  I  think  we  can  protect  ourselves  only  by  providing-  for  ex- 
pansion and  not  by  providing  for  contraction. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  Don't  you  think  that  we  have  the  nucleus 
of  what  you  are  talking  about  in  the  ECA  and  Mutual  Security  legis- 
lation whereby  they  set  aside  a  certain  part  of  Mutual  Security  funds 
this  year  for  precisely — for  making  a  beginning  in  doing  that,  for 
tying  it  up  with  our  program  of  stabilizing  the  economy  of  certain 
countries  ? 

Mr.  Davenport.  I  agree  completely.  I  make  that  point  in  my 
paper :  that  the  ECA  policy  was,  in  a  certain  way,  a  beginning  in  this 
direction.  The  ECA  policy,  I  feel,  aroused  the  Western  \\  orld.  It 
was  a  tremendous  thing,  it  was  a  new  idea,  and  it  indicated  that  Am- 
erica was  going  to  do  things  to  encourage  people  who  were  working 
for  freedom.  But  it  was  a  limited  policy,  and  it  had  this  particular 
disadvantage,  which  I  thinl:  this  Commission  could  Avell  speak  to: 
ECA  was  purely,  or  almost  purely,  an  economic  policy,  and  it  pro- 
ceeded by  giving  funds,  by  the  transfer  of  funds  and  credits  and  so 
forth  to  other  countries,  and  its  chief  instrument  was  the  government 
of  those  countries.  ECA  had,  therefore,  a  certain  tendency  to  en- 
trench existing  governments  and  administrations,  existing  forms  of 
government.  It  had  relatively  little  to  weaken  the  trend  toward 
socialism,  or,  let's  say,  to  use  a  less  controversial  word,  the  trend  to- 
ward governmentalism,  which  has  been  very  strong  the  last  50  years, 
especially  in  Europe  because  the  governments,  in  effect,  got  the  money 
and  handled  the  money  and  got  the  credit. 

Now,  what  I  am  saying  is  that  we  should  concern  ourselves  with 
peoples,  not  with  governments,  and  that  our  concern  is  that  the 
British  people,  or  the  French  people,  should  be  able  to  dig  themselves 
out  of  their  hole  by  their  own  energies  through  the  setting  up  of  cer- 
tain incentives  which  are  familiar  to  all  of  us  in  America — we  liave 
economic  incentives.  The  only  way  to  do  this,  that  I  can  see,  is  to 
set  up  a  free  market  system,  or  aim  in  the  direction  of  a  free  market 
system  with  those  countries,  and  that,  in  turn,  unless  there  is  going 
to  be  very  severe  economic  dislocations,  involves  a  free  economic  sys- 
tem with  those  countries.  In  other  words,  I  am  merely  proposing  a 
next  step  after  ECA. 

Mr.  RoSENFiELD.  I  woudcr  if  I  could  ask  one  question.  Just  to 
see  if  I  can  get  your  point.  Is  your  point  that  the  national  origins 
system  of  the  present  law  isn't  conducive  to  the  ultimate  preserva- 
tion of  our  capitalist  free  economy,  and  that  that  can  best  be  achieved 
by  specific  arrangements  with  specific  countries  which  do  agree  to 
that  system,  and  which  give  in  exchange  a  free  economy  based  on 
a  free  immigration? 

Mr.  Davenport.  That  is  correct,  essentially.  I  think  the  national 
origins  system — of  course,  my  proposal  doesn't  depart  from  that, 
tliere  is  still  the  principle  of  a  national  origin,  but  I  just  go  this  much 
further:  that  if,  where  you  want  to  set  u])  a  free-trade  system  with  a 
country,  a  free  system — if  you  keep  up  your  immigration  restrictions 
you  cannot  do  it,  it  won't  succeed.  Therefore,  it  follows — the  premise 
being  that  we  want  to  set  up,  we  want  to  encourage  the  development 
of  free  capitalism  in  France.  Well,  it  follows,  therefore,  that  we 
must  have  free  immigration  witli  France;  otherwise,  the  economic 
imbalances  will  remain. 


COMMISfilON    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  29 

The  Chairman.  Tliaiik  you  very  mucli,  Mr.  Davenport. 

Commissioner  Finucane.  May  I  just  ask  what  was  the  issue  of 
Fortune  vou  referred  to? 

^[r.  Davenport.  That  was  February  1051,  and,  m  my  prepared 
statement,  are  extracted  tlie  relevant  passages. 

The  Chairman.  Our  next  witness  is  Mrs.  Mildred  McAfee  Horton. 

STATEMENT  OF  MES.  MILDRED  McAFEE  HORTON,  FORMER  PRESI- 
DENT OF  V7ELLESLEY  COLLEGE  AND  MEMBER  OF  THE  GENERAL 
BOARD  OF  THE  NATIONAL  COUNCIL  OF  THE  CHURCHES  OF 
CHRIST  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  My  name  is  Mrs.  Mildred  McAfee  Horton.  I  was 
formerly  president' of  Wellesley  College  and  am  a  member  and  offi- 
cer of  the  general  board  of  the  National  Council  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ  in  the  Fnited  States  of  America.  I  am  appearing  here 
entirely  as  an  individual,  but  I  am  attaching  to  my  prepared  state- 
ment a  statement  which  was  adopted  by  the  general  board  of  the 
National  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ.  I  took  the  part  of  any 
other  men.iber  of  the  board  in  the  deliberations  on  that  statement, 
but  I  am  not  authorized  by  the  board  to  speak  on  its  behalf. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Chandler  testified  here 
this  morning^ 

Mr.  HoRTON.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  S])eaking  on  behalf  of  that  council. 

Mr.  HoRTON.  May  I,  therefore,  submit  this  statement  in  writing 
and  just  make  one  or  two  observations  instead  of  reading  it? 

The  Chairman.  I  would  appreciate  it  if  you  would  do  that. 

(The  prepared  statement  submitted  by  Mrs.  Mildred  McAfee  Hor- 
ton follows:) 

My  interest  in  immigration  problems  was  brought  into  focus  during  my  years 
as  president  of  Wellesley  College  when  we  joined  with  all  other  colleges  in 
encoura.ijing  foreign  students  to  study  in  this  country.  Since  my  resignation 
from  that  position  I  have  continued  to  be  interested  in  the  problems  of  foreign 
students,  especially  the  Chinese  young  people  of  whom  I  have  heard  in  connection 
with  the  United  Board  of  Christian  Colleges  in  China  of  which  I  am  president. 

As  an  officer  of  the  National  Council  of  Churches  and  as  a  church  woman  who 
has  known  personally  a  good  many  people  who  have  worked  with  resettlement 
of  European  refugees,  as  a  brief  visitor  to  the  refugee  camps  in  Jordan  and 
Lebanon,  I  have  ,been  interested  in  these  phases  of  immigration  policy  which 
are  concerned  with  the  entry  into  this  country  of  refugees  and  displaced  persons. 

Attached  to  this  statement  is  one  with  which  I  am  sure  you  are  already  famil- 
iar, the  statement  on  United  States  immigration  and  naturalization  policy 
adopted  by  the  general  board  of  the  National  Council  of  Churches  of  Christ 
in  the  United  States  of  America  on  March  21,  19.32.  With  its  findings  I  am  in 
agreement  and  what  I  say  this  morning  is  intended  to  underscore  its  recom- 
mendations as  I  understand  them,  though  what  I  say  is  my  personal  and  unoffi- 
cial opinion. 

THE  NATIONAL  COUNCIL  STATEMENT 

The  statement  calls  for  emergency  legislation  to  complete  the  displaced  per- 
sons program  to  wliicli  our  country  is  committed.  It  calls  for  the  kind  of  long- 
term  revision  of  immigration  laws  which  I  understand  is  being  studied  by  this 
Commission.  Indeed,  the  establishment  of  just  such  a  Connnission  was  recom- 
mended in  tins  statement  of  hist  March.  Without  going  into  details,  the  na- 
tioiuil  council  statement  suggests  that  (1)  the  Congress  should  make  the  quota 
system  more  flexible,  letting  unlilled  quotas  be  pooled  so  that  we  admit  each 
year  the  full  number  of  immigrants  permitted  by  law;    (2)   within  the  quota 


to  5 


30  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

system  all  discriminatory  provisions  based  upon  considerations  of  color,  race, 
or  sex  should  be  removed  and  (3)  the  Congress  should  establish  a  system  of 
fair  hearings  and  appeals  respecting  the  issuance  of  visas  and  deportation 
proceedings. 

I  concur  in  these  recommendations  because  it  seems  to  me  that  they  support 
an  immigration  policy  which  is  in  line  not  only  with  moral  and  religious  prin- 
ciples but  with  the  best  interests  of  the  United  States. 

Let  me  make  two  general  criticisms  of  recent  practice  or  policy. 

/.  Our  policies  (or  their  administration)  have  alienated  us  from  parts  of  the 
world  whose  good  will  is  important. 

It  looks  to  me  as  though  our  legislators  have  succumbed  to  a  fear  of  aliens 
which  has  threatened  to  neutralize  eiEforts  to  express  friendliness  in  other  ways. 
With  one  hand  we  offer  point  4  aid  and  expend  Marshall  plan  funds.  With  the 
other  we  treat  aliens  in  our  midst  as  though  we  wanted  no  contact  with  the 
people  we  purport  to  aid  or  whose  aid  we  covet!  Witness  NATO  agreements 
on  the  one  hand  and  quotas  of  5,645  Italians,  308  (Greeks,  225  Turks.  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  people  who  feel  themselves  discriminated  against  as  "unwanted," 
"undesirable  immigrants"  should  be  skeptical  about  our  efforts  to  win  their 
cooperation  in  international  affairs? 

Americans  like  to  think  of  themselves  as  great  humanitarians.  At  long  last 
we  admitted  some  395,000  displaced  persons,  victims  of  war,  but  only  when  we 
were  assured  that  nobody  would  be  inconvenienced  by  their  arrival  except  people 
who  volunteered  to  assume  responsibility  personally  for  the  strangers  in  our 
midst.  We  established  such  standards  for  entrance  as  made  us  look  less  en- 
lightened and  friendly  than  some  of  the  European  countries  whose  burdens  were 
relatively  far  greater  than  the  ones  we  assumed.  We  were  eager  to  welcome 
able-bodied  laborers  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  labor  supply.  I  wonder  if  we  have 
carried  our  fair  share  of  the  world's  handicapped. 

The  limitation  of  immigration  under  our  present  quota  system  is  based,  I 
suppose,  on  the  assumption  that  larger  numbers  of  people,  not  selected  from  the 
racial  and  national  groups  we  prefer,  would  in  some  way  work  to  our  disadvan- 
tage. I  am  afraid  that  in  the  interests  of  selfishness  we  actually  threaten  our 
well-being  by  building  up  resentments  overseas.  We  seem  to  imply  that  our 
standard  of  living  is  more  sacred  than  other  peoples'  chances  to  live.  Experi- 
ence with  the  displaced  persons  who  have  been  admitted  suggests  that  they  have 
done  nothing  to  reduce  our  standard  of  living,  but  avowedly  they  were  a  hand- 
picked  group.  Private  religious  agencies  have  helped  limited  numbers  of  unfor- 
tunate people,  economic  risks,  but  we  seem  to  have  had  a  governmental  policy 
less  sensitive  to  human  suffering  than  some  of  us  wish  we  might  have  had. 

Shortly  after  my  return  from  a  very  brief  visit  to  the  Near  East  we  had  a 
good  deal  of  newspaper  publicity  about  the  arrival  of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousandth  displaced  person  to  be  admitted  to  this  country  under  some  one  of  our 
programs.  We  agreed  to  the  establishment  of  Israel  which  involved  immigra- 
tion into  neighboring  Arab  States  of  some  875,000  refugees  and  the  immigration 
into  the  tiny  geographic  area  of  Israel  of  hundreds  of  thousands  a  year.  We 
were  naively  willing  to  contribute  to  bitter  tension  and,  indeed,  to  bloody  war 
as  far  away  as  Palestine  while  we  protected  ourselves  from  the  problems  of 
any  large-scale  immigration.  By  doing  so,  we  have  jeopardized  our  reputation 
in  the  Middle  East  and  failed  to  endear  ourselves  as  a  nation  to  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  Europeans  who  looked  for  asylum  to  America. 

//.  Too  often  we  have  treated  the  aliens  we  have  admitted  as  though  they  tcere 
guilty  of  intrusion  instead  of  being  tcelcome  additions  to  our  national  life 
I  am  told  that  some  students  who  have  applied  for  an  extension  of  their  visas 
have  had  no  reply  to  their  letters  and  then  been  arrested  for  exceeding  the  time 
permitted  by  their  visa.  Students  have  been  sent  to  Ellis  Island  and  detained 
for  several  days  before  they  could  make  contact  with  friends  whose  language 
facility  enabled  them  to  clear  up  minor  visa  irregularities.  Delays  in  getting 
answers  to  questions  which  seem  reasonable  to  American  friends  serve  to 
irritate  and  confuse  foreign  students.  One  adviser  to  a  group  of  such  students 
told  me  recently  that  several  of  them  have  dual  nationality.  She  said  that  it 
almost  seems  that  whichever  nationality  could  make  life  harder  would  be  the 
one  which  immigration  authorities  insist  upon  using.  In  immigration  affairs 
it  seems  too  often  that  there  is  a  presumption  of  guilt  instead  of  innocence. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  31 

14EQUEST  TO  THE  COMMISSION 

I  accepted  your  invitation  to  this  liearing  in  order  to  urge  the  Commission  to 
recommend  revisions  in  our  basic  immiiiration  law  whicti  would  tend  to  make 
our  iDolicy  less  exclusive,  more  cordial  to  newcomers  to  our  shores.  I  do  this 
because  in  my  opinion  policies  of  exclusion,  of  arbitrary  and  unreasoned  restric- 
tion, of  discriminatory  selection,  of  unfriendly  suspicion  are  unworthy  of  our 
American  past  and  actually  dangerous  for  our  future.  In  my  opinion  America 
has  been  acting  scared  instead  of  strong.  We  are  afraid  of  enemies  and  in  our 
fear  we  have  begun  to  treat  all  strangers  as  threats  to  our  security. 

Educators  have  long  followed  two  divergent  practices  in  the  area  of  discipline. 
Some  institutions  have  established  rules  which  unnecessarily  limited  strong 
and  independent  students  in  order  to  protect  weaker  ones  who  might  make  a 
mistake  if  they  were  not  told  the  proper  way  to  behave.  Other  institutions  have 
permitted  freedom  to  the  strong  and  tried  to  teach  the  weak  how  to  live  in  that 
freedom.  My  impression  is  that  the  Nation  has  been  moving  in  the  direction 
of  the  first  kind  of  protective  custody  in  which  at  many  points  we  have  tried 
collectively  to  safeguard  our  weak  selves  from  the  hazards  of  contact  with 
danger.  It  is  a  most  natural  tendency  in  time  of  danger,  but  I  am  of  the  school 
which  believes  that  it  does  not  develop  fundamental  strength. 

My  impression  is  that  our  immigration  and  naturalization  policies  have  been 
designed  in  rec'ent  years — indeed  ever  since  the  adoption  of  what  I  personally 
consider  our  pernicious  national  origins  quota  system — to  protect  us  from 
unwelcome  competition  and  the  difficulty  of  adjustments  to  newcomers  unlike 
our  dominant  majorities.  I  think  that  effort  is  an  affront  to  America's  funda- 
mental strength. 

Undoubtedly  there  are  some  among  us  who  are  weak  in  their  understanding 
of,  and  allegiance  to,  our  heritage  of  responsible  freedom.  Let  us  be  protected 
from  them  by  dealing  with  them  individually  when  they  show  themselves  sub- 
versive to  our  community  welfare.  Let  us  be  daring  enough,  however,  to  demon- 
strate to  the  world  that  America  is  strong  enough  to  be  herself,  a  country  so 
rich  and  fertile  and,  compared  to  most  parts  of  the  world,  so  underpopulated 
that  it  can  afford  to  be  hospitable  to  the  dispossessed  of  the  w^orld. 

I  speak  only  for  myself  but  I  truly  believe  that  I  express  the  views  of  many 
among  us — more  numerous  than  vocal — who  are  not  afraid  to  expose  our  ideas 
and,  indeed,  our  economy  to  tbe  pressure  of  immigration  of  people  without  regard 
to  race,  color,  sex,  or  indeed  national  origin.  We  think  our  ideas  and  our  type 
of  capitalistic  economy  strong  enough  to  endure  pressure  in  the  interests  of  hu- 
manity. I  think  I  speak  for  many  who  would  like  to  have  America  known  again 
all  over  the  world — and  without  regard  to  those  factors  over  which  the  individual 
has  no  control — as  a  place  which  welcomes  the  tired,  the  poor,  the  "huddled 
masses  yearning  to  l)i-eathe  free."  If,  in  welcoming  these,  we  happen  to  admit 
a  few  subversives  I  think  tbe  latter  will  be  easier  to  control  than  they  would 
be  in  a  land  which  becomes  too  fearful  of  its  own  capacity  for  freedom.  I  want 
the  Commission  to  know  that  there  are  people,  and  many  of  them,  who  are  more 
afraid  of  losing  the  friendship  of  our  friends  and  potential  friends  than  we  are 
of  the  threats  of  our  enemies.  There  are  people  (and  many  of  them)  who  be- 
lieve that  America  is  safest  when  she  generalizes  the  principles  she  accepts  for 
herself  and  takes  sei  iously  the  idea  that  "all  men  are  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  unalienable  rights"  including  "life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness." Immigration  and  naturalization  policies  which  thwart  those  rights 
for  the  rest  of  the  world  will  not  permanently  strengthen  or  safeguard  the  United 
States  of  America. 

Statement  Approved  by  Generai.  Board  of  the  National  Council  of  the 
Churches  op  Christ  in  the  U.  S.  A.,  March  21,  10ri2,  on  United  States  Im- 
MioRAiioN  and  Natitralization  Poi.icy 

The  plight  of  the  worlds  uprooted  peoples  creates  for  the  United  States, 
as  for  other  liberty-loving  nations,  a  moral  as  w^ell  as  an  economic  and  political 
problem  of  vast  proportions.  Among  these  peoples  are  those  displaced  by  war, 
and  its  aftermath  ;  the  refugees  made  homeless  by  reason  of  Nazi,  Fascist,  and 
Communist  tyranny  and  more  recently,  by  military  hostilities  in  Korea,  the 
Middle  Ea^t,  and  el.sowliere ;  the  expellees  forcibly  ej*  ted  from  the  lands  of 
their  fathers;  and  the  escapees  who  every  day  break  through  the  iron  curtain 
in  search  of  freedom.  These  persons  long  for  the  day  of  their  deliverance  and 
for  the  opportunity  to  reestablish  themselves  under  conditions  of  peace  and 
promise.     A  problem  of  equal  urgency  is  involved  In  the  surplus  populations  that 


32  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

cannot  now  be  supported  by  the  economies  of  their  respective  countries.  The 
pressure  exercised  by  these  surplus  people  is  of  a  kind  seriously  threatening  the 
stability  and  well-being  of  the  entire  world. 

The  National  Council  of  Churches  sees  in  this  situation  an  issue  that  can  l)e 
resolved  onlv  as  nations,  collectively  and  separately,  adopt  policies  dictated  by 
considerations  not  only  of  justice  and  mercy,  but  also  of  sound  mutual  assistance. 

On  the  international  level,  we  believe  the  United  States  for  moral  reasons,  as 
well  as  in  tiie  interest  of  its  own  economic  and  political  security,  should  remain 
steadfast  in  its  purpose  to  cooperate  with  other  nations  in  meeting  the  needs  of 
displaced  persons,  refugees,  and  surplus  populations.  Through  the  United  Na- 
tions, the  United  States  contributed  generously  of  its  resources  in  the  work  of 
the  International  Refugee  Organization.  Likewise,  the  United  States  is  par- 
ticipating in  the  activities  of  the  Office  of  the  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees, 
the  United  Nations  Korean  Reconstruction  Agency,  and  the  United  Nations  Re- 
lief and  Works  Agency  for  Palestine  Refugees  in  the  Near  East.  Our  country, 
through  the  United  Nations,  and  in  other  ways,  assisted  in  providing  a  haven 
in  Israel  for  many  thousands  of  Jewish  refugees.  More  recently  the  United 
States  joined  with  16  governments  in  the  creation  of  the  Provisional  Intergovern- 
mental Committee  for  the  Movement  of  Migrants  from  Europe.  The  purpose  of 
this  Committee,  in  part,  is  to  continue,  for  a  limited  period,  the  migration  activi- 
ties previously  carried  on  by  the  International  Refugee  Oi-ganization. 

The  National  Council  of  Churches  rejoices  in  the  knowledge  that  the  United 
States,  as  a  mem])er  of  the  family  of  nations,  is  a  party  to  these  humanitarian 
endeavors.  We  btJieve  our  country,  either  through  existing  agencies,  or  through 
a  single  over-all  international  body  under  the  aegis  of  the  United  Nations,  should 
continue  to  press  for  a  solution  of  the  many  problems  related  to  displaced 
persons,  refugees,  and  surplus  populations.  We  would  vigorously  oppose  any 
action  by  Congress  which  would  hinder,  in  any  way,  the  operations  of  these  inter- 
national agencies  or  which  would  diminish  the  participation  of  the  United  States 
in  them. 

On  the  national  level  it  is  desirable  that  Congress  adopt  such  emergency 
legislation  as  may  be  required  fully  to  complete  the  displaced  persons  program 
to  which  our  country  is  committed.  This  legislation  should  provide  for  the 
admission  to  the  United  States  of  (a)  those  who  were  processed  under  the  Dis- 
placed Persons  Act  but  for  whom  visas  were  not  available  on  December  31,  1951, 
(&)  an  additional  number  of  persons  of  those  groups  for  whom  a  clearly  insuffi- 
cient number  of  visas  were  provided  in  tlie  original  legislation,  and  (c)  our 
lair  share,  under  proper  safeguards,  of  those  who  have  escaped  from  behind 
the  iron  curtain  subsequent  to  January  1,  1949,  the  cut-off  date  specified  under 
the  displaced  persons  legislation.  The  additional  visas  here  recommended  should 
be  authorized  within  the  period  ending  December  31,  1952,  and  should  be  granted 
without  regard  to  sectarian  considerations. 

If  and  when  Congress  takes  action  along  the  lines  here  indicated  it  is  our 
position  that  no  further  legislation  of  an  emergency  character  be  enacted.  The 
time  is  past  for  dealing  with  these  matters  on  a  piecemeal  and  emergency  basis. 
Rather,  it  is  impci'ative  that  United  States  policy  be  now  shaped  in  accordance 
with  the  long-range  requirements  of  the  problem. 

The  National  Council  of  Churches  has  taken  note  of  the  fact  that  legislation 
is  pending  in  Congress  looking  toward  the  revision  of  our  immigration  and 
naturalization  lavv'S.  We  believe  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  legislation 
be  enacted  that  will  conform  with  oxir  democratic  tradition  and  with  our  heritage 
as  a  defender  of  human  rights.  The  adoption  by  Congress  of  enlightened  immi- 
gration and  naturalization  laws  would  add  immeasurably  to  the  moral  .stature 
of  the  United  State  and  would  hearten  those  nations  with  which  we  are  associ- 
ated in  a  common  effort  to  establish  the  conditions  of  a  just  and  durable  peace. 

We  do  not  propose  at  this  time  to  pass  judgment  on  the  specific  details  of  the 
proposed  legislation,  many  of  which  are  technical  and  legal  in  character.  We 
believe,  however,  the  views  hereinafter  set  forth  are  in  accord  VN'ith  the  convic- 
tions of  our  constituent  communions. 

One :  The  Congress  should  make  the  quota  system  more  flexible.  Under 
existing  legislation,  provision  is  made  for  the  possible  admission  to  the  United 
States,  each  year,  of  154,000  immigrants.  For  one  reason  or  another,  the  quotas 
assigned  to  many  countries  are  not  now  being  filled.  We  believe  serious  con- 
sideration should  be  given  to  the  pooling  or  adjusting  of  unused  quotas  in  order 
to  facilitate  family  reunion,  to  provide  skills  needed  in  our  country,  and  to  offer 
a.sylum  to  persecuted  victims  of  totalitarian  regimes.  While  any  permanent 
solution  of  the  problems  of  overpopulation  can  be  effected  only  by  basic  economic 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  33 

iiiiil  sociMl  ad.ju>^t incuts  witliin  the  cmiiitries  concoriicd,  it  soeiiis  clear  that 
mifiration  opportunitit^s,  however  limited,  can  be  a  helpful  factor  in  easing  the 
tensions  occasioned  by  snrplus  peojiles. 

Two:  The  Tonuress  should  complete  the  process  of  amending  immigration 
and  naturalization  laws  so  that,  within  the  quota  system,  all  discriminatory 
provisions  based  ujjon  considerations  of  color,  race,  or  sex  would  be  removed. 

Tliree :  The  Coiigres.s  should  establish  a  system  of  fair  heaiungs  and  appeals 
respecting  the  issuance  of  visas  and  deportation  proceedings.  It  is  right  and 
proper  that  Congress  shall  approve  such  precautionary  measures  as  may  be 
lequired  to  ensure  our  X;ttion  against  the  infiltration  of  individuals  hostile  to 
tlie  basic  principles  of  the  Constitution  and  institutions  of  the  United  States.  We 
believe  this  end  can  be  achieved  without  the  imposition  of  such  measures  as 
would  violate  the  American  conception  of  justice. 

We  believe  tlie  people  of  our  churches  would  welcome  the  establishment  of 
a  national  commission  to  study  with  due  regard  for  our  international  objec- 
tives, the  problem  of  population  pressures  throughout  the  world,  and  the  possible 
bearing  of  these  pressures  upon  our  immigration  policies. 

Mrs.  HoRTON,  I  think  it  only  fair  to  say  that  the  only  personal 
connection  I  have  with  this  issue  grows  out  of  a  college  where  we 
encourage  foreign  students  to  come;  my  contact  with  the  United 
Board  of  Christian  Colleges  in  China,  which  is  undertaking,  since  we 
can't  get  into  China  any  more,  to  help  Chinese  students  in  this  country ; 
a]id  my  experience  witli  churchmen  who  have  been  working  on  this 
matter  of  refugees.  Nothing  that  T  could  say  will  add  anything,  I 
am  sure,  to  what  Mr.  Chandler  said  about  tliat.  But  I  would  just 
put  it  in  these  terms:  That  my  criticism,  out  of  these  personal  ex- 
periences which  are  more  or  less  indirect,  but  very  personal — my 
criticism  of  our  present  legislation  is  that  it  has  seemed  to  me  actually 
to  alienate  our  friends  around  the  vrorld  rather  than  to  strengthen 
our  friendships,  and  tliat  we  have  almost  presumed  the  guilt  of,  for 
instance,  some  foreign  students  that  we  have  known,  instead  of  treat- 
ing them  as  welcome  visitors  to  our  shore  and  tlius  creating  better  will. 

It  has  seemed  to  me  that  it  is  time  for  groups  in  this  country  to  be 
vocal,  who  sliare  the  concern  of  all  other  groups,  for  the  protection 
of  our  countr}^,  but,  generally,  we  fear  more  the  threats  of  our  friend- 
.ship  than  we  do  the  loss  of  our  enemies.  I  would  say  that  my  position 
in  this  is  fundamentally  that  I  ho])e  this  Commission  will  consider  as 
one  of  its  very  important  strands  for  its  consideration  the  recognition 
of  the  fundamental  good  will  of  vast  numbers  of  Americans  toward 
})eople  of  foreign  origin. 

At  the  present  moment  it  looks  to  me  as  though  our  innnigration 
laws  presumed  that  we  don't  want  people  who  are  different  from  us, 
and  when  they  get  here,  and  even  in  our  mere  mechanical  details  with 
them,  make  it  terribly  complicated.  A  British  friend  came  over  to 
visit  us  this  sunnner.  She  said  that  the  number  of  forms  she  must 
fill  out,  the  detailed  letters — she  must  have  gotten  the  implication 
somehow :  "You  are  going  to  be  a  subversive  element,  and  we  are 
o:oin<r  to  catch  vou  if  we  can."  That  is  not  conducive  with  what  we 
are  concerned,  and  I  think  genuinely  and  honestly  trying  to  express 
in  other  national  policies, 

I  think  the  gist  of  what  I  really  want  to  say  is  that  there  are  a 
good  many  of  us  in  the  United  States  who  believe  that  our  strength 
is  such  that  we  would  do  better  to  gamble  a  little  on  behalf  of  possible 
hazards  to  our  own  safety  rather  than  try  to  use  the  protective  device 
of  preventing  ourselves  from  being  exposed  to  danger.  We  can  simply 
not  save  ourselves  from  exposure  to  danger  in  this  kind  of  a  world. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  educators  who  decide  that  they  will  make 


34  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

re^ilations  for  students,  which  are  good  for  strong  students,  and 
then  try  to  help  \\'eak  students  learn  to  live  within  them,  that  that  is 
a  better  device  than  that  of  the  legislator  who  legislates  for  the  weak- 
est and  expects  the  strongest  to  adjust  to  it. 

I  simply  feel  that  our  immigi'ation  laws  have  been  built  up  on 
the  assumption  that  somebody  is  going  to  try  to  do  us  dirt,  and 
that  we  must  be  protected  against  those  people  no  matter  how  many 
other  innocent  people  we  injure,  and  that  we  fundamentally  don't 
build  to  our  own  strength  by  that  process. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  I  find  the  views  you  have  expressed  espe- 
cially in  regard  to  educating  the  American  people  to  these  matters,  to 
be  very  interesting.  Have  you  any  suggestions  you  wish  to  make  along 
that  line? 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  I  think,  Monsignor,  we  are  in  a  position  at  the  present 
moment  of  psychological  panic,  as,  I  think,  we  all  know,  in  our  country. 
I  think  what  I  am  advocating  here  is  that  some  of  the  people,  and 
very  specifically  the  church  groups  who  are  concerned  about  this  from 
a  fundamentally  political  point  of  view,  granting  all  the  other  eco- 
nomic and  other  points  of  view,  but  I  think  perhaps  we  need  such 
forums  as  this  for  the  people  who  are  concerned  about  this  from  the 
point  of  view  of  humanitarian  relations  with  mankind — to  speak  out 
so  tliat  it  will  not  be  considered  dangerous  nor  hazardous  to  make  this 
kind  of  a  statement. 

Mr.  EosENFiELD.  Mrs.  Horton,  I  have  noticed  that  the  general 
board  of  the  National  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  has  taken 
a  position  on  this  matter.  All  I  have  seen  is  what  appeared  in  the 
paper,  where  point  seven  was  advocacy  of  "revised  immigration  and 
naturalization  laws  so  that  a  larger  number  vf  refugees,  regardless 
of  color,  or  creed,  or  national  origin,  can  begin  a  new  life  on  our  soil." 

I  don't  mean  to  press  you  on  a  point,  perhaps,  which  you  might 
not  wish  to  discuss,  but  was  there  any  general  assumption  in  the 
National  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  connection  with  the 
national  origin  system? 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  My  memory  is  that  the  statement  attached  here  does 
not  stress  that,  but  that  within  the  quotas  these  other  discriminations 
should  be  eliminated.  I  am  sure  some  of  us  would  like  to  go  along 
with  that  quotation,  which  I  think  is  a  little  inaccurate,  to  modify 
the  national  origin  law,  if,  for  nothing  else,  on  the  principle  that  if 
you  want  the  Turks  to  help  you  in  NATO  it  isn't  smart  strategy  to 
say :  "We  don't  like  the  Turks,  or  to  admit  more  than  225  into  the 
United  States."  I  think  that,  personally,  is  poor  human  relations  if 
you  want  to  get  people  to  work  with  you;  but  from  the  other  point 
of  view  my  personal  feeling  is  that  the  fact  that  the  whole  trend  of 
human  experience  was  such  that  very  few  Turks  came  over  here  from 
1920,  that  that  is  no  real  reason  for  saying  now  that  we  think  they 
are  undesirable  citizens. 

It  would  seem  to  me  personally  that  the  whole  assumption  that  we 
are  basing  our  numbers  on  the  percentages  of  people  here  at  a  certain 
date  in  our  human  history  is  really  just  an  awfully  backward-looking 
procedure  for  a  country  that  is  now  looking  forward  instead  of  back. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  a  new  procedure  though. 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  No,  sir,  I  realize  that,  but  you  are  considering  the  need 
for  revising  the  whole  system,  aren't  you  ? 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  35 

The  Chairman'.  We  are  makinoj  a  study  and  evaluation  of  the 
system.  But  I  am  thinking:  about  the  recent  legishitiou  that  repeated 
principles  tliat  had  been  ad()i)ted,  ^Yell,  20  or  ?>0  years  ago. 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  An  old  practice.  I  think  many  of  us  were  tremen- 
dously disappointed  that  when  a  new  codification  was  being  made 
that  we  didn't  go  really  fundamentally  into  the  question  of  what  role 
we  want  America  to  play  in  this  tremendous,  complex  world  popula- 
tion problem  where  we  have  tremendous  overpopulation  and  where 
we  have  been  willing  to  let  other  parts  of  the  world  carry  burdens 
which,  personally,  I  think,  some  of  us  think  we  should  have  helped  to 
carry. 

I  came  back  recently  from  a  trip  to  tlie  Middle  East,  for  instance. 
We  have  proudly,  as  a  nation,  macle  our  gestures  of  good  will  toward 
the  State  of  Israel,  and  let  that  little  country  carry  problems  of  im- 
}nigration  which  are  far  too  big  for  us  with  our  strerigth  to  carry,  and 
we  would  let  the  problems  created  there  affecting  refugees  into  the 
Ai'ab  States  develop  with  our  blessing  because  we  could  take  395,000 
displaced  persons,  but  it  was  just  lovely,  so  far,  far  away  where  we 
didn't  have  to  see  it,  to  let  another  country  take  a  job  which  was  in 
large  part  a  job  of  ours  too. 

It  seems  to  me  that  kind  of  maintenance  of  a  part,  pattern  of  exclu- 
sion in  our  immigration  policy,  when  we  are  not  so  strong,  is  not  build- 
ing up  the  good  will  which  I  "think  we  ought  to  build  up  in  this  world. 

The  Chairman.  If  a  change  should  be  made  in  our  immigration 
policy  as  you  suggest,  you  must  obviously  have  in  mind  the  need  to 
orient  the  American  people  to  your  way  of  tliinking,  instead  of  the 
thinking  of  those  who  have  been  responsible  for  legislation  that  has 
been  on  our  books  for  many,  many  years,  and  which,  apparently  is 
acceptable  to  very  many  people  ? 

Mi'S.  Horton.  Too  many  people. 

The  Chairman.  Because  in  this  new  codification  it  is  continued. 

Mrs.  Horton.  Mr.  Cliairman,  I  think  my  answer  would  have  to  be 
in  very  long-range  terms,  but  I  think  the  process  of  religious  and  in- 
tellectual education  is  one  which  is  a  long,  long  process,  but  one  on 
which  our  wliole  democratic  principles  are  based,  and  the  better  job 
we  do  tiirougli  our  church  and  our  school  in  building  for  friendship, 
instead  of  for  terror,  the  sooner  we  can  come  to  the  kind  of  legislation 
which  I  am  personally  advocating,  and  I  shan't  be  at  all  surprised  if 
you  can't  go  as  far  right  now  as  I  wish  you  could. 

Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  say  in  more  seriousness  this :  That  my  con- 
viction from  m}^  contacts  with  churches  across  the  country,  which  has 
taken  me  into  a  good  many  interfaith  programs  of  one  sort  or  another, 
is  that  there  are  a  good  many  more  people  in  tlie  United  States  who 
have  a  good  will  toward  the  rest  of  the  world  than  are  vocal  in  ex- 
pressing it.  I  think  it  is  our  business  to  see  that  that  point  of  view 
is  more  freely  expressed  in  the  Halls  of  Congress  as  well  as  the  point 
of  view  of  people  who  are  genuinely,  and  in  all  sincerity,  advocates  of 
this  other  policy  of  a  kind  of  self-protection,  which,  as  an  educator,  I 
simply  just  don't  think  Avill  work,  see. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  But  some  of  those  that  are  in  Congress  ap- 
parently don't  have  that  opinion  that  you  have  of  the  belief  of  their 
constituents. 

Mrs.  Horton.  Yes. 


36  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Mr.  RosEXFiELD.  If  3'oii  will  permit  me  to  pick  up  one  word  jon 
said — that  you  hoped  the  Commission  would  go  as  far  as  you  would 
like  to  go — would  you  mind  enlightening  the  Connnission  ? 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  I  would  certainly  go  to  the  point,  as  this  statement 
suggests,  of  establishing  an  over-all  nmnber  of  people,  and  then  per- 
mitting unfilled  quotas  to  be  pooled  so  that  people  from  quotas  not 
filled  will  not  create  vacancies.  In  other  words,  so  that  we  would  al- 
ways take  at  least  tlie  number  of  immigrants  that  we  would  say  we 
could  take  if  everybody  came  under  his  own  quota — I  should  like  to 
see  that  kind  of  flexibility.  I  should  like  to  see  whatever  discrimina- 
tions that  are  directed  against  Asians,  for  instance,  removed,  so  that, 
in  addition  to  having  a  quota  for  Asians,  they  are  not  treated  differ- 
ently from  other  people  coming  in ;  so  that,  as  I  understand  it,  if  a 
man  is  50  percent  Asian  he  nuist  be  counted  on  an  Asian  quota  rather 
than  lettino-  his  nationality  be  counted  as  it  ordinarilv  is.  All  those 
that  pick  out  certain  categories  and  mark  them  as  people  who  are  not 
going  to  stand  on  their  own  merit  as  individuals,  but  must  have  spe- 
cial treatment,  as  though  they  are  invidious,  somehow  I  think  should 
be  omitted  from  our  national  policy. 

Commissioner  PiCKE'rr.  I  would  like  to  know,  ]Mrs.  Horton, 
whether  you  have  given  any  attention  to  the  question  of  overpopula- 
tion, and  our  responsibility  in  regard  to  overpopulation  of  a  country 
which  is  almost  sure  to  be  in  constant  turmoil  because  of  that  fact? 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  I  gave  attention  only  to  this  extent:  that  on  one 
occasion  I  looked  up  tlie  relative  po})ulations  of  specifically  Israel 
and  the  rest  of  Palestine,  and  found  that  there  are  10  States  in  the 
United  States,  as  I  recall  it,  in  which  we  have  a  population  of  less 
than  10  per  square  mile — some  such  figure  as  that.  Now  they  are 
not  the  States  which  would  ncmally  support  a  big  pojndation,  but 
to  the  layman,  who  makes  no  pretense  at  being  a  geologist,  they  look 
just  as  good  to  me  for  cultivation  as  the  territory  in  Palestine,  which 
is  undertaking  to  solve  this  problem.  ]\Iy  personal  feeling  is  that 
the  pressures  of  populations  in  the  world  are  such  that  it  is  just  fantasy 
for  the  United  States  to  think  that  we  can  maintain  the  kind  of  enor- 
mous discrepancy  between  our  population  and  that  of  the  rest  of  the 
world  for  an  indefinite  period. 

Commissioner  Picket.  May  I  ask  another  question :  Do  vou  think 
that  the  United  States  sliould  discriminate  in  its  legislation  in  any 
sense  on  the  basis  of  color,  or  race  in  immigration? 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  My  personal  feeling  would  be  no;  that  is,  that  we  are 
too  strong  a  country  in  our  fundamental  convictions  to  make  us  have 
to  be  afraid  of  these  categories  that  nobody  can  control.  I  think, 
indeed,  Mr.  Pickett,  that  one  of  the  more  rolling  ])hrases  that  I  use  in 
this  statement,  which  I  think  I  can  remember,  is  that  I  think  there  is 
a  good  group  of  us  here  in  this  country— numerically  good  I  mean — 
a  fairly  large  group  who  think  w^e  really  ought  to  generalize  on  the 
principles  on  which  America  is  founded,  and  who  really  do  believe 
that  "all  men  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable 
rights]'  and  that  as  long  as  the  United  States  does  things  which  thwart 
the  "life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness"  of  large  groups  of 
people  within  the  world  we  ourselves  can't  be  safe  from  the  results 
of  it. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  a  lot  of  people  in  the  country  who  dis- 
agree with  you. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  37 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  I  am  quite  sure  that  is  true,  but  I  truly  do  believe  that 
this  point  of  view  which  I  am  expressing  is  shared  by  a  great  many 
people,  and  should  be  heard  in  your  deliberations. 

Commissioner  Picketi\  This  Commission,  for  instance,  might  have 
to  face  this  sort  of  a  question :  Suppose  that  we  advocated  a  policy 
Avhich  Avhen  api)lied  would  mean  that  we  would  admit  to  this  country 
half  of  the  Arab  refugees  from  the  Middle  East.  Now  would  you  be 
willing,  as  an  American  citizen,  to  have  that  happen  ?  I  mean  that  is 
the  kind  of  question  we  miglit  have  to  face. 

]Mrs.  HoRTON.  I  think,  Mr.  Pickett,  that  if  I  had  never  seen  refugees 
anywhere  I  might  be  hesitant  about  it;  having  seen  them,  and  then 
having  driven  across  this  country  from  California  to  New  Hampshire 
this  summer,  and  seeing  the  relative  expanse  of  space  and  opportunity 
that  we  have,  com]:)ared  to  t]ie  ones  in  which  they  are  living,  I  think 
I  would  now  want  to  go  along  with  as  radical  a  policy  as  that. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you. 

Mrs.  HoRTON.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  Before  our  next  witness  arrives,  perhaps  we  can 
hear  Mr.  Wladyslaw  Szul. 

STATEMENT  OF  WLADYSLAW  SZUL,  CHAIEMAN  OF  THE  POLISH 
EX-SEEVICEMEN'S  ASSOCIATION  FOR  EMIGRATION  TO  THE 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN 

Mr.  Szul.  My  name  is  Wladyslaw  Szul,  and  I  represent  the  Polish 
Ex-Servicemen's  Association  for  Emigration  to  the  United  States  of 
America,  in  Great  Britain. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  just  want  to  submit  a  statement? 

Mr.  Szui..  Yes,  I  have  a  memoranda  on  the  problem  of  Polish  vet- 
erans residing  temporarily  in  Great  Britain  who  are  anxious  to  emi- 
grate to  the  United  States. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  inserted  into  the  record. 

Mr.  SzuL.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  other  testimony  you  Avisli  to  give? 

Mr.  Szul.  I  have  put  my  reasons  in  the  memorandum.  Is  it 
enough  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  enough  unless  you  had  something  else  you 
wanted  to  say  about  it. 

Mr.  Szul.  Nothing  special. 

(The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Wladyslaw  Szul  on  behalf  of  the 
Polish  Ex-Servicemen's  Association  for  Emigration  to  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Great  Britain  follows :) 

Memorandum  on  the  Problem  of  Polish  Veterans  Residing  Temporarily  in 
Great  Britain  Who  Are  Anxious  To  Emigrate  to  the  United  States  of 
America,  61  Warwick  Road,  London,  S.  W.  5,  England 

September  25,  1952. 

The  Polish  ICx-Servicemen's  Association  for  Emigration  to  the  United  States 
of  America  in  Great  Britain  being  the  only  Polish  organization  which  represents 
the  interests  of  Polish  refugees  in  England  wishing  to  emigrate  to  the  United 
States  of  America  State  Department  certain  facts  connected  with  the  Displaced 
Persons  Act  of  1948,  as  amended.  Lodge  amendment. 

Since  1949  our  association  has  been  dealing  with  the  United  States  of  America 
immigration  problems  of  Polish  ex-servicemen  who  have  been  qualified  under  the 
Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1948,  as  amended,  and  has  been  in  touch  with  the  United 


38  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

States  of  America  Embassy  in  London  and  witli  the  United  States  of  America 
consular  officers  all  over  Great  Britain. 

The  Lodue  amendment,  which  provided  for  the  admission  of  18,000  Polish  vet- 
erans from  Gi'eat  Britain  into  the  United  States  of  America  of  Polish  ex-service- 
men has  been  received  by  them  with  gratitude. 

Unfortunately  not  all  of  them  could  benefit  from  the  provisions  of  the  Lodge 
amendment  as  many  of  them  had  not  registered  with  a  United  States  of  America 
consular  officer  prior  to  June  16,  1950. 

There  were  many  formalities  which  prevented  them  from  obtaining  a  United 
States  of  America  immigration  visa  before  December  31,  1951,  the  day  of 
expiration  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1948,  section  3  f  b) . 

First,  the  date  June  16,  1950,  being  the  time  limit  for  those  wishing  to  benefit 
from  the  provisions  of  the  Lodge  amendment,  unabled  many  of  them  to  be 
qualified  under  that  amendment  as  they  could  not  manage  to  register  for  immi- 
gration with  a  United  States  of  America  consular  officer  in  Great  Britain  up 
to  June  16.  1950. 

As  generally  known  the  Lodge  amendment  to  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of 
1948  was  finally  passed  in  1950  and  signed  by  President  Truman  on  June  16,  1!)50. 

The  instructions  and  all  the  technical  details  and  the  signing  of  the  amendment 
into  law  issued  by  the  United  States  of  America  State  Department  in  Washing- 
ton, were  not  brought  to  the  notice  of  many  Polish  veterans  residing  in  the 
remote  working  hostels  in  England  until  autumn  1950. 

Therefore  through  no  fault  of  their  own  they  failed  to  register  for  immigration 
to  the  United  States  of  America  prior  to  June  16,  1950,  as  required  by  the  law. 
Consequently  they  could  not  obtain  a  United  States  of  America  immigration 
visa  under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1948,  as  amended. 

According  to  reliable  sources  the  number  of  those  who  have  been  registered  with 
a  United  States  of  America  consular  officer  in  England  after  June  16,  1950, 
amounts  to  5,000. 

During  the  period  1950-52  a  few  thousand  families  of  the  Polish  veterans 
arrived  in  the  United  Kingdom  from  South  Africa  and  the  IVIiddle  East.  The 
majority  of  them  want  to  emigrate  to  the  United  States  of  America. 

They  possess  all  the  qualifications  required  by  the  Displaced  Persons  Act 
of  1948.  as  amended,  except  one — namely,  they  were  in  no  position  to  register 
for  immigration  before  June  16,  1950. 

In  these  circumstances  we  appeal  to  the  President's  Commission  on  Immigra- 
tion and  Naturalization  to  enable  the  remaining  few  thousand  Polisli  veterans 
in  England  who  still  wish  to  emigrate  to  the  United  States  of  America  to  bene- 
fit from  the  still  available  7,000  United  States  of  America  inmiigration  visas 
from  the  18.000  originally  designated  to  them  by  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of 
1948,  as  amended.  Among  those  registered  for  immigration  to  the  United 
States  of  America  later  than  June  16,  1950,  are  many  former  members  of  the 
Polish  Home  Army  who  at  first  were  not  conscious  of  the  fact  that  they  could 
benefit  from  the  provisions  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1948,  as  amended. 

The  Polish  veterans  in  England  who  are  disciplined  anti-Communists  and  dili- 
gent, sincerely  trust  that  the  few  thousand  visas  still  available  under  the  Dis- 
placed Persons  Act  of  1948,  as  amended,  will  be  designed  for  those  who  could 
not  manage  to  register  for  immigration  with  a  United  States  of  America  consular 
officer  in  England  prior  to  the  signing  of  the  law  by  President  Truman,  i.  e., 
June  16,  1950. 

They  truly  deserve  it. 

Adam  Adlee, 

General  Secretary. 
Wladyslaw  Szul, 
Chairman,  29^-296  Market  Street,  Perth  Aniboy,  N.  J. 

The  Chairman".  Miss  Mary  G.  Reagan  is  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  MAEY  G.  EEAGAN,  EEPRESENTING  THE 
COCA-COLA  EXPOET  COEP.  IN  NEW  YOEK 

Miss  Reagan.  My  name  is  ISIary  Reagan,  and  I  work  for  the  Coca- 
Cola  Export  Corp.  in  New  York.  We  liaA'e  a  number  of  problems  in 
immigration  and  naturalization,  and  there  are  one  or  tw^o  points  in 
the  new  act  on  which  we  would  like  to  express  an  opinion  if  we  may. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  39 

The  Chairman.  Go  ahead.  Would  you  keep  your  voice  up  because 
1  iiiiag-ine  there  are  a  number  of  people  here  who  would  like  to  hear 
what  is  being  said. 

Miss  Reagan.  INIr.  Chairman,  and  members  of  the  Commission,  we 
have  a  number  of  employees  in  our  company,  as  most  companies  en- 
gaged in  foreign  trade  have,  who  are  anxious  to  become  American 
citizens,  but  who,  because  of  their  very  specialized  training  and  educa- 
tion, and  aptitudes  are  most  useful  to  American  business  if  they  are 
assigned  abroad. 

Now  these  people  A\ho  come  to  the  United  States  with  every  intention 
of  becoming  American  citizens,  and  who  serve  American  companies 
abroad,  usually,  in  the  past  have  taken  advantage  of  section  312  of 
the  act  of  1940,  which,  as  you  know,  is  that  section  Avhich  allows  certain 
classes  of  individuals  to  be  absent  from  the  country.  Now,  as  we 
understand  the  new  act,  I  believe  it  is  section  312  which  is  the  pertinent 
section.  It  is  going  to  be  considerably  more  difiicult  for  such  people 
to  obtain  their  American  citizenship  if  they  are  employed  abroad. 
Now  we  think  that  the  Commission  might  give  some  consideration  to 
liberalizing  the  situation,  at  least  making  it  as  liberal  as  it  was  under 
the  1940  act  for  aliens  who  have  expressed  a  bona  fide  intention  to 
become  American  citizens  if  they  go  abroad,  as  most  of  them  do,  for 
indefinite  periods  in  the  service  of  American  companies.  The  2i/2-year 
actual  residence  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the  filing  of  a  petition 
will  make  quite  a  considerable  hardship  for  those  people,  and  we 
would  like  to  see  i-egulations  which  would  permit  their  being  present  in 
the  country  for  a  year,  and  then  going  abroad,  and  some  regulation  by 
which  their  intention  could  be,  you  might  say,  maintained,  even  though 
they  are  absent  and  they  could,  by  virtue  of  their  employment  with 
the  American  company,  in  the  interest  of  American  foreign  trade, 
maintain  a  sort  of  constructive  residence.  So  that  when  the  American 
company  finds  it  possible  to  bring  them  back  to  the  United  States,  they 
can  then  acquire  their  naturalization  without  having  to  spend  this 
actual  period  of  2^  years  immediately  prior  to  the  petition  for  nat- 
uralization.    We  wish  that  you  would  give  that  your  consideration. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  people  do  you  think  are  concerned  with 
that? 

Miss  Reagan.  I  understand  that  there  are  quite  a  number  of  people 
now\  In  our  company  there  are  probably  six  or  eight,  which  is  rather 
a  large  number  for  a  single  com])any,  but  I  understand  wnth  the  con- 
tinuously expanding  American  operations  abroad  that  there  are  a 
sizable  number  of  people  who  are  affected  by  this. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  "sizable  number"? 

Miss  Reagan.  You  may  have  100  American  companies  which  are 
operating  abroad,  and  each  one  of  those  has  five  men  who  wish  to 
become  American  citizens.  There  are  500  people  during  the  given 
period  who  cannot  serve  that  American  company  to  the  fullest  extent 
of  their  particular  capabilities  unless  they  come  back  to  the  United 
States  and  spend  2%  years. 

I  think  it  is  a  point  which  could  be  given  consideration  to,  because 
the  old  act,  as  I  say,  did  give  it  consideration,  and  the  new  act  it 
seems  is  tightening  up  to  the  disadvantage  and  to  the  hardship  of  men 
who  are  genuinely  devoting  their  entire  lives  really  to  the  best  interests 
of  American  business,  only  they  happen  to  be  located  abroad,  outside 
the  country. 


40  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

The  Chaieman.  Well,  they  are  aliens  who  came  in  and  lived  here 
for  a  time,  worked  here  for  a  time,  and  then  they  go  abroad  to  the 
country  where  they  can  have  most  benefit  to  the  company  in  which 
tliey  are  working,  and  then  eventually  they  want  to  come  back  and 
be  American  citizens. 

Miss  Eeagan,  Settle  here,  bring  their  children  up  here,  and  retire 
here. 

The  Chairman.  But  there  can't  be  very  many  in  that  category,  can 
there  ? 

Miss  Reagan.  I  haven't  any  idea  exactly  how  many  there  are. 

The  Chairman.  Isn't  the  only  hardship  the  fact  that  after  they 
came  back  finally  they  would  have  to  wait  a  longer  period  of  time  to 
become  American  citizens? 

Miss  Reagan.  But  many  of  them  don't  wish  to  w^ait  that  long,  they 
would  like  to  become  American  citizens  while  they  are  still  active. 
They  would  like  to  feel  that  they  have  the  rights  of  American  citizens ; 
tliat  they  have  the  privileges,  and  they  are  willing  to  accept  the  obli- 
gations of  American  citizens.  They  don't  want  to  have  to  wait  until 
the  time  comes  when  they  are  back  in  the  United  States  to  go  out  to 
pasture,  let  us  say,  they  want  to  be  American  citizens  while  they  are 
still  active  on  their  jobs. 

If  a  man  has  to  wait  and  come  back — the  men  who  are  engaged  in 
foreign  trade  in  the  way  that  our  company  and  "many  other  companies 
employ  them  in  the  field,  all  their  active  lives — our  particular  com- 
pany has  a  policy  of  bringing  men  back  for  a  furlough  every  3  years, 
but  other  than  that  they  are  abroad  15,  20,  25  years.  These  people 
who  came  to  the  United  States  because  they  wanted  to  be  American 
citizens,  and  because  they  want  to  be  Americans,  then  find  themselves 
abroad,  and,  because  they  are  working  for  American  companies  who 
find  them  most  useful  there,  they  are  on  the  short-end  of  getting  their 
naturalization. 

Mr.  RosENFTELD.  Miss  Reagan,  do  you  think  the  National  Council 
of  Foreign  Trade  might  have  some  over-all  information  how  this 
affects  the  problem  ? 

Miss  Reagan.  I  am  sure  they  might  have.  I  haven't  seen  anything 
they  put  out  on  it.  But  we  have  a  couple  of  direct  problems  and  we 
are  very  much  interested  in  this  particular  provision  of  the  act. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  suggesting  that  they  be  allowed  to  become 
American  citizens  while  still  abroad,  or  that  they  come  back  and  go 
through  some  procedure  ? 

Miss  Reagan.  No,  I  think  that  2i/^-year  residence  provision  of  the 
new  act  is  the  hardship.  I  think  that  their  bona  fide  employment  with 
an  American  company  should  be  construed  as  constructive  residence  in 
a  similar  way  to  that  which  the  employment  in  Government  service 
is  construed. 

Tlie  Chairman.  In  other  words,  to  complete  the  requirement  while 
abroad  because  they  would  be  constructively 

Miss  Reagan.  I  think  the  1-year  actual  residence  under  the  1940 
act — the  1  year  of  residence  prior  to  departure  from  the  country  is  a 
fair  rule,  and  that  that  should  be  carried  over  into  the  new  act,  and 
then  constructive  residence  thereafter  until  such  time  as  they  are  able 
to  file  their  petition.  I  would  say  that  it  would  be  fair  enough  to  have 
lliem,  say,  make  a  declaration  before  the  American  consul  periodically. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  41 

or  something  like  that,  but  the  constructive  residence  is  the  important 
thing  in  the  case  of  these  people. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  "We  will  next  hear  from 
Bishop  Homer  A.  Tomlinson. 

STATEMENT  OF  BISHOP  HOMER  A.  TOMLINSON,  GENERAL  OVER- 
SEER OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD,  REPRESENTING  ALSO  THE 
PENTECOSTAL  HOLINESS  MOVEMENT 

Bishop  Tomlinson,  I  am  Bishop  Homer  A.  Tomlinson,  general 
overseer  of  the  Church  of  God,  98-05  Two  Hundred  and  Twenty- 
fourth  Street,  Queens  Village,  N.  Y.  I  also  represent  and  speak  for  tlie 
Church  of  God,  the  Pentecostal  and  Holiness  movement,  which  has 
a  constituency  of  about  50,000,000  in  all  countries. 

May  I  just  mention  that  I  have  just  been  to  43  of  these  countries 
this  year,  and  I  felt,  sir,  that  the  solution  of  the  troubles  in  Europe 
was  the  overcrowded  conditions,  and  I  am  proposing  that  the  States  of 
the  United  States  would  individually  invite  people  from  the  various 
overcrowded  countries,  and  it  includes  inviting  60,000,000  Europeans 
to  migrate  to  the  United  States,  by  States,  by  invitation,  and  that  our 
responsibility  to  them  was  because  they  were  our  kindred  in  founding 
our  country,  and  that  the  problem  of  immigration  was  not  so  much 
that  we  would  ask  for  people  but  that  they  need  a  place  to  go. 

I  just  wish  to  submit  that  for  your  consideration,  and  the  reason 
tliat  one  Avould  raise,  and  say :  "Wliy  would  we  invite  the  people  of 
Europe  r'  it  is  because  there  ai'e  tlie  most  tensions  now,  and  it  b^in^' 
the  continent  which  brought  forth  this  country  we  felt  that  they  were 
our  kindred  in  a  special  sense,  and  the  Bible  says  that  if  we  do  not  take 
care  of  our  kindred  we  are  worse  than  infidels.  That  is  only  part  of 
our  program  on  the  immigrations  from  all  of  the  overcrowded  areas. 
I  thank  you  very  much  for  receiving  this  article.  It  is  just  a  printed 
statement  that  I  would  like  to  leave  with  you.  There  are  just  a  few 
])aragraphs. 

(The  article  written  by  Bishop  Homer  A.  Tomlinson,  which  ap- 
peared in  the  Church  of  God  publication  for  October  1952,  follows:) 

Invite  (iO,0(JO,000  Eukopeans  to  Migrate  to  the  United  States,  for  "Peace  on 
Earth" — Message  to  United  States  Congress 

By  Bishop  Homer  A.  Tomlinson,  general  overseer  of  the  Church  of  God  and 
the  Church  of  God  candidate  for  President  of  the  United  States  in  the 

election  iSovember  4. 

Washington,  D.  C,  ScptC))il)er  18,  1952. 
Ladies  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

In  much  presumptiousness  I  have  taken  occasion  to  come  to  the  National 
Capitol  here  in  Washin.ston,  D.  C,  though  in  your  absence,  and  have  laid  upon 
the  steps  of  tlie  Capitol  in  front  of  the  Senate  Chamber  the  plowshares  and 
pruninghook  which  Brother  W.  I.  Bass  and  I  liave  beaten  from  a  5-foot  broad- 
sword and  a  7-foot  spear  September  13,  in  the  symbolic  "World  Peace  Confer- 
ence" at  Childersburg,  Ala. 

I  have  a  message  for  yon  today  which  I  hope  you  will  receive  in  due  course  and 
consider  it  in  the  same  quickened  sense  of  devotion  to  the  welfare  of  the  people 
of  all  the  earth,  as  I  feel  the  Congress  has  maintained  in  all  our  generations 
to  the  people  of  our  own  country. 

Holding  it  in  your  power  to  declare  war  or  to  declare  peace,  I  beg  you  to 
declare  "Peace  on  Earth  !"  You  are  come  to  power  for  such  a  time  as  this. 
The  sceptor  of  righteousness  is  stretched  out  to  you.  You  have  only  to  touch  it, 
and  not  only  this  Nation  but  all  nations  will  be  spared  the  calamities  of  war. 


42 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


I  offer  to  you  this  day  a  way  of  peace  of  such  magnanimity  and  generosity 
as  will  assure  to  you  immortality  in  all  the  future,  and  peace  beyond  all  under- 
standing for  your  generation. 

INVITE  EUEOPEANS  TO  MOVE  HERE 

First.  I  beg  you  to  pass  a  law  giving  each  of  the  forty-eight  States  of  the 
United  States  the  privilege  of  inviting  a  total  of  60,000,000  people  from  the  over- 
crowded countries  of  Europe  to  migrate  to  America,  dwell  among  us  under  their 
own  vines  and  flg  trees,  thus  increasing  our  fruitfulness  and  wealth  by  fifty  per- 
cent in  the  next  five  years. 

The  people  of  Europe  are  our  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh.  St.  Paul  says 
that  a  man  who  does  not  take  care  of  his  own  kindred  is  worse  than  an  infidel 
(1  Tim  5:8  Margin).  The  savage  Indians  sincerely  feared  the  coming  of  our 
forefathers  lest  there  be  not  enough  for  them  and  us.  I  would  S])eak  to  you 
boldly  now.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  in  the  early  twenties  in  like  fear 
met  in  this  National  Capitol,  as  in  some  domed  tepee,  and  decided  that  immi- 
gration from  Europe  should  stop,  reaching  a  trickle  in  1929. 

DEPRESSION  AND  WAR  PROSPEEITY 

I  beg  the  ladies  and  gentlemen  of  the  Congress  to  consider  tiiat  beginning 
the  very  year,  1929,  that  we  stopped  our  kinsmen  from  coming,  this  Nation  has 
gone  into  a  tailspin  of  depressions,  and  every  prosperity  since  that  time  has  been 
war  prosperity. 

SWORDS  INTO  PLOWSHABEES 

Brother  Bass  and  I  in  Bible  symbol  have  just  beaten  a  sword  into  plowshares 
and  a  spear  into  prnninghooks.  Tliere  they  lie  at  your  feet.  O  Congress  of 
this  so  great  Nation,  you  alone  in  all  the  generations  of  men  have  it  within  your 
power  so  completely  to  bring  the  reality.  As  God  lives  I  shall  count  on  you  to  do 
it.  1  know  it  is  a  great  matter,  but  only  now  have  all  the  facilities  necessary 
been  made  available  to  mankind.    You  are  well  able  to  do  it. 

SIXTY-TWO  BILLION  DOLLARS  INTO  PLOWSHARES 

I  would  have  you  consider  immediately  and  with  all  urgency  the  turning  of  the 
present  $62  billion  defense  and  military  appropriation  scale  to  the  migration  of 
these  60,000,000  Europeans  to  this  country.  Their  production,  and  the  favor  of 
God  upon  such  utter  unselfishness  would  wipe  out  our  national  war  debt  in  ten 
years.  Such  is  utter  faith  that  the  Almighty  will  reward  a  nation  which  does 
the  generous  and  righteous  thing  as  truly  as  He  will  reward  the  individual. 
Our  actuaries  can  demonstrate  this  to  the  fullest  satisfaction  of  your  worst  tedious 
bookkeepers. 

SECOND  GREAT   MIGRATION   FROM   EUROPE 

Europeans  discovered  America,  developed  the  United  States.  One  hundred 
and  fifty  millions  of  us  now  here  came  in  the  first  migration  !  This  second  mi- 
gration can  bring  as  much  additional  wealth  in  ten  years  as  we  created  in  three 
hundred  years,  and  could  come  about  by  invitation,  by  the  guidance  and  labor 
of  individual  States,  and  could  follow  a  plan  something  like  the  following  : 

INVITE  EUROPEANS  BY  STATES 

I  tall/. — Present  population  about  50,(K)0,000,  above  400  to  the  square  mile  ;  invite 
5,000,000  of  Italians  to  nine  States,  as  follows : 


Number 


Population 

per  square 

mile 


New  popu- 
lation per 
square  mile 


Alabama 

Georgia 

Mississippi 

South  Carolina 

Florida 

Texas 

New  Mexico--- 

Arizona,-- 

California 


1.000,000 
1,000,000 
1.000,000 
500,  000 
1,000,000 
2, 000, 000 
1,  000,  000 
1,000.000 
1,500,000 


55 
53 
46 
62 
35 
24 
4 
4 
50 


72 
70 
69 
82 
51 
32 
12 
13 
60 


COMMISSION    ON     IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


43 


Great  Britain  and  North  IrcUnuL — Present  popuhitioii  about  TiO.OOO.OOO,  above 
530  to  the  square  mile;  invite  5,000,000  of  them  to  9  States  as  follows : 


North  Carolina. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia-.. 
New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

'I\'ntiessf>e 

Kentucky 

Michigan 

Missouri- 


Number 


700,  000 
700,  000 
100,000 
200,  000 
200,  000 
700,  000 
7(X),  000 
200,  000 
1,500,000 


Population 

per  square 

mile 


72 
67 
79 
54 
39 
70 
69 
92 
64 


New  popu- 
lation per 
square  mile 


86 
84 
83 
76 
60 
80 
88 
94 
76 


Germany. — Present  population  about  G6.000,0(K),  with  465  to  the  square  mile; 
invite  15,000,000  Germans  to  11  States,  as  follows  : 


Number 

Population 

per  square 

mile 

New  popu- 
lation per 
square  mile 

Wisconsin...  

1,500,000 
1,500,000 
1, 000,  000 
1,000,000 
1,500,000 
1,500,000 

1 ,  000,  000 

2,  000, 000 
2,  000, 000 
2,  000, 000 
1,000,000 

55 
35 

9 

8 
45 
21 
34 
17 

4 
10 

3 

84 

Minnesota 

53 

North  Dakota . 

23 

South  Dakota .    _  .  .  _ 

21 

Iowa - .  . 

70 

Kansas  .... 

40 

Oklahoma _ .  _  .. 

48 

Nebraska. .  . 

43 

Montana _    __ 

17 

Colorado ._    . 

30 

Wyoming ...  _ 

12 

Belgimn. — I'reseut  population  about  8,500,000,  with  TOO  to  the  square  mile; 
invite  Belgians  to  two  States,  as  follows  : 


Number 

Population 

per  square 

mile 

New  popu- 
lation per 
square  mile 

Washington _  

2,  000, 000 
1, 000,  000 

26 
6 

65 

Idaho.... 

27 

Holland. — Present  population  about  9,000,000  with  700  per  square  mile;  invite 
3,009,000  from  Holland  to  two  States,  as  follows  : 


Number 


Population 

per  square 

mile 


New  popu- 
lation per 
square  mile 


Oregon.. 
Nevada. 


2,  000, 000 
1,000,000 


10 

1 


32 
10 


The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  sir, 

Mr.  WaUer  White,  you  are  the  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  WALTER  WHITE,  SECRETAEY  OF  THE  NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION  FOR  THE  ADVANCEMENT  OF  COLORED  PEOPLE 

Mr.  White.  I  am  Walter  White,  secretary  of  the  National  Associa- 
tion for  the  Advancement  of  Colored  People,  and  I  am  here  as  the 
representative  of  that  organization.  My  address  is  20  West  Fortieth 
Street,  New  York  City. 

2.0356—52 4 


44  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  should  like  to  read. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

(There  follows  the  prepared  statement  read  by  Mr.  White :) 

It  is  nnclonbtedly  superfluous  for  me  to  begin  my  testimony  before  this  dis- 
tinguished committee  by  pointing  out  two  important  facts.  I  ask  the  indulgence 
of  the  committee,  however,  because  tliere  are  far  too  many  Americans  who 
either  do  not  Ivuow  the  facts  or  fail  to  understand  their  grave  significance  to 
the  present  and  future  security  and  welfare  of  the  United  States. 

The  first  of  these  facts  is  that  between  two-thirds  and  three-fourths  of  the 
world's  population  is  not  wliite.  Not  only  do  men  and  women  of  )ilack,  brown, 
or  yellow  skin  constitute  this  overwlielming  majority  of  the  population  of  the 
world,  but  in  the  areas  of  the  world  where  they  live  are  to  be  found  many,  if  not 
most,  of  the  raw  materials  on  which  the  highly  industrialized  civilization  of  the 
Western  World  is  dependent.  These  include  uranium,  manganese,  chrome, 
tungsten,  cobalt,  tin,  rubber,  diamonds,  bauxite,  and  molybdenum.  Should  the 
so-called  white  western  nations  be  deprived  of  these  minerals,  and  should  they 
go  into  the  hands  of  the  Soviet  Union,  it  is  most  doubtful  whether  what  we  call 
the  democracies  can  long  continue  to  survive. 

The  second  fact  which  I  wish  to  emphasize  is  that  one  of  the  contributing 
factors  to  AVorld  War  II  and  one  which  today  lowers  American  prestige  in  Asia, 
Africa,  the  Caribbean,  and  South  America  is  the  racially  discriminatory  immi- 
gration laws  of  the  United  States,  Canada,  and  Australia.  Every  nation,  of 
course,  has  the  right  to  determine  for  itself  what  its  rules  and  regulations  for 
the  admission  of  immigrants  shall  be.  But  when  a  nation  blatantly  erects  a 
color  bar  in  its  immigration  policy,  it  immediately  sows  the  dragon's  teeth  of 
resentment. 

As  a  result  of  a  determined  campaign  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century 
in  the  United  States  about  the  "yellow  peril,"  the  Congress  enacted  so-called 
oriental  exclusion  laws  which,  along  with  such  practices  as  that  of  extraterri- 
toriality in  Asia,  have  done  irreparable  harm  all  over  the  world  to  the  prestige 
of  the  tlnited  States.  Particularly  since  1921  the  indefensible  criteria  of  race, 
color,  and  national  origin  have  been  the  principal  bases  for  our  immigration 
policies.  These  criteria  were  founded  upon  doctrines  of  racial  superiority 
which  were  popular  during  the  twenties  along  with  the  revival  of  the  Kii  Klux 
Klan  after  World  War  I.  The  basic  common  sense  of  the  American  people  soon 
put  an  end,  temporarily  at  least,  to  the  Klan's  flagrant  violation  of  the  principles 
of  American  democracy.  But  this  concept  of  racial  superiority  has  continued 
to  dominate  the  thinking  of  many  Congressmen,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  1024 
immigration  law,  the  one  enacted  in  1929,  and  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  of 
1952. 

The  1924  law  excluded  Japanese  and  other  Asians  from  the  United  States. 
Japan,  like  Italy,  was  sorely  plagued  by  overpopulation  and  meager  natural 
resources.  Italy  was  permitted  to  invade  Ethiopia  and  to  engage  in  what  proved 
to  be  one  of  the  most  costly  colonial  expansion  programs  of  contemporary  history 
which  led  directly  to  World  War  II. 

The  1924  American  immigration  law,  the  "white  Australia"  policy  of  the  same 
period  and  Canada's  exclusion  policy  not  only  aggravated  Japanese  economic 
difiiculties  which  stemmed  from  overpopulation  but,  even  more  disastrously, 
cast  a  stigma  of  racial  inferiority  upon  the  Japanese  and  other  orientals.  The 
drive  of  Japan  into  Manchuria  and  later  into  the  South  Pacific  was  largely  caused 
by  her  need  to  find  an  outlet  for  a  constantly  increasingly  surplus  population. 

But  even  more  harmful  to  world  security  was  the  emotional  drive — lial  ed  of 
the  white  world- — which  dominated  not  only  Japanese  military  policy  but  the 
thinking  of  Asians  generally  who  bitterly  resented  the  gratuitous  insult  of 
exclusion  based  solely  upon  color. 

I  submit  that  the  McCarran-Walter  Act,  because  of  its  racial  implications 
against  colored  peoples  from  Asia,  the  Caribbean,  and  other  areas,  may  well 
prove  equally  harmful  to  the  United  States  not  only  in  Asia  but  in  Latin 
America.  It  is  true  that  there  has  been  some  slight  modification  of  restrictions 
against  Japanese.  But  the  basic  evil  of  the  color  bar  remains  not  only  uncor- 
rected but  in  some  regards  worse  than  it  was  before  the  McCarran-Walter  Act 
was  passed  over  President  Truman's  veto. 

It  is  my  understanding  that  the  Visa  Division  of  the  State  Department  drafted 
those  sections  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  which  cuts  to  one-tenth  or  less  the 
number  of  dark-skinned  human  beings  who  may  be  admitted  to  the  United  States. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  45 

If  it  be  true  that  the  State  Department  is  responsible  for  these  provisions,  they 
constitute  an  act  which  contradicts  all  of  tlie  protestations  by  the  State  Depart- 
ment regarding  human  dignity  and  human  freedom.  They  constitute  as  well  a 
contradiction  of  all  of  our  Nation's  support  of  a  human  rights  declaration  and 
covenant  in  the  United  Nations. 

Let  me  illustrate  this  specifically.  During  the  past  2  months  in  the  British 
West  Indies  I  have  seen  the  terrible  consequences  of  colonial  exploitation.  In 
the  island  of  Jamaica,  for  example,  white  European  nations  have  ruled  for  the 
past  290  years.  The  cream  of  the  wealth  of  Jamaica  and  other  West  Indian 
Islands  have  been  siphoned  off  through  the  colonial  system  for  the  benefit  of 
absentee  landlords  in  Europe  and,  to  a  lesser  degree,  in  tbe  United  States.  IMost 
of  the  profits  from  sugar,  rum,  coft'ee,  tobacco,  citrus  fruits,  and  other  products 
have  gone  to  the  colonial  powers  while  the  living  standards  of  the  native  popula- 
tion have  sunk  lower  and  lower.  Today  in  Jamaica  1,500,000  persons,  of  whom 
98  percent  are  of  Negro  or  Indian  blood,  are  forced,  through  no  choice  of  their 
own,  to  live  at  incredibly  substandard  levels.  Wages  averaging  50  cents  a  day 
have  continued  while  prices  have  trebled  since  World  War  II. 

Your  committee  and  the  people  of  America  may  correctly  retort  that  the 
United  States  as  a  whole  is  not  responsible  for  these  conditions  and  is  not  there- 
fore obligated  to  be  concerned  about  them.  I  venture  to  disagree  most  vigorously 
with  any  such  opinion.  If  for  no  other  reason,  the  justly  celebrated  humanl- 
tarianism  of  our  Nation  should  compel  us  to  be  concerned.  But  if  one  chooses 
not  to  be  concerned  for  reasons  of  human  decency,  there  is  another  and  very 
practical  reason  for  being  aware  of  what  is  happening  in  the  Caribbean. 

A  distinguished  authority  on  Latin  American  affairs,  who,  because  of  his 
official  position,  wishes  to  remain  anonymous,  ijut  this  in  capsule  form  recently 
when  I  sought  his  assistance  in  gathering  material  for  this  hearing : 

"The  importance  of  the  Caribbean  area  as  major  segment  of  the  Western 
Hemisphere,  and  specifically  as  the  gateway  to  the  Panama  Canal,  must  be  ob- 
vious to  all.'"  he  stated.  "We  are  learning  to  our  sorrow  in  Asia  that  the  good 
will  of  peoples  is  essential  to  the  effective  cooperation  of  their  governments.  The 
degree  of  friendliness  of  the  Caribbean  community  toward  the  United  States  is 
to  be  attributed  in  large  part  to  the  people  from  those  areas  who  have  been 
welcomed  in  the  United  States  and  have  prospered  here.  The  closing  of  the  door 
of  inimigration  is  the  one  olivious  gesture  of  hostility  toward  the  entire  area 
which  can  quickly  destroy  all  the  goodwill  that  has  been  built  up." 

I  encountered  in  the  West  Indies  this  summer  many  examples  of  anger  mixed 
with  shock  at  both  the  sharp  reducti(jn  of  immigration  from  certain  West  Indian 
islands  and  the  racial  implications  of  that  action.  Prior  to  enactment  of  the 
McCarran-Walter  Act  immigration  to  the  United  States  from  the  British  West 
Indies  was  included  in  Great  Britain's  annual  quota  of  65.000. 

For  many  years  the  United  Kingdom  has  used  only  half  or  less  than  half  of 
its  65,000  quota.  From  Jamaica  there  has  come  during  recent  years  approxi- 
mately 1,000  persons  annually.  The  McCarran-Walter  Act  reduces  that  number 
to  "not  to  exceed  100  persons  annually."  Thereby  in  one  fell  swoop  the  hope  of 
many  Jamaicans  and  others  from  British,  French,  and  Dutch  West  Indian 
possessions  of  escape  from  economic  "bondage  has  been  destroyed.  That  hope 
has  been  replaced  by  justified  resentment  that  the  exclusion  is  based  primarily 
on  skin  color. 

This  inexplicable  cruelty  is  matched  only  by  its  blindness.  Our  Nation  has 
grown  to  its  present  great  power  and  prestige  because  the  peoples  of  the  world 
have  come  to  our  shores  to  make  their  contributions  toward  the  building  of  a 
great  civilization.  Among  those  who  have  helped  to  make  our  Nation  strong 
are  not  only  agricultural  and  industrial  workers  from  the  West  Indies  but  those 
who  have  made  notable  contril)utions  to  the  arts,  sciences,  business,  and  sports. 

Under  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  the  great  Alexander  Hamilton,  born  in  Nevis, 
might  not  have  been  allowed  to  come  to  the  United  States. 

Here  are  some  other  distinguished  Americans  who  were  either  born  in  the 
West  Indies  or  are  of  West  Indian  descent : 

1.  Bert  Williams,  believed  by  many  to  be  the  greatest  of  comedians. 

2.  Claude  McKay,  famous  poet  and  novelist. 

H.  The  late  Judge  James  S.  Watson,  New  York  civil-service  conunissioner. 

4.  Prince  Hall,  founder  of  colored  ^Masonry. 

5.  Peter  Ogden,  founder  of  colored  Odd  Fellows. 

6.  John  Russwurm.  first  Negro  college  graduate  and  publisher  of  the  first 
Negro  newspaper  in  the  United  States. 

7.  Hazel  Scott,  famous  pianist. 


46  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

8.  Jan  Matzeliger,  inventor  of  the  lasting  mactiine  whicli  revolutionized  the 
shoe  industry. 

9.  Roy  Canipanella  of  the  Brooklyn  Dodgers,  considered  by  many  to  be  today's 
greatest  catclier. 

10.  Lester  B.  Granger,  executive  director,  National  Urban  League. 

11.  Ashley  Totten,  secretary-treasui-er,  Brotherhood  ot  Sleeping  Car  Porters. 

12.  Dean  Dixon,  distinguished  orchestra  conductor  and  composer. 

13.  Jersey  Joe  Walcott,  until  last  week,  world's  heavyweight  champion. 

14.  Sidney  Poitier,  famous  moving-picture  actor. 

15.  Edward  Margetson,  composer. 

16.  Bishop  C.  C.  Alleyne  of  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church. 

17.  The  late  Dr.  William  H.  Crogman,  university  president. 

18.  A.  A.  Austin,  real-estate  broker. 

19.  The  late  Canada  Lee,  actor. 

20.  Arthur  A.  Schomburg,  creater  of  the  Schoraburg  collection. 

21.  James  Weldon  Johnson  and  J.  Rosamond  Johnson,  Mr.  Johnson  having^ 
been  my  distinguished  predecessor  as  secretary  of  the  NAACP. 

22.  William  Stanley  Braithwaite,  critic  and  anthologist. 

23.  Mabel  Keaton  Staupers,  Spingarn  medallist  and  former  president  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Colored  Graduate  Nurses. 

24.  P.  H.  M.  Savory,  physician  and  coowner  of  the  New  York  Amsterdam 
News. 

These  men  and  women,  along  with  many  otliers  of  West  Indian  descent  have 
made  notable  contributions  to  the  building  of  our  Nation. 

Both  with  respect  to  a  more  just  and  sane  immigration  policy,  free  of  danger- 
ous racial  connotations,  I  recommend  strongly  to  your  committee  that  it  urge 
jnmiediate  revision  oi  our  immigration  and  naturalization  laws  to  eliminate  all 
distinctions  basod  on  race,  sex.  language,  or  religion. 

Particularly  do  I  reconnnend  that  so-called  colonial  areas  be  not  penalized 
for  having  been  the  victims  of  centuries  of  colonial  and  racial  discrimination. 
Immigration  from  colonies  and  from  trust  and  non-self-governing  territories 
should  ))e  included  in  the  quotas  of  nations  like  the  United  Kingdom.  France,. 
Belgium  and  others  which  administer  these  colonies,  trusts,  and  non-self-govern- 
ing territories. 

Until  this  is  done,  all  our  talk  about  good-neighbor  policy  is  as  sounding  brass 
and  tinkling  cymbals. 

Mr.  White.  I  should  like  also,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  your  permission, 
and  great  immodesty  not  to  read  but  to  put  into  the  record  a  syndicated 
neAvspaper  column  wliich  I  wrote  this  summer  with  respect  to  the 
McCarran-Walter  Act,  seen  from  that  vantage  point. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  published? 

]\Ir.  White.    Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Whitic.  In  various  papers,  the  Chicago  Daily  Xews  for  one,  and 
other  papers. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  be  glad  to  have  it,  Mr.  White. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  Mr.  White,  would  you  include,  I  suppose,, 
in  these  discriminations,  would  you  include  race  relations,  nationality,, 
too? 

Mr.  White.  I  don't  like  discrimination,  period:  and  I  do  not  think 
that  a  person — their  normal  safeguards  and  rules  and  regulations 
for  an  immigration  policy,  each  nation  has  the  right  to  set  up  for  itself. 
But  I  would  not  penalize  any  person  because  of  either  race  or  the  man- 
ner in  Avhich  he  Avorships  God  at  all.    I  would  not  make  that  a  criteria. 

INIr.  RosENFiELD.  Woulcl  you  say,  Mr.  White,  our  present  policy  on, 
innnigration  is  conducive  to  our  national  foreign  policy  in  the  areas 
you  have  discussed  ? 

Mr.  White.  I  think  it  has  direct  application  and  has  done  direct 
harm  as  I  have  found  on  various  trips,  particularly  during  the  past 
10  years  in  Asia,  Latin  America,  and  the  Caribbean  Pacific  areas;. 


COMMISSION'    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  47 

that  our  foreio;)i  policy  is  considered  by  a  areat  many  people  to  be  an 
affliction  of  an  unliealtliy  racial  attitude  in  the  United  States,  which 
the  Communists,  incidentally,  are  usinii;  to  develop  a  devastating  etrect 
and  which  they  are  using  to  discredit  us  in  these  very  important  areas 
of  the  world. 

Commissioner  O'Gkady.  Would  it  be  possible  to  document  the  ex- 
tent to  which  that  is  being  done  by  the  Communists  in  trying  to  dis- 
credit the  United  States  abroad? 

Mr.  White.  Yes.  It  can  be.  I  think  I  could  very  easily,  and 
would  be  very  happy  to  do  such  documentation  should  the  Commission 
wish  me  to  do  so. 

For  example,  Senator  William  Benton  of  Connecticut,  on  the  basis 
of  experiences  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  made  a  brilliant  speech 
in  the  United  States  Senate  about  2  years  ago  which  contains  a  tre- 
mendous amount  of  information,  documenting  this  whole  position. 

There  are  various  other  articles,  documents,  books,  that  are  avail- 
able. If  I  may  again  be  immodest,  when  I  came  back  from  a  trip 
around  the  world,  sponsored  by  the  Town  Meeting  of  the  Air,  I  had 
been  so  greatly  shocked  by  the  fact  that  wherever  we  went  the  first 
question  thrown  at  us  usually  was  this :  How  dare  you  Americans  call 
yourselves  a  democracy  as  long  as  lynching  and  filibusters  in  the 
United  States  Senate  and  race  riots  and  discrimination  against  colored 
people  continue  ?  And  they  knew  nothing  about  the  progress  toward 
the  elimination  of  these  evils  which  we  have  made. 

So  I  wrote  an  article,  Time  for  Progress  Report,  which  has  been 
widely  circulated  and  at  the  present  time  I  am  expanding  that  into  a 
book  which  I  hope  will  give  a  more  balanced  and  accurate  picture.  I 
am  not  saying  we  are  perfect,  but  we  are  not  as  bad  as  our  enemies  are 
picturing  us  as  being. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Woulcl  it  be  too  much  of  an  imposition  upon  you 
to  follow  up  Monsignor  O'Grady's  suggestion  and  give  us  whatever 
documentation  you  think  we  should  have  or  you  think  should  be  suit- 
able for  the  Commission's  study  ? 

Mr.  White.  I  should  be  most  happy  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  White. 

Judge  Juvenal  Marchisio  is  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  JUDGE  JUVENAL  MARCHISIO,  NATIONAL  CHAIR- 
MAN OF  THE  AMERICAN  COMMITTEE  ON  ITALIAN  MIGRATION 

Judge  Marchisio.  My  name  is  Juvenal  Marchisio,  national  chair- 
man of  the  American  Committee  on  Italian  Migration,  51  East  Fifty- 
first  Street,  New  York  City,  and  I  am  here  as  a  representative  of  that 
organization.  I  am  also  a  justice  of  the  Domestic  Relations  Court  of 
the  City  of  New  York. 

The  Chairman,  Now  Judge,  the  Commission  will  be  glad  to  hear 
anything  you  have  to  say  on  tTie  subject. 

Judge  Marchisio.  It  would  be  impossible,  of  course,  for  me  to  pro- 
ceed \yithout  pausing  a  moment  to  express  the  appreciation  of  my 
committee  for  this  opportunity  to  present  our  views  to  this  distin- 
guished panel. 

The  objectives  of  the  American  Committee  on  Italian  Migration 
are  threefold :  First,  to  obtain  emergency  legislation  to  permit  those 


48  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

people  from  those  countries  to  enter  into  this  country  within  the  needs 
of  our  national  interest ;  second,  that  onr  migration  laws  be  modified 
to  permit  the  unused  quotas  of  those  countries  that  failed  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  number  of  people  that  they  are  permitted  to  send  here 
to  be  divided  among  those  countries  that  have  surplus  population; 
and  third,  that  our  basic  migration  laws  be  changed  so  they  will  be 
more  in  conformity  with  American  principles  of  racial  equality. 

If  the  connnittee  will  permit  me,  I  should  like  to  analyze  those  three 
points.  Taking  the  first,  namely,  that  there  be  emergency  legislation 
to  permit  people  to  enter  this  country  over  and  above  the  normal 
quota  of  those  countries — and  I  shall  speak  today  of  Italy  specifi- 
cally— and  when  speaking  of  Italy  I  am  thinking  also,  and  the  same 
would  also  apply  to  Germany,  (xreece,  and  Holland. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  on  March  24,  last  year,  asked 
Congress  to  pass  such  legislation,  subsequently  implemented  in  the 
House  by  the  Celler  bill,  and  in  the  Senate  by  Senator  Hendrickson. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  President,  in  asking  Congress  to 
pass  this  legislation,  emphasized  that  apart  from  its  humanitarian 
and  charitable  motivations,  he  was  asking  for  it  in  the  national 
interest,  and  it  is  our  belief  that  the  thinking  of  the  President  when 
he  asked  Congress  to  pass  this  legislation  in  the  national  interest  of 
America,  had  well  in  mind  the  fact  that  despite  the  prevalent  and 
po]3ular  opinion,  there  is  a  definite  manpower  shortage  in  this  country. 

Speaking  of  our  own  State  here  in  New  York,  the  average  age  of 
our  farmer  is  60  years.  It  w^as  necessary  last  autumn  to  introduce 
migrant  labor  from  Latin  America  and  the  Bahamas  to  harvest  our 
crops.    I  do  not  need  to  mention  the  Southwest  and  the  situation  there. 

Our  marble  industry  today  is  stagnating  and  suffering  and  is  col- 
lapsing because  of  the  lack  of  skilled  marble  workers. 

The  garment  industry,  right  here  in  New  York  City,  we  have  schools 
that  cost  millions  of  dollars  that  teach  needlecraft.  Well,  our  grad- 
uates are  most  competent  to  do  the  work  of  mass  production  and  run 
the  machines.  There  is  still  a  shortage  of  skilled  needle  workers  that 
Italy  and  other  countries  have  and  can  supply,  also  the  other  countries 
I  have  mentioned  can  supply  them.  It  is  noted  in  the  trade  itself, 
and  the  proof  of  it  is  the  garment  union  trade. 

I  sat  down  yesterday  with  some  executives  of  the  barber's  union. 
The  unions  need  additional  men. 

The  day  before  yesterday  I  had  the  opportunity  to  sit  down  this 
time  Avitli  the  representatives  of  the  waiter's  union,  and  in  specialized 
categories  they  too  favor  migration. 

I  was  in  Detroit  last  Saturday  and  sat  down  with  Mr.  Reuther  and 
others  in  the  automobile  teamsters  unions. 

The  proof  of  all  of  this  is  that  labor  is  necessarily  jealous  of  its 
rights,  but  they  approved  this  suggestion  of  the  President.  But  the 
increase  in  our  manpower,  whether  it  be  for  our  own  national  needs, 
is  insignificant  when  compared  with  the  psychological  effect  that  the 
passage  of  such  legislation  would  have  on  those  countries  abroad  that 
are  presently  allied  with  us  in  our  common  fight  against  communism. 

It  was  with  interest  that  I  heard  the  comments  of  Mr.  White,  and 
I  should  like  to  publicly  concur  with  him,  because  Communist  ])ropa- 
ganda  in  Europe  in  the  last  recent  elections  in  Italy,  in  particular, 
were  based  ])rincii)ally  upon  the  fact  that  while  we  who  have  assumed 
the  leadership  of  the  free  world,  that  while  we  who  were  on  of  the 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  49 

protagonists  of  the  Brussels  Conference  where  our  own  Congress  made 
its  initial  contribution  of  ^10  million,  where  liT  countries  of  the  free 
workl  were  represented,  where  the  thinking  and  the  result  of  the 
Congress  was  that  the  only  perinanent  solution  for  your  known  ills 
of  European  economy  and  the  success  in  the  light  against  connnunism, 
was  the  movement  of  a  surplus  })opulation,  Congress  has  said  and 
America  says,  "you  are  good  enough,*"  they  say;  America  says  "you 
are  good  enough  to  be  allied  with  us;  you  are  good  enough  to  work 
with  us;  you  are  good  enough  to  light  with  us;  you  are  good  enough,  if 
necessary,  to  die  for  us;  but  you  are  not  good  enough  to  come  to 
America." 

And  they  point  out  that  the  first  nation — and  I  say  this  most  regret- 
fully— that  set  up  a  standard  by  which  nationality  origin  w^as  the  test 
through  and  by  which  the  contribution  of  innnigrants  might  be 
evaluated,  was  the  United  States,  that  in  1924:  passed  the  Nationality 
Act. 

There  our  Congress  in  its  wMsdom  decided  in  its  ^^isdom  that  we 
needed  from  Europe  some  ir);),0()0  people  for  cultural  reasons,  for 
scientific  reasons,  for  new  blood;  and  then  they  allocated  twenty-six 
thousand  and  some  hundred  of  this  total  count  of  so  many  thousands, 
and  gave  twenty-six  thousand  and  some  hundred  to  14  countries  of 
southern  and  eastern  Europe,  some  of  which  are  now  behind  the  iron 
curtain. 

So  we  see  Great  Britain,  which  has  an  equivalent  population  of 
Italy,  being  permitted  to  send  06,000  j^eople  a  year,  while  Italy  is 
limited  to  5,f)()()  people  a  year.  With  a  population  of  almost  48,000,000 
and  a  territory  smaller  than  the  size  of  California,  two-thirds  which 
is  nonarable,  a  country  that  has  neither  gold,  iron,  lead,  nor  cotton 
nor  oil,  or  any  of  the  necessities  of  modern  civilization. 

These  people  nnist  either  burst  at  the  seams  or  go  connnunistic. 
These  })eople  like  the  people  in  Germany  and  other  countries  to  which 
I  have  referred,  are  suffering  from  a  manpower  clot,  that  unless  it  is 
relieved  will  result  in  a  communism  trend. 

I  have  been  privileged  in  behalf  of  my  organization  to  tour  the 
West  and  South  ;  and  jMiblic  ap]>earances  where  they  are  open  for  them, 
and  I  have  been  asked  the  question  of  why  should  we  permit  Italians 
to  come  into  this  country,  we  want  no  more  gangsters.  The  oidy 
ansAver  the  records  that  are  held  in  AVashington  would  show  that 
among  our  races,  in  ])ro|)()rtion  to  the  number  in  this  country,  fewer 
Italians  have  been  convicted  of  crime  than  of  any  other  race. 

Then  the  next  question  they  ask  is,  "well,  we  would  not  be  averse  to 
it  but  it  will  lower  the  American  standard  of  living."  And  it  is 
interesting  to  note  in  respect  to  that  latter  fact  that  here  in  the  State 
of  New  York  we  have  a  foreign-born  population  of  roughly  17  per- 
cent, and  we  have  an  annual  per  cai:)ita  income  in  this  State  of  ^SG;'  per 
person  which  includes  the  newborn  child,  the  ])reschool  child,  the 
school  cliild  of  high  school  age,  the  housewife  that  is  not  employed, 
the  old.  the  sick,  and  the  rest. 

We  go  down  into  ]Mississippi  where  there  is  less  than  8  percent 
foreign-boi-n  i:)opulation  and  the  annual  i)er  capita  is  $2 15  ))er  ])erson. 

In  jNIassachusetts  the  annual  ])er  capita  income  per  ])ei'son  is  $7G5 
per  person  there,  with  a  foreign-born  population  of  1!).7  ])ei-cent. 

In  Georgia,  with  a  i)oi)ulation  of  4  percent,  they  have  an  ainnuil 
per  capita  income  of  $315. 


50  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

In  Rhode  Island,  with  the  foreign-born  population  of  19.3  percent, 
there  is  an  annual  per  capita  of  $715  per  person. 

In  Tennessee,  which  like  Georgia  is  4  percent,  the  annual  per  capita 
is  $315  per  person  income. 

Lest  you  think  I  am  comparing  just  these  States,  I  say  you  can 
take  any  State  in  the  Union.  In  Minnesota,  13.2  percent '  foreign 
population,  the  annual  income  is  $516  per  person.  In  other  words, 
1  say  our  statistics  are  certainly  not  fashioned  by  foreign-born.  It 
shows  that  in  exact  proportion  to  the  number  of  foreign-born  in  any 
State,  it  shows  the  annual  per  capita  income  of  the  inhabitants  of  that 
State  is  increased. 

That  is  in  reference  to  this  emergency  situation. 

It  would  be  good  for  us  to  have  across  the  seas  hundreds  of  millions 
of  people  who  believe  that  President  Roosevelt's  word,  addressed  to 
Italy,  when  he  said,  "We  have  pledged  the  word;  we  will  keep  the 
faith." 

It  is  my  thinking  too  that  the  strongest  argument  against  com- 
munism would  be  to  permit  all  of  these  people  the  President  asked 
to  come.  It  will  not  destroy  our  economy.  Over  350,000  refugees 
were  permitted  to  enter  uncler  the  law  of  1948  at  the  cost  of  $238 
per  person.  Never  throughout  the  States  I  have  visited  has  anyone 
said  that  one  of  these  people  has  taken  a  job  from  an  American.  When 
you  multiply  238  by  some  $300,000  and  more,  they  have  repaid  that 
to  the  United  States  two  and  a  half  times  in  income  taxes  alone. 

The  question  goes,  I  think,  even  to  a  greater  depth.  Certainly  the 
taking  of  300,000  people  b}^  us  out  of  Italy,  Germany,  Holland,  and 
Greece  will  not  settle  the  population  questions  that  plague  that 
country.  To  some  degree  it  will  alleviate  the  employment  problem 
becoming  more  prevalent  since  the  last  World  War.  But  its  im- 
])ortance  is  this;  that  we  who  have  assumed,  as  I  mentioned  before, 
the  leadership  of  the  free  world,  will  set  the  example  to  those  nations 
who  will  acknowledge  and  do  acknowledge  our  leadership,  such  as 
Australia,  Canada,  New  Zealand,  Venezuela,  Argentine.  And  it  is 
interesting  to  note  they  followed  our  example  when  Ave  passed  the 
first  restrictive  act  on  nationality  origin,  even  doAvn  there  they  fol- 
lowed suit. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  now  we  go  on  what  we  consider  the 
right  path,  that  they  too  will  follow.  Australia  has  7.800,000  and 
some  population  in  a  territory  that  is  larger  than  the  United  States, 
though  not  so  much  of  its  land  is  as  arable  as  the  United  States. 

The  Minister  of  Agriculture  stated  Australia  needed  so  many  people 
to  develop  its  potentialities,  and  what  was  more  important  at  that 
time,  for  self-clefense  purposes.  We  certainly  cannot  expect  Aus- 
tralia, an  Anglo-Saxon  state,  to  admit  some  7,800  Italians  and  change 
it  into  a  Latin  state.  But  if  we  give  this  token  manifestation  of  our 
realization  that  the  only  permanent  solution  to  world  peace  is  the 
population  settlement  issue,  I  believe  we  can  confidently  believe  that 
the  countries  enumerated  will  follow  us  and  permit  out  of  Europe  to 
come  at  least  1  million  people  a  year,  which  over  a  period  of  10  years 
will  mean  much  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  economy  of  that  country. 

In  this  regard  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  prior  to  the  First  World 
War  the  largest  contributions  to  the  budgeting  of  the  Italian  budget 
were  the  remittances  that  Italian  immigrants  sent  back  to  their 
country.     So,  while  the  INIarshall  plan  has  been  most  effective  in  pre- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  51 

venting:  tlie  spread  of  communism  in  western  Europe,  wliere  it  has 
enabled  these  people  to  live,  yet  it  is  no  permanent  solution.  It  is 
like  a  shot  of  morphine  that  a  doctor  gives  to  the  arm  of  a  sick  and 
suffering  patient.  As  long  as  it  lasts  the  patient  is  quiescent  and 
not  in  pain.  The  morphine  wears  out  and  you  have  to  give  him 
another  shot  in  the  arm,  without  curing  the  malady  or  the  disease. 

The  American  taxpayer,  as  you  know,  is  becoming  tired  of  pump- 
ing billions  of  dollars,  without  any  hope  that  this  condition  will  end. 
It  has  been  attested  by  those  who  are  competent  to  know  that  the 
movement  of  any  100,000  people  out  of  a  country  of  surplus  popula- 
tion is  equivalent  to  giving  that  country  $1  billion — I  said  a  billion, 
not  a  million — ^in  pure  relief  or  Marshall-plan  aid. 

If  we  move  300,000  people  out  of  Europe,  at  no  cost  to  ourselves, 
but  to  much  benefit  of  our  eternal  prosperity,  and  in  the  psychologi- 
cal fight  against  communism,  the  equivalent  saving  to  the  American 
taxpayer  is  $3  billion. 

If  other  people  are  moved  out  of  these  countries  into  those  countries 
that  have  the  manpower  and  the  land  and  the  need  for  expansion, 
that  will  steer  us  right  and  still  lighten  our  debt. 

It  is  well,  too,  to  remember  that  we  as  a  nation  of  155  million  people, 
combine  less  than  Russia  and  China,  not  counting  the  Soviet  satellites, 
that  number  over  TOO  millions  of  people.  Our  own  Secretary  of 
Labor  said  a  few  months  ago  unless  we  received  additional  manpower 
we  in  the  United  States,  within  a  period  of  2  years,  and  I  am  quoting, 
"would  not  be  able  to  produce  industrially  and  very  particularly 
agriculturally  sufficient  to  maintain  the  American  standard  of  life 
for  which  we  fight." 

Now  there  is  much  that  can  be  said.  I  have  mentioned  the  reallo- 
cation of  unused  quotas.  That  should  be  the  next  step  after  emer- 
gency legislation,  to  allow  these  people  to  know  we  do  not  consider 
the  origin  of  the  man  as  the  basis  of  his  value  to  America.  It  would 
be  certainly  futile  for  me  in  a  gathering  such  as  this  to  speak  about 
the  contributions  that  Americans  of  Italian  origin  have  given  to  this 
country  from  the  inception  of  its  discovery  and  from  the  name  it 
bears  throughout  history,  to  the  financial  and  other  genuises  that  it 
has  produced  right  here  in  this  own  country. 

It  is  interesting  in  our  own  city  of  New  York,  three  candidates 
for  mayor  in  the  last  election  were  all  foreign-born  Italians.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  fact  when  you  recall  that  the  percentage  of 
Americans  of  Italian  origin  in  New  York  City  is  only  19.6  percent, 
just  as  it  is  the  second  race  in  point  of  numbers  in  this  country,  and 
first  in  the  State. 

Now  one  could  go  on  indefinitely,  but  unless  we  change  our  basic 
migration  laws,  unless  we  let  the  world  know  we  practice  what  we 
preach,  we  cannot  hope  to  obtain  that  confidence,  we  cannot  hope 
to  obtain  that  help.  You  know  the  atom  bomb  has  made  the  world 
smaller  than  it  ever  was  before.  We  must  remember  and  let  the  world 
know  that  we  believe  that  God  gave  the  world  not  to  any  especially 
gifted  race,  but  that  He  gave  it  to  all  people;  and  that  we  here  in 
America  believe  that  in  addition  to  the  fourth  freedom  there  is  a 
fifth  freedom — the  freedom  to  migrate. 

Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Judge  Marciiisio.  Good-by,  and  thank  you  gentlemen. 

The  Chairman.  Is  Mrs.  Webb  here  ? 


52  COMMIvSSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION. 

STATEMENT  OF  MRS.  MUEIEL  WEBB,  REPKESEHTATIVE  OF  THE 
NATIONAL  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

Mrs.  Wecb.  I  am  Mvs.  Muriel  Webb,  proo-ram  secretary,  Depart- 
ment of  Christian  social  relations,  National  Council,  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  281  Fourth  Avenue,  ^ew  York.  I  am  here  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  that  organization. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  will  be  glad  to  hear  you. 

Mrs.  Webiv  Thank  you.  I  wish  to  read  a  prepared  statement,  but 
should  like  to  preface  it  by  reading  a  resolution  adopted  at  the  fifty- 
seventh  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
Boston  on  September  16,  1952. 

(The  resolution  follows :) 

Message  No.  96 — Fifty-sevextii  Oenekal  Convention,  Protestant  Episcopal 
Chuuch,  Boston,  Mass,  Septemcek  1G,  1952 

The  house  of  bishops  informs  the  house  of  deputies  that  it  has  adopted  the 
following  resolution : 

"Whereas,  we  a?  Chistians,  are  concerned  for  the  welfare  and  just  treatment 
of  all  the  people  of  the  world ;  and 

"Whereas,  our  present  national  immigration  policy  includes  certain  restrictive 
provisions  which  work  injustice  and  unreasonable  hardship  on  some  people, 
especially  those  in  the  Far  East :  Therefore  be  it 

"Resolved  {the  House  of  Deputies  concnrrhig),  That  we  urge  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  commission  of  (pialified  persons  by  the  President  of  the  United  States 
drawn  equally  from  public  and  private  life  (a)  to  review  our  permanent 
immigration  policy  and  its  basic  assumptions;  and  (b)  to  make  immediate 
recommendation  of  temporary  immigration  provisions ;  shaped  in  coordination 
with  the  United  Nations  and  wit^h  the  efforts  of  other  states  and  contributing 
generously  of  American  help  and  resources,  to  meet  adequately  tlie  complex 
emergency  problem  of  uprooted  and  homeless  peoples  compelled  to  live  outside 
their  own  countries." 

Attest : 

John  H.  Fitzgerald, 
Secretary  of  the  House  of  BisJiops. 

Mrs.  Webb.  I  should  novt^  like  to  read  my  prepared  statement. 
(There  follows  the  prepared  statement  read  by  INIrs.  Webb :) 

This  statement  lepresents  the  convictions  of  the  staff  menibers  of  the  National 
Council  of  the  Episcopal  Church  who  have  long  worked  in  the  field  of  immigration 
and  resettlement  and  who  have  most  recently  resettled  over  3.000  displaced 
persons,  under  the  now  expired  Displaced  Persons  Acts.  The  statement  also 
reflects  action  of  the  General  Convention  of  the  Episcopal  Church  and  the  views 
of  hundreds  of  clnirch  leaders  throughout  the  United  States  who  have  discussed 
with  us  the  problems  of  American  immigration. 

1.  The  United  States  has  a  basic  moral,  social,  and  economic  responsibility 
for  a  generous  inunigration  policy  to  help  deal  with  the  problems  of  r<^fugees 
and  over-population  in  many  sections  of  tlie  world. 

2.  A  policy  can  be  developed  which  will  help  to  deal  with  these  T'roblems  in 
a  just  and  equitable  v\-ay,  at  the  same  time  preserving  the  social  and  economic 
Avell-being  of  the  T'nited  States.  (A  report  of  our  recent  3-year  pi'Ogram  shows 
that  only  a  little  over  1  percent  of  the  displaced  persons  units  were  l)reakdowns 
or  families  who  failed  to  adjust  to  their  opportunities  in  the  United  States. 
Over  98  percent  have  already  become  contributing  members  of  American  society. 
We  append  a  copy  of  this  report,  which  will  give  you  further  facts  about  our 
experience. ) 

3.  The  only  permanently  effective  manner  in  which  to  develoi>  a  satisfactory 
immigration  program  is  through  revision  of  the  basic  immigi'ation  laws.  The 
McCarren  Act  of  19.^2  does  not  represent  an  adequate  revision.  It  is  discrimin- 
atory, geogranhically  and  ethnically;  it  is  ctunbersome  in  execution;  and  its 
regulations  regarding  denaturalization  and  deportation  are  unjust  and  difficult  to 
administer.  Our  major  effort  will  be  toward  revision  of  this  basic  law  by  the 
next  Congress. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  53 

4.  Acute  prdhU'iiis  ui"  rcfugt't's  and  uverpopiilatiou  iioct'ssitate  addiliiJiial  tem- 
porary legislation  to  admit  nuinliers  of  persons  from  these  groups.  Although 
fundamentally  opposed  to  emergency  legislation,  tlie  present  attitudes  of  the 
American  people  and  the  present  hick  of  internal  ional  machinery,  make  us  l)elieve 
that  such  legislation  is  necessary.  We  helieve  further,  however,  that  such  legis- 
lation should  be  most  carefully  protected  against  discriminatory  features  on  the 
basis  of  nationality  and  ]iersonal  freedom. 

5.  We  believe  that  emergency  h'gislation  should  give  the  major  role  in  resettle- 
ment of  migrants  to  govennnental  agencies.  We  append  here,  a  statement  which 
was  submitted  by  us  to  a  hearing  on  the  Celler  bill  (H.  It.  737(5,  1U7,2).  We  wish 
to  reiterate  point  4  of  that  statement,  expressing  our  disapproval  of  the  large 
role  in  immigration  which  the  Teller  bill  would  have  given  to  voluntary  agencies. 
These  agencies,  inchiding  our  own,  stand  ready  to  help  in  future  immigration, 
but  we  maintain  that  the  major  functions  of  selection,  transportation,  and  place- 
ment, belong  with  governmental  agencies.  I  repeat  here  our  reasons  for  that 
stand : 

A.  Sectarian  and  voluntary  programs,  as  demonstrated  under  the  Displaced 
Persons  Act,  cause  overlapping  and  duplication  on  individual  cases,  as  well  as 
hardship  to  some  groups  who  are  not  the  clear  responsibility  of  any  voluntary 
agency. 

B.  Some  voluntary  agencies  cannot  create  staff  and  funds  as  easily  as  others, 
and  thus  persons  for  whom  they  are  responsible  suffer  from  slower  action  and 
inadequate  care. 

C.  There  is  grave  question,  on  the  part  of  many  groups  of  citizens,  as  to 
whether  voluntary  agencies  should  receive  public  funds,  as  would  be  possible 
under  H.  R.  7376. 

0.  We  respectfully  connnend  to  your  Commission,  recommendations  made  by 
the  Third  Non-Governmental  Conference  on  Migration  held  at  the  United  Nations 
building  in  April  1952.  No  doubt  others  have  commended  these  recommendations 
to  you  and  they  are  well  known  by  you.  We  call  especial  attention,  however,  to 
the  recommendations  on  the  integration  of  migrants  into  the  life  of  countries  of 
resettlement.  We  also  append  a  copy  of  our  monthly  publication  which  includes 
these  recommendations.  We  l)elieve  them  worthy  of  your  consideration  because 
they  bear  on  the  methods  by  which  education  of  both  migrants  and  the  residents 
of  the  receiving  country  should  become  an  Integral  part  of  Immigration  legisla- 
tion. It  is  our  experience  that  those  fe"w  migrants  who  have  failed  to  integrate 
in  American  life,  have  done  so  because  of  lack  of  knowledge,  either  on  their  part 
or  on  the  part  of  their  sponsors.  This  educational  process  should  include  both 
preparation  on  cultural  and  economic  levels,  knowledge  of  vocational  and  social 
resources,  and  opportunity  for  recreational  and  cultural  development. 

7.  We  believe  that  all  immigration  legislation,  both  permanent  and  temporary, 
should  be  geared  as  closely  as  possible  to  existing  and  desired  international 
machinery  through  the  United  Nations  and  its  affiliate  organizations.  It  seems 
self-evident  that  no  effective  policy,  either  for  the  United  States  or  for  other 
nations,  can  be  developed  without  full  and  cooperative  use  of  such  machinery. 
This  conviction  carries  with  it  the  necessity  of  American  financial  support  of 
such  machinery. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  yoii,  INIrs.  Webb.  If  you  liave  with  you  the 
supporting  doctiments  to  wliich  it  refers,  I  would  appreciate  your  giv- 
ing tlteni  to  the  stenographer  so  that  they  can  be  incorporated  into  tlie 
record. 

]\Irs.  Wei5b.  Yes;  I  do.     I  liave  them  here. 

(There  follows  the  statement  on  the  Celler  bill,  H.  R.  7;^>Tr),  re- 
ferred to  by  Mrs.  Webb  in  her  statement  prepared  by  the  Reverend 
Canon  Almon  R.  Pepper,  D.  I).,  director,  department  of  Christian 
social  relations,  National  Council,  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and 
presented  at  the  hearing  held  by  subcommittee  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives Committee  on  the  Judiciary  on  May  23,  1952 :) 

This  statement  presents  my  personal  reasons,  and  those  of  my  organization, 
for  urging  the  rejection  of  H.  K.  737tj.  While  disapproving  the  provisions  of 
this  bill,  we  extend  our  thaidvs  and  commendation  to  Mr.  Celler,  Mr.  Walter,  and 
other  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  who  have  so  consistently  tried 
to  make  it  possible  for  refugees  to  come  to  the  United  States. 


54  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

We  presume  to  make  this  statement  because  of  many  years  of  experience  as 
the  national  agency  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  for  the  resettlement  of 
refugees  and  displaced  persons. 

1.  We  support  the  National  Council  of  Churches  of  Christ  in  America  in  their 
conviction  that  the  fundamental  and  urgent  need  is  for  permanent  revision  ot 
our  immigration  lavp.  We  hold  that  further  emergency  legislation,  such  as 
H.  R.  7376,  especially  for  a  period  as  long  as  3  years,  is  detrimental  to  sound 
national  and  international  planning.  We  believe  that  it  will  handicap  both 
governmental  and  voluntary  agencies  in  creating  effective  programs  to  solve  the 
problems  of  refugees  and  overpopulation. 

2.  We  believe  that  H.  R.  7376  would  admit  nationality  gr-oups,  both  refugees 
and  persons  from  overpopulated  countries,  in  a  discriminatory  manner.  We  be- 
lieve that  it  would  cause  hardship  to  several  groups,  such  as  Baits,  Serbs  and 
others  who  are  only  admissible  in  small  numbers  under  the  bill,  and  hardship  to 
others  v/ho  entered  Germany  prior  to  the  date  of  May  8,  1945. 

3.  We  believe  that  immigi-ation  of  persons  from  overpopulated  countries,  should 
not  be  dealt  with  in  selective  emergency  legislation,  but  rather  through  revision 
of  the  quota  system  to  create  fair,  nondiscriminatory  immigration. 

4.  We  disapprove  of  the  large  role  in  immigration  which  H.  R.  7376  would 
give  to  the  voluntary  agencies.  These  agencies,  including  our  own,  stand  ready 
to  help  in  future  immigration.  We  have  consistently  maintained,  however,  that 
governmental  agencies  should  perform  the  major  functions  of  selection,  trans- 
portation, and  placement.  Voluntary  agencies  can  assist  in  every  phase.  Our 
objections  to  voluntary  agencies  as  the  major  instruments  include: 

A.  Sectarian  and  voluntary  programs,  as  demonstrated  under  the  Displaced 
Persons  Act,  cause  overlapping  and  duplication  on  individual  cases,  as  well  as 
hardship  to  some  groups  who  are  not  the  clear  responsibility  of  any  voluntary 
agency. 

B.  Some  voluntary  agencies  cannot  create  staff  and  funds  as  easily  as  others, 
and  thus  persons  for  whom  they  are  responsible  suffer  from  slower  action  and 
inadequate  care. 

C.  There  is  grave  question,  on  the  part  of  many  groups  of  citizens,  as  to 
whether  voluntarv  agencies  should  receive  public  funds,  as  would  be  possible 
under  H.  R.  7376. 

5.  We  support  the  joint  statement  of  the  National  Council  of  Churches,  the 
Synagogue  Council,  and  the  National  Lutheran  Council,  in  calling  for  a  perma- 
nent immigration  program  which  will  have  the  support  of  all  groups  of  citizens 
within  the  United  States. 

(The  two  documents  referred  to  in  item  b  of  ]\Irs.  Webb's  state- 
ment: (1)  May  15,  1952.  Bulletin  entitled  ''Christian  Social  Rela- 
tions," of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  281  Foui'th  Avenue,  New 
York,  N.  Y.  (2)  National  Council  pam])ldet.  Operation  Good 
Samaritan — The  Resettlement  of  Displaced  Persons,  1949-52.) 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Mrs.  Webb,  may  I  address  your  attention  to  item  3 
of  your  statement.  You  say  there  your  major  effort  will  be  toward 
revision  of  this  basic  law  by  the  next  Congress.  Are  you  in  position 
to  inform  the  Commission  now  in  what  areas  you  would  hope  specifi- 
cally these  revisions  would  take  place  ?     Wliat  areas  ? 

Mrs.  Webb,  Yes.  In  the  revision  of  the  quota  system,  and  the  lib- 
eralization of  machinery  regarding  deportation  and  loss  of  citizenship. 
I  think  those  would  be  the  principal  ones, 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  What  specifically  is  your  suggestion  with  respect 
to  the  quota  system  change  ? 

Mrs.  Webb.  I  assumed  there  would  be  so  much  testimony  before 
the  Commission  on  that  fact  I  did  not  bring  too  much  material  with 
me.  However,  we  have  been  working  principally  with  orthodox 
people  in  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  because  they  become  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  many  ways.  We  have  been  con- 
cerned among  other  nationality  groups,  but  particularly  the  Baltic 
groups.     You  may  be  aware  at  the  present  moment,  for  instance,  there 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  55 

are  very,  very  small  quotas  and  they  are  mortgaged  up  to  2000  A.  D., 
and  in  some  cases  beyond  that  period. 

Mr.  IloSENFiELD.  The  Latvian  mortgage  is  to  the  year  2274. 

Mrs.  Webb.  Yes.  Those  three  Baltic  countries — Latvia,  Lithuania, 
and  Estonia — suffered  greatly,  because  of  their  own  history  of  organi- 
zation, and  because  of  the  small  numbers  of  their  people  in  our  popu- 
lation by  1920. 

Our  basic  feeling,  I  think,  more  than  individual  injustices,  however, 
is  the  same  feeling  expressed  by  those  who  have  spoken  before  me, 
this  is  unjust,  it  is  undemocratic,  and  we  should  not  be  accepting 
people  from  other  countries  on  tlie  basis  that  they  are  unequal  either 
in  ability  or  the  opportunity  which  they  should  have  to  fulfill  their 
own  qualifications. 

And  that  is  my  feeling  on  thnt. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  Have  you  any  proposals  to  suggest  as  to 
what  might  be  substituted  for  the  national  origins  quota  system  em- 
bodied in  our  present  immigration  law  ? 

Mrs.  Webb.  What  I  will  say  now  represents  the  opinions  of  our  staff 
and  is  not  as  sound  in  representing  the  opinion  of  the  church  as  wliat  I 
have  said  in  the  statement. 

Our  feeling,  I  think,  basically,  is  that  the  number  of  people  who 
should  be  accepted  on  the  quota  system  in  the  United  States  should 
be  an  over-all  quota  based  upon  the  ability  of  the  United  States  to 
absorb,  and  that  the  one-sixth  of  1  percent  has  no  scientific  foundation, 
no  accurate  foundation  as  far  as  we  know  in  research,  which  would 
show  that  is  necessarily  the  figure  which  can  be  absorbed  by  the  United 
States. 

As  the  person  before  me  pointed  out,  we  did  absorb  over  300,000 
people,  most  of  whom  were  absorbed  in  a  little  over  a  year  in  the 
United  States,  under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act.  That  would  seem 
to  i^oint  to  the  fact  that  168,000  or  any  number  cliosen  on  the  per- 
centage basis  is  not  necessarily  a  sound  rellection  of  what  we  could  do. 

The  second  point  which  I  think  I  would  like  to  make  about  any  basis 
for  our  immigration  quota  would  be  that  it  should  refiect,  if  possible, 
the  needs  of  the  sending  countries  as  well  as  the  needs  of  the  receiving 
country,  the  United  States,  if  it  were  possible  to  so  write  the  legisla- 
tion. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  Are  you  suggesting  that  our  immigra- 
tion policy  should  be  flexible  as  an  instrument  of  our  foreign  policy^ 

Mrs.  Webb.  I  think  the  flexibility  is  the  main  thing  I  am  pointing 
out. 

The  third  point  I  think  I  would  like  to  make  about  it  is  that  it  ought 
to  be  based  as  far  as  possible  upon  the  vocational  and  occupational 
picture  in  the  United  States. 

The  International  Labor  Office  testified  at  the  nongovernmental 
conference  to  which  I  referred  before,  that  it  is  their  hope  through 
the  United  Nations  to  develop  a  sound  program  of  receiving  informa- 
tion from  countries  throughout  the  world  on  their  employment  pic- 
ture, their  employment  opportunities,  and  then  transmitting  that  to 
sending  countries  so  that  some  coordinated  policy  could  be  worked 
out  on  that  basis. 

I  have  no  more  concrete  suggestions, 

Mr.   RosENFiELD.  You  said  your  second  point   was  deportation. 


56  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

What  was  your  g-eneral  })oint  on  that  upon  which  you  might  enlighten 
the  Commission. 

The  Chairman.  And  she  added  loss  of  citizenship.  I  am  particu- 
larly interested  in  that,  because  thus  far  every  witness  has  concen- 
trated on  immigration.  Nobody  has  said  anything  about  naturaliza- 
tion or  denaturalization. 

INIrs.  Webb.  Well,  the  present  McCarran  Act,  as  I  understand  it,, 
does  not  safeguard  completely  in  many  ways,  as  I  understand  it,  the 
rights  of  people  threatened  with  loss  of  citizenship,  does  not  safe- 
guard their  right  to  ])roper  trial  and  to  the  proper  testimony  to  whicli 
they  shoidd  be  entitled.  And  it  would  seem  to  me  that  any  basic 
innnigration  law  of  the  United  States  should  be  safeguarded  very 
carefully  in  everyone  of  its  details  so  that  proper  trial  and  hearing- 
can  be  ]5rovided. 

The  Chairman.  Your  criticism  is  of  the  procedure  or  lack  of  pro- 
cedures found  in  the  act  ? 

Mrs.  Webb.  That  is  right.  And  furthermore,  the  fact  that  even 
here,  sav,  of  action  which  is  considered  to  be  prejudicial  to  the  interest 
of  the  United  States  but  which  can  be  accepted  as  testimony  for  de- 
portation, without  fair  proof  of  such  fact. 

I  should  also  like  to  point  out  that  we  feel  that  we  are  not  qualified 
to  make  any  kind  of  reconnnendations  of  the  legal  steps  or  recom- 
mendations which  would  have  to  be  made  in  order  to  effect  necessary 
changes.  But  we  do  feel  convinced  that  these  are  contrary  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  American  freedom  and  justice. 

Commissioner  OXtrady.  How  would  your  organization  seek  to- 
bring  about  the  changes  you  mention  ? 

Mrs.  Webb.  When  I  said  that  our  major  emphasis  -w-ould  be  on  a 
change  in  the  basic  immigration  law,  our  major  em])hasis  is  carried 
out  largely  through  education  throughout  the  church,  and  it  would 
be  an  educational  program  which  we  would  be  conducting. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mrs.  Webb.  We  appreci- 
ate your  attendance  here.     Our  witness  will  be  Mr.  Arthur  T.  Brown-^ 

STATEMENT  OF  ARTHUR  T.  BROWN,  REPRESENTING  THE 
INTERNATIONAL  GENERAL  ELECTRIC  CO. 

Mr.  Brown.  I  am  Arthur  T.  Brown  and  I  am  appearing  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  International  General  Electric  Co.,  a  division  of  the- 
Genei-al  Electric  Co.,  which  is  engaged  in  exporting  and  selling  abroad 
in  all  countries  ]u-oducts  of  the  General  Electric  Co.  I  was  formerly 
head  of  the  law  department  of  the  International  General  Electric  Co.,. 
assistant  to  the  president  of  that  company.  I  am  now  on  a  special 
law  assignment. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  and  Miss  Reagan,  who  testified  earlier,, 
concerned  with  the  same  point? 

Mr.  Brown.  Somewhat. 

We  recommend  that  section  101  (15)  (E)  of  the  new  Innnigration 
and  Nationality  Act  be  amplified  by  adding  at  the  very  end  of  section 
101  (15)  a  new  subparagraph  (J),  as  follows: 

(J)  An  alien  and  the  spouse  and  children  of  such  alien  if  aocompanyinff  hiiU' 
or  following  to  join  him,  whose  admission  is  requested  by  a  national  or  com- 
pany of  a  foreign  state  pursuant  to  a  treaty  between  that  state  and  th.e  Unitedl 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  57 

States,  as  an  cinployc'c  of  such  national  or  company:  pi-ovidod  tliat  said  persons 
shall  be  entitled  to  l)e  admitted  and  remain  witluu  the  United  Slates,  (i)  only 
while  such  treaty  remains  in  elleet,  and  (ii)  only  so  long  as  the  employment 
by  the  forei.uni  national  or  company  niakinn-  the  re(piest  exists  and  continues, 
and  (iii)  only  so  Ion;;'  as  such  jjcrson  is  an  employee  within  a  category  specitied 
in  the  applicable  i)rovision  of  said  treaty. 

"We  also  reeoninieiul  that  section  31()  of  the  new  Tnnniiiration  and 
Nationality  Act  with  reference  to  the  benefits  available  to  a  person 
Avho  desires  to  avoid  breaking  the  continnity  of  his  or  her  residence  in 
the  V.  S.  A.  for  citizenship  pnrposes  while  abroad  in  the  employ  of 
an  American  firm  or  corporation  (or  a  subsidiary  thereof)  engaoed  in 
whole  or  in  ])art  in  the  develo})ment  of  foreign  trade  and  commerce 
of  the  United  States — be  also  made  available  to  such  person,  spouse 
and  children  who  accompany  or  follow  to  join  such  person  abroad. 

That  section  223  of  the  new  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act 
relating  to  reentry  permits  be  amended  to  provide  for  renewal  of 
reentry  permits  for  periods  totaling  at  least  3  years. 

Now  the  purpose  of  that  suggested  amendment  J  would  be  to  permit 
people  in  here  as  nonimmigrants,  skilled  technicians  and  managerial, 
to  be  defined  in  the  treaties  of  friendly  commerce  between  the  United 
States  and  foreign  countries. 

If  the  new  law  is  permitted,  and  further  trade  treaties  and  amend- 
ments to  existing  trade  treaties — ^reciprocal — managerial  staffs  will 
be  permitted  to  enter  tlie  foreign  countries  with  whose  government 
our  (Tovermnent  has  a  trade  treaty  then. 

We  have  had  difficulty  from  time  to  time  in  obtaining  permission  for 
certain  of  our  engineers  and  technicians  and  managerial  staff  iii  cer- 
tain countries,  ])articularly  in  Mexico,  and  certain  other  countries. 
I  can't  think  of  all  of  them.     That  is  No.  1,  then. 

Then  as  to  No.  2,  recently  one  of  our  engineers,  an  X-ray  specialist, 
has  left  for  the  Far  East  to  visit  some  8  or  iO  countries  in  the  Far  East, 
including  Japan,  Burma,  and  certain  other  countries;  and  his  wife 
arrived  in  this  country  and  was  lawfully  admitted  to  permanent 
residence.     They  both  applied  for  permits  and  obtained  them. 

He  also  applied  for  the  benefits  of  section  307  (B)  with  which  you 
are  familiar,  now  being  section  31G  of  the  new  law.  But  his  wife  who 
accompanied  him  on  this  trip  was  not  eligible  to  obtain  the  benefits 
of  the  present  section  307  (B),  that  is,  to  remain  abroad  for  a  rather 
indefinite  period,  without  breaking  the  continuity  for  resident  pur- 
poses. 

Now  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  wife  of  such  a  person  and  children 
who  accompany  or  follow  him  abroad,  while  he  is  engaged  by  a  com- 
pany such  as  ours  in  the  development  of  foreign  trade  and  commerce, 
should  be  made  eligible  for  those  benefits. 

We  are  suggesting  also  that  section  223  of  the  new  Innnigration 
and  Nationality  Act  relating  to  reentry  permits  be  amended  to  provide 
for  renewal  of  reentry  permits  for  periods  totaling  at  least  3  years. 

We  have  been  sending  for  many  years  engineers  and  skilled  men 
on  special  assignments,  and  they  are  in  our  employ  and  we  make  an 
arrangement  with  them  whereby  they  are  permitted  to  return  to  tiie 
United  States  after  3  years'  service  abroad. 

Well  the  new  immigration  law  provides  that  the  issuance  of  a  re- 
entry permit  valid  for  not  more  than  1  year  from  the  date  of  issiumce 
and  the  Attorney  General  may,  in  his  discretion,  extend  the  validity 


58  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

of  the  permit  for  a  period  or  periods  not  exceeding  1  year  in  the  aggre- 
gate. 

Well,  that  is  just  1  year  too  short  for  our  men  who  go  abroad  for 
the  period  of  at  least  3  years  and  return  here  to  find  that  they  have 
to  start  all  over  again,  that  their  reentry  permit  has  expired  a  year 
before  their  arrival. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Brown.    We  are  a  little  late  now. 

Mr.  Brown.  That  is  all  right.    I  appreciate  the  opportunity. 

The  Chairman.  We  appreciate  your  appearance. 

IMr.  Brown.  Thank  you  very  much.  Will  the  minutes  of  the  secre- 
tary be  available  to  anyone  later  on? 

The  Chairman.  They  probably  will  be,  later  on. 

We  are  having  them  written  up  as  we  go  along. 

We  will  reconvene  at  a  quarter  of  2. 

(Whereupon  at  12 :  45  p.  m.,  the  Commission  recessed  to  reconvene 
Tuesday,  September  30, 1952,  at  1 :  45  p.  m.) 


HEARINGS  BEFORE  THE 

PRESIDENT'S  COMMISSION  ON  IMMIGRATION 

AND  NATURALIZATION 


tuesday,  september  30,  1952 

second  session 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

The  President's  Coniinissioii  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization 
met  at  1 :  45  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  recess,  in  room  ISOf).  xVdmiralty  Court, 
Federal  Courthouse  Buiklino;,  Foley  Square,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  Hon. 
Philip  B.  Perlman  (chairman)  presiding. 

Present:  Chairman  Philip  B.  Perlman  and  the  following  Commis- 
sioners :  Mr.  Earl  G.  Harrison,  Vice  Chairman ;  Msgr.  John  O'Grady, 
Dr.  Clarence  E.  Pickett,  Mr.  Thomas  G.  Finucane. 

Also  present:  Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield,  executive  director. 

Chairman  Perlman.  The  Commission  will  come  to  order. 

Senator  Lehman,  the  Commission  is  honored  to  have  you  here  to 
make  a  statement  of  your  views  on  the  problems  which  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  Commission  by  the  President  and  are  set  out  in  the 
Executive  order  which  has  been  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

We  will  be  pleased  to  hear  any  statement  that  you  desire  to  submit 
to  the  Commission. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  HEEBERT  H.  LEHMAN,  A  SENATOR  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

Senator  Lehman.  I  am  Herbert  H.  Lehman,  junior  Senator  from 
New  York  State,  and  my  address  is  820  Park  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  th&President's  Commission  on  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalization,  I  am  very  grateful  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman 
and  to  the  members  of  the  Commission,  for  the  opportunity  of  appear- 
ing before  you  to  state  some  of  my  views  on  this  very  important  ques- 
tion and  also  to  have  the  oppoi-tunity  of  welcoming  you  to  my  home 
State  of  New  York. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  wish  to  read. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  President's  Commission  on  Im- 
migi-ation  and  Naturalization,  I  am  glad  to  greet  the  Chairman  and 
members  of  this  Connnission  and  to  welcome  you  to  my  home  State  of 
New  York. 

Mr.  Chaii-man  and  members  of  the  Pi'esident's  Commission,  this  is 
an  exciting  occassion  for  me.  I  take  a  deep  and  special  satisfaction  in 
it.  The  very  existence  of  your  Commission  is  partial  fulfillment  for 
ine — fulfillment  of  a  purpose  to  which  I  have  devoted  a  substantial 
share  of  my  energies  during  tlie  past  3  years. 

59 

25::!.56— 52 o 


60  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

I  would  like  at  this  point,  if  the  Chairman  will  permit  me,  to  intro- 
duce into  the  record  a  copy  of  the  resolution  which  I,  in  association 
with  a  number  of  other  Senators,  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  June  26 
of  this  year,  calling  for  congressional  authorization  to  establish  a 
special  bipartisan  commission  to  study  this  subject.  I  would  also 
like  to  include  a  statement  issued  at  that  time  in  explanation  of  this 
resolution. 

I  offer  these  items  for  the  record  in  order  to  indicate  some  measure 
of  legislative  intent  for  the  operations  of  your  Commission. 

In  my  judgment,  there  is  no  single  project  in  America  today  more 
important  than  that  on  which  you  are  now  engaged.  As  I  see  it,  we 
face  no  greater  imperative  in  our  national  life  than  to  reexamine  and 
rectify  the  inequities — and  the  iniquities — in  our  immigration  laws 
and  policies.  I  know  that  is  what  you  are  charged  to  inquire  into, 
and  I  do  not  presume  to  suppose  that  you  have  as  yet  arrived  at  any 
final  conclusions  regarding  it.  But  I  am  wholly  confident  of  your 
conclusions.  I  cannot  see  how  any  person,  with  an  open  mind,  with 
a  sense  of  fairness  and  justice,  without  ])rejudices,  without  bigotry, 
and  suspicion  and  fear  of  foreigners,  can  help  arriving  at  conclusions 
completely  at  variance  with  existing  law  and  practice. 

I  realize,  of  course,  that  the  time  available  for  the  Commission  to 
make  its  study  is  very  short.  Nevertheless,  I  hope  that  the  Commis- 
sion will  be  able  to  look  at  the  problem  of  immigration  and  naturaliza- 
tion in  perspective  not  only  as  a  technical  problem  of  interest  merely 
1o  aliens  and  iminigi'ants.  but  ratlier  as  one  affecting  all  of  our  citizens 
and  indeed  our  relations  to  all  of  the  free  world. 

Basic  questions  of  law,  of  justice,  and  of  civil  liberties  are  involved. 
The  very  meaning  of  the  word  "citizen"  is  at  issue.  And,  of  course, 
our  foreign  policy  is  (lee]dy  affected  and  involved. 

To  most  people,  botli  lawyers  and  laymen,  immigration  law  is  a 
complex  and  confused  mystery.  It  is  a  field  for  specialists  and  even 
the  specialists  are  frequently  lost  in  tlie  mazes  and  jungles  of  our  im- 
migration laws.  These  laws  have  grown  up  like  a  jungle.  That 
jungle  has  served  to  hide  from  the  j^ublic  view  a  set  of  concepts  which, 
I  believe,  would  shock  the  moral  sense  of  the  American  public  if  the 
people  realized  their  implications.  But  the  concepts  and  laws,  buried 
deep  in  this  legal  jungle,  have  become  surrounded  through  the  years 
by  what  we  might  call  protective  taboos.  These  taboos  have  no  basis, 
in  my  opinion,  in  reason  or  mortality.  Yet  these  taboos  have  been  com- 
l^letely  effective  in  protecting  these  laws  against  amendment  or  repeal. 

First  of  all,  of  course,  there  is  the  national  origins  quota  system. 
This  system  has  been  and  continues  to  be  a  legislative  sacred  cow.  Yet 
it  is  based  on  the  same  discredited  racial  theories  from  which  Adolf 
Hitler  developed  the  infamous  Nuremburg  laws.  This  system  is  based 
on  the  hypothesis  that  persons  of  Anglo-Saxon  birth  are  superior  to 
other  nationalities  and  therefore  better  qualified  to  be  admitted  into 
the  United  States,  and  to  become  American  citizens.  That  system 
was  frankly  created  to  cut  down  on  immigration  from  Italy  and 
Poland  and  Greece  and  the  rest  of  southern  and  eastern  Europe.  It 
is  still  so  operating  today. 

According  to  this  theory  a  man  named  Pastore  is  less  well-qualified 
to  become  a  good  American  than  a  man  named  Smith.  Under  this 
same  theory  men  of  black,  yellow,  and  brown  skin  are  legally  classi- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  61 

fied,  in  Kipling's  woi-ds,  as  'Cesser  breed"   and  less   acceptable   as 
Americans. 

I  need  not  tell  you  orentlemen  how  utterly  repugnant  such  a  theory 
is  to  every  concept  which  we  call  American.  It  is  the  complete  denial 
of  Americanism.  To  defend  ourselves  against  the  evil  implications  of 
this  concept,  we  recently  fought  a  great  war  and  expended  billions  of 
our  wealth  and  sacrificed  hundreds  of  thousands  of  American  lives, 
including  untold  numbers  whose  names  were  not  Smith,  or  Brown,  or 
Jones. 

Let  those  who  defend  the  national  origins  quota  system  be  forced  to 
read  aloud  the  names  of  the  winners  of  the  Congressional  Medal  of 
Honor,  or  to  recite  the  daily  casualty  lists  coming  out  of  Korea — and 
then  let  them  dare  to  say  that  those  of  one  national  oi-igin  are  less 
fit  to  be  Americans,  less  fit  to  live  and  die  for  America,  than  those  of 
another  national  origin. 

But  I  know  I  need  not  dwell  on  this  subject  at  any  great  length. 
I  am  sure  you  will  study  both  the  moral  justification  and  the  legal 
implications  of  the  national  origins  quota  system.  It  seems  to  me 
essential  that  this  system  be  swiftly  expunged  from  our  laws. 

As  a  very  simple  substitute,  or  as  the  starting  point  for  a  substitute, 
I  would  suggest  that  we  establish  some  numerical  total  quota  limita- 
tion such  as  350,000  or  oOO,000  annually,  geared  to  our  own  needs  and 
to  our  capacity  for  absorbing  immigrants  into  our  national  life  and 
into  our  national  economy. 

If  we  did  this,  there  would  be  no  need  for  so-called  emergency  legis- 
lation to  permit  the  admission  of  the  refugees  and  escapees  who  now 
crowd  the  cities  of  Western  Europe,  and  add  dangerously  to  the  pres- 
sure against  world  peace. 

What  I  propose  is  an  honest  and  direct  way  of  meeting  the  emer- 
gency. It  would  recognize  that  the  emergency  refugee  situation  in 
Europe  is  not  a  passing  problem  but  one  with  which  we  must  be  pre- 
pared to  cope  for  a  long,  long  period  of  time. 

And  even  more  imi)ortant,  this  kind  of  approach  would  shift  part 
of  the  emphasis  from  Europe's  need  to  our  own.  We  need  tlie  refugees 
just  as  they  need  us. 

Of  course,  we  should  establish,  within  such  a  blanket  quota  system, 
a  set  of  priorities  and  preferences. 

But  we  should  establish  preferences  based  on  individual  worth  and 
need  rather  than  on  national  pedigree.  We  should  establish  a  prefer- 
ence, for  instance,  for  relatives  of  American  citizens  and  of  aliens 
legally  resident  in  this  country.  There  should  be  another  major  pi-ef- 
erence  for  refugees  and  political  persecutees;  and  another  preference 
for  economic  hardship  cases — persons  who  are  skilled  and  qualified  for 
gainful  employment  but  who  are  surplus  to  the  manpower  needs  of 
countries  like  Italy,  Greece,  and  the  Netherlands.  We  might  also  estab- 
lish a  preference — a  certain  percentage  of  the  total  quota — for  people 
from  countries  and  areas  determined  by  our  own  National  Security 
Council  to  have  an  emergency  need  for  emigration. 

I  think  we  should  leave  a  certain  percentage  of  the  quota  o})en  for 
so-called  new  seed  immigrants,  of  whatever  nationality  or  color  or 
creed,  who  qualify  as  w^orthy  and  desirable  persons  for  admission  into 
this  country. 

I  firmly  believe  that  qualifications  for  entry  into  the  United  States 
should  be,  in  general,  on  the  basis  of  individual  aptitude  and  individual 


62  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

desirability.     Immigrants  should  be  selected  on  the  basis  of  their 
character,  their  talents,  and  their  love  of  freedom. 

We  should  tr}^  to  determine  a  reasonable  basis  for  a  numerical  limita- 
tion. It  should  be  geared  to  our  total  population  and  hence  to  our 
capacity  for  absorbing  new  immigrants.  Certainly  we  can  absorb 
1  immigrant  for  every  500  people  in  our  present  population  without 
any  danger  whatsoever  and  with  great  profit  to  ourselves. 

I  think  the  facts  will  show  that  a  reasonable  amount  of  immigration 
has  a  stimulating  effect  on  our  economy,  on  our  social  structure,  on 
our  culture,  and  on  the  whole  framework  of  our  national  life.  The  old 
concept  that  immigration  was  something  we  grudgingly  permitted 
and  a  burden  which  we  unwillingly  assumed  is  an  outmoded  and  out- 
dated one.  It  is  part  of  a  narrow  and  outdated  concej)t  of  our  econ- 
omy— namely,  that  our  economy  is  limited  in  scope  and  horizon  and 
that  the  more  people  we  admit  to  the  United  States  the  more  of  our 
wealth  we  must  share  with  others  and  the  less  each  of  us  will  have  for 
himself. 

We  have  found  instead  of  that  concept  that  a  national  economy  can 
be  dynamic  and  expanding.  Today  we  recognize  no  economic  limits 
or  horizons.  And  in  such  an  economy  regulated  immigration  is  a 
.stimulus  rather  than  a  handicap  to  our  continued  growth  and  expan- 
sion. Immigration  provides  an  invigorating  infusion  of  fresh  blood 
and  energy.    That  kind  of  immigration  is  good  for  America. 

If  we  accept  this  approach,  we  can  see  that  our  whole  emphasis  in 
the  past  has  been  wrong  and  even  vicious.  We  can  see  also  that  our 
present  governmental  immigration  machinery  is  not  only  cumbersome 
but  utterly  inadequate.  Tlie  responsibilities  of  Government  in  the 
field  of  innnigration  are  not  only  to  keep  the  wrong  people  out  but  also 
to  bring  the  right  people  in,  and,  having  brought  them  in.  Government 
must  assist  and  encourage  their  integration  into  our  national  culture, 
economy,  and  life. 

This,  of  course,  should  be  done  in  the  closest  cooperation  with  the 
voluntary  agencies  which  have  already  pioneered  so  ably  in  this  field. 
Government  should  supplement  and  not  replace  the  efforts  of  these 
agencies.  Government  should  give  official  recognition  and  encourage- 
ment to  the  efforts  of  these  agencies. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Commission,  I  have  many  other 
thoughts  on  this  subject,  but  these  are  the  central  ones — the  keys  to 
all  the  others.  I  know  you  are  going  to  try  to  unlock  every  possible 
door.  I  invite  you  to  look  into  these  which  I  have  tried  to  point  out 
this  afternoon. 

But  I  would  not  wish  to  conclude  my  testimony  today  without  list- 
ing some  of  the  grave  and.  in  my  judgment,  intolerable  provisions  of 
present  law  Avliich  must  be  remedied  as  part  of  any  program  of  immi- 
gration and  naturalization  reform.  Some  of  these  defects  are  of  veiy 
long  standing.    Others  are  of  very  recent  origin. 

I  might  list  a  few  of  these  defects : 

( 1 )  The  lack  of  a  uniform  review  procedure  for  the  decisions  of  our 
consular  officers.  In  fact,  there  is  no  legal  provision  for  any  kind  of 
review  of  consular  decisions.  Such  review  as  is  afforded  is  available 
only  for  those  who  have  the  contacts,  the  influence,  and  the  facilities 
for  obtaining  legal  or  congressional  intervention. 

(2)  The  lack  of  full  and  adequate  appeals  and  review  procedures  in 
exclusion  and  deportation  cases.    The  idea  has  gi-own  up  that  every 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  63 

alien,  until  he  becomes  a  citizen,  is  here  only  on  sufferance  and  that 
even  the  most  technical  violation  of  hwv  or  regulations  subjects  him  to 
the  threat  and  penalty  of  deportation.  I  firmly  believe  that  the  full 
protection  of  administrative  and  court  review  should  be  extended  to 
every  alien  who  lands  in  this  country,  not  perhaps  as  a  right  but  as  a 
privilege  which  a  democracy  freely  and  gladly  accords  to  all  without 
distinction. 

(o)  The  intolerable  distinctions  between  native-born  and  natural- 
ized American  citizens.  These  began  to  creep  into  our  laws  about  10 
years  ago.  Now,  under  the  McCarran-AValter  Act,  a  naturalized  citi- 
zen can  be  denaturalized  for  refusing  to  testify  before  a  congressional 
committee  or  for  belonging  to  an  organization  which  the  Attorney 
General  rules  to  be  a  Comnuniist  front.  A  native-born  citizen  can  do 
these  things  without  direct  penalty.  I  think  it  is  intolerable  that  nat- 
uralized citizens  should  be  subjected  to  a  different  set  of  laws  and 
penalties  than  natiA^e-born  citizens. 

(4)  The  application  of  the  penalty  of  deportation  on  a  retroactive 
basis.  The  McCarran-Walter  law  makes  an  alien  subject  to  deporta- 
tion for  acts  which  when  committed  or  when  the  alien  came  to  this 
country  were  not  grounds  for  either  exclusion  or  deportation. 

(5)  Sharp  discrimination  against  Negroes,  orientals,  and  other  non- 
Caucasians.  The  McCarran-Walter  law  enacts  new  discrimination 
against  Negroes  from  the  West  Indies  and  lays  down  a  new  pattern 
of  discrimination  against  orientals.  This  new  pattern,  built  around 
the  so-called  Asiatic-Pacific  triangle  concept,  while  it  breaks  down 
the  total  racial  barriers  of  previous  law,  merely  modifies  tlie  evil  and 
does  not  eliminate  it.  We  cannot  claim  much  credit  for  being  par- 
tially pure :  Discrimination  is  a  pervasive  evil. 

These,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  just  a  few  of  the  evils  in  present  law.  I 
could  recite  many  more.  You  gentlemen  will  perhaps  find  many  more 
than  even  I  could  recite. 

I  trust,  however,  that  you  are  interested  not  only  in  finding  out  what 
is  wrong,  biit  in  recommending  what  is  right. 

I  hope  that  in  the  course  of  my  remarks,  that  I  have  indicated  not 
only  some  of  the  things  that  are  wrong  with  our  immigration  and 
naturalization  structure  but  some  of  the  constructive  measures  whicli 
could  and  should  be  taken. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Commission,  I  look  forward  to 
the  completion  of  your  labors  and  the  issuance  of  your  report.  I  know 
that  I  will  be  enlightened  by  what  you  find  and  what  you  reconunend. 
I  know  I  will  be  deeply  impressed. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  of  appearing  before 
you  today  and  I  bid  you  Godspeed  in  your  very  important  work. 

I  also  wish  to  submit  for  the  record  a  copy  of  an  extension  of  my 
remarks  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  which  appeared  in  the 
Congressional  Record  for  Friday,  July  4,  1952. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  statement  follows:) 

Extension  of  Reafarks  of  Hon.  Herbert  H.  Lehman,  of  New  York,  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  Friday,  July  4,  1952 

The  McCarran-Walter  immigration  bill  has  become  law  despite  a  Presidential 
veto  ami  despite  the  ojiposition  of  a  great  many  of  us  here  in  the  Senate  and 
of  a  great  host  of  individuals  and  organizations  in  the  Nation  at  large.     The 


64  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

McCarran-Walter  immigration  bill,  with  all  its  harsh  and  inequitable  provisions, 
is  now  the  law  of  the  land. 

Therefore,  it  seems  more  important  than  ever,  in  my  judgment,  that  we  have 
at  the  earliest  possible  time  a  broad  and  impartial  review  of  our  immigration 
and  naturalization  policies.  Such  a  review  iiinst  critically  and  impartially  re- 
examine all  the  fundamental  assumptions  of  our  present  policies.  It  must 
reexainine  the  McCarran-Walter  Act.  It  must  look  into  the  future  and  into  the 
past  and  relate  our  immigration  policies  to  our  economic  policies  and  to  our  foreign 
policies. 

There  must  be  a  study  of  the  relationship  between  our  immigration  and  nat- 
uralization laws  and  our  other  laws  guaranteeing  certain  basic  righ/ts  to  the 
people  of  this  country.  The  question  of  immigration  must  be  related  to  the 
question  of  our  population,  of  the  manpower  needs  of  our  expanding  economy, 
and  the  impact  of  immigration  upon  our  labor  force  and  upon  employment  in 
general. 

This  study  must  further  include  consideration  of  the  legal  status  of  naturalized 
citizens.  It  must  deal  with  the  distinctions  established  by  recent  law  between 
naturalized  and  native-born  citizens. 

The  study  must  include  a  basic  review  of  the  relationship  between  immigration 
and  national  security. 

The  study  must  dwell  on  the  nature  and  operations  of  the  Government  ma- 
chinery now  in  existence  to  handle  immigrants  and  immigration  problems.  We 
must  ascertain  whether  there  is  not  exclusive  emphasis  on  keeping  aliens  out 
and  on  deporting  those  already  in,  and  insufficient  emphasis  of  facilitating  the 
admission  of  qualified  aliens  and  assisting  them  to  become  useful  inhabitants  and 
good  citizens  of  America. 

This  study  must  deal  with  the  status  of  aliens  resident  in  this  country,  their 
integration  into  the  national  life  and  their  adaptation  to  the  culture  and  spirit 
of  America.  We  must  study  not  only  the  admission  of  aliens  into  the  United 
States  but  the  resettlement  of  aliens  in  the  United  States. 

We  must  review  the  powers  that  have  been  given  to  consular  officers  and  to 
immigration  officials,  to  ascertain  whether  these  powers  are  sufficiently  guarded 
against  abuse,  against  arbitrary  decision,  and  against  bureaucratic  shortsighted- 
ness. 

We  must  carefully  reexamine  our  quota  system,  the  so-called  national  origins 
quota  system,  with  all  its  built-in  prejudice  against  the  peoples  of  southern  and 
eastern  Europe  and  its  unwarranted  preference  for  immigrants  from  northern 
and  western  Europe. 

We  must  reexamine  all  the  racial  bias  inherent  in  our  immigration  laws,  the 
bias  against  orientals,  and  the  intolerable  discrimination  against  Negroes. 

ORGANIZATIONS  ARE  CONCERNED 

The  question  of  innnigration  is  a  profoundly  controversial  one.  Many  great 
religious  and  nonreligious  organizations  are  deeply  concerned  over  the  national, 
religious,  and  racial  prejudices  reflected  in  the  McCarran-Walter  Act.  They  are 
greatly  distressed  at  the  reaffirmation  of  the  iniquitous  national  origins  quota 
system.  I  share  this  concern.  I  believe  that  the  national  origins  system  is  wicked 
in  implication  and  completely  outdated  in  operation.  It  reflects  a  shameful 
discrimination  and  prejudice  which  should  have  no  place  in  our  Federal  lav^-s  or 
in  our  national  life. 

All  these  factors  have  entered,  in  one  way  or  another,  into  the  formulation  of 
our  immigration  policies.  But  these  factors  have  been  injected  not  in  the  form  of 
facts  but  in  form  of  prejudices,  in  the  form  of  unsupported  assertions  and  api^eals 
to  fear  and  passion.  The  time  has  come  for  the  American  people  to  be  given  the 
real  facts,  based  on  a  thorough-going  study  of  this  entire  problem. 

MODELED   AFTER   HOOVER   COMMISSION 

Such  a  study  must  obviously  be  an  impartial  one.  It  must  be  carried  out  by 
individuals  without  partisan  bias  and  without  national  or  racial  prejudice.  The 
best  model  I  know  is  that  of  the  Hoover  Commission  with  its  mixed  membership 
representing  the  general  public,  the  executive  branch,  and  the  legislative  branch. 
I  feel  that  a  study  of  immigration  policy  and  of  naturalization  policy  should  be 
carried  on,  if  possible,  under  similar  auspices,  by  a  commission  repre.senting 
the  same  broad  cross  sections  of  the  Nation  as  the  Hoover  Commission  did. 

To  this  end  I  recently  introduced  a  joint  resolution  proposing  authorization  by 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  65 

Coiisross  of  Pitch  a  study.  My  joint  rosohition  \A'as  coniplotoly  bipartisan  in 
sponsorship.  I  was  joined  in  prcstMitiiig  tliis  resolution  by  Senatoi-  Humphrey, 
of  Minnesota;  Senator  Green,  of  Rhode  Ishmd ;  Senator  Hendrickson,  of  New 
Jer.sey ;  Senator  Kiltrore,  of  West  Virginia:  Senator  Ives,  of  New  York;  Senator 
Magnuson.  of  Washington ;  Senator  Tobey,  of  New  Hanipsliire ;  and  Senator 
Murray,  of  Montana. 

JOINT  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEE  HAS  SHORTCOMINGS 

I  am  aware  that  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  provides  for  a  joint  congressional 
fomniittee  to  conduct  a  continuous  review  of  our  immigration  policies.  This 
committee  will  be  composed  of  representatives  of  the  Senate  and  House  Judi- 
ciary Committees.  Obviously,  it  is  impossible  for  committees  which  originated 
the  McCarran-Walter  bill  to  sit  in  judgment  on  their  own  work.  Moreover,  the 
study  which  is  actually  required  is  much  broader  in  its  economic  and  social 
aspects  than  the  joint  congressional  committee  set  up  under  the  terms  of  the 
McCarran-Walter  Act  can  possibly  carry  out. 

The  main  point  of  my  proposal  is  that  we  must  take  immigration  out  of  the 
narrow  rut  into  which  it  has  fallen.  It  is  not  an  isolated  and  technical  subject, 
to  be  dealt  with  solely  by  immigration  experts  whose  training  and  disposition  are 
all  in  the  direction  of  finding  ways  and  means  to  keep  people  out  of  the  United 
States  and  to  facilitate  the  deportation  of  those  already  here.  This  subject  must 
be  studied  in  its  broadest  aspects,  and  in  its  relationship  to  the  fundamental 
policies  of  our  Nation  and  in  relation  to  the  economic  and  political  future  of  our 
Nation. 

This  study  must  be  approached  humbly  and  yet  with  a  great  zeal.  It  must  be 
approached  humbly  because  it  is  a  vast  and  unexplored  jungle  at  the  present  time. 
It  must  be  approached  with  zeal  because  it  will  take  a  great  effort  to  penetrate 
that  jungle  and  bring  order  out  of  it.  The  efforts  and  energies  of  many  people 
will  be  required,  both  in  the  Congress  and  in  the  public  at  large.  The  facts  must 
be  uncovered.  The  truth  must  be  brought  to  light.  Understanding  must  be 
achieved  and  that  can  be  achieved  only  through  the  leadership  of  those  who 
appreciate  the  great  importance  of  this  subject. 

The  text  of  the  joint  resolution  (S.  J.  Res.  169)  which  I  introduced  follows: 

"S.  J.  RES.  169 

"Joint   resolution   to  establish  a   Commission   on  Immigration  in  Relation  to  Population, 
Employment,  Resettlement,  and  Foreign  Policy 

"Resolved,  etc.,  That  there  is  hereby  established  a  bipartisan  commission  to 
be  known  as  the  Commission  on  Immigration  in  Relation  to  Population,  Employ- 
ment, Re.settlement,  and  Foreign  Policy  (Hereafter  in  this  joint  resolution  re- 
ferred to  as  the  'Commission'). 


"Sec.  2.     (a)   The  Commission  shall  be  composed  of  12  members  as  follows: 

"(1)  Four  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  two  from  the  exec- 
utive branch  of  the  Government  and  two  from  private  life  ; 

"(2)  Four  appointed  by  tlie  IMesident  of  the  Senate,  two  from  the  Senate  and 
two  from  private  life  ;  and 

"(3)  Four  appointed  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  two 
from  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  two  from  private  life. 

"(b)  Of  each  class  of  two  members  provided  for  in  subsection  (a),  not 
more  than  one  member  shall  be  from  either  of  the  two  major  political  parties. 

"(c)  Any  vacancy  in  the  Commission  shall  not  affect  its  iiowers.  l)ut  shall  l)e 
filled  in  the  same  manner  in  which  the  original  appointment  was  made. 

"(d)  The  Connnission  shall  elect  a  chairman  and  a  vice  chairman  from  among 
its  members. 

"(e)    Seven  members  of  the  Commisssion  shall  constitute  a  quorum. 

"duties 

"Sec.  3.  (a)  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Commission  to  make  a  full  and  com- 
plete study  and  evaluation  of  the  following: 

"(1)  Population  trends  and  manpower  needs  of  United  States  economy  with 
respect  to  immitcration  : 

"(2)  Impact  of  immigration  on  economic  and  cultural  development  in  the 
United  States ; 


66  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

"(3)   Effect  of  immigration  on  employment  and  labor  force; 

"(4)  Basic  assumptions  of  United  States  immigration  law,  including  national 
origins  quota  system ; 

"(5)   Kelations'iip  between  immigration  ix»licy  and  foreign  policy ; 

"(6)   Relationship  between  immigration  and  national  security; 

"(7)  Operations  and  basic  approaches  of  law  and  present  governmental  ma- 
chinery for  dealing  with  immigration  ; 

"(8)  Governmental  machinery  for  promoting  integration  and  resettlement  of 
immigrants ; 

"(9)   Basic  rights  of  immigrants  and  aliens; 

"(10)   Naturalization,  nationality,  and  the  status  of  naturalized  citizens; 

"(11)  Effect  of  our  present  immigration  and  nationality  laws,  and  their 
administration,  upon  our  domestic  and  foreign  policies,  and  ways  in  which  they 
can  be  brought  into  line  with  our  national  ideals  and  our  foreign  policy; 

"(b)  The  Commission  shall,  not  later  than  1  year  after  the  effective  date  of 
this  joint  resolution,  submit  a  complete  report  to  the  President  and  to  the  Con- 
gress of  the  results  of  its  study  and  investigation,  together  with  such  recom- 
iiiendations  as  it  deems  desirable. 

"POWERS 

"Sec.  4.  (a)  The  Commission  may,  in  carrying  out  this  joint  resolution,  sit 
and  act  at  such  times  and  places,  hold  such  hearings,  take  such  testimony, 
require  by  subpeiia  or  otherwise  the  attendance  of  such  witnesses  and  the 
production  of  such  books,  papers,  and  documents,  administer  such  oaths,  have 
such  printing  and  binding  done,  and  make  such  expenditures  as  the  Commission 
deems  advisable.  Subpenas  shall  be  issued  under  the  signature  of  the  Chairman 
or  any  member  of  the  Commission  designated  by  him  and  shall  be  served  by 
any  person  designated  by  the  Chairman  or  any  such  niember.  Any  member  of 
the  Commission  may  administer  oaths  or  affirmations  to  witnesses  appearing 
before  the  Commission 

"(b)  The  Commission  shall  have  the  power  to  appoint  and  fix  the  compensa- 
tion of  such  personnel  as  it  deems  necessary,  but  the  compensation  so  fixed 
shall  not  exceed  the  compensation  for  comparable  duties  prescribed  under  the 
Classification  Act  of  1049. 

"(c)  The  Commission  is  authorized  to  request  directly  from  any  executive 
department,  bureau,  agency,  board,  commission,  office,  independent  establish- 
ment, or  instrumentality  information,  suggestions,  estimates,  and  statistics 
for  the  purpose  of  this  joint  resolution;  and  each  such  department,  bureau, 
agency,  board,  conuuission,  oflSce.  establishment,  or  instrumentality  is  authorized 
and  directed  to  furnish  such  information,  suggestions,  estimates,  and  statistics 
directly  to  the  Commission,  upon  request  made  by  the  Chairman  or  Vice  Chair- 
man. 

"COMPENSATION    OF    MEMBERS 

"Sec.  5.  (a)  The  members  of  the  Commission  who  are  Members  of  the 
Congress  shall  serve  without  additional  compensation.  The  members  of  the 
Commission  who  are  officei's  or  employees  of  the  United  States  shall  serve 
without  additional  compensation,  but  shall  continue  to  receive  the  salary  of 
their  regular  position  when  engaged  in  the  performance  of  the  duties  vested  in 
the  Commission.  All  other  members  of  the  Commission  shall  receive  $50  per 
diem  when  engaged  in  the  performance  of  the  duties  vested  in  the  Commission. 

"(b)  All  members  of  the  Commission  shall  be  reimbursed  for  travel,  sub- 
sistence, and  other  necessary  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  the  performance 
of  the  duties  vested  in  the  Commission. 

"EXPENSES 

"Sec.  6.  There  are  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated  such  sums  as  may  be 
necessary  to  carry  out  this  joint  resolution. 

"expiration 

"Sec.  7.  The  Commission  shall  cease  to  exist  30  days  after  the  submission  of 
the  report  provided  for  in  section  3  (b)." 


The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  Senator. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMJMIOHATION    AJMU    NATURALIZATION  67 

Gomiuissioner  Pickett.  Senator,  I  wonder  if  you  could  elaborate  a 
little  more  on  your  comments  here  about  the  substitutes  for  national 
origins  quota? 

Senator  Lehman.  Well,  Dr.  Pickett,  I  have  indicated  very  defi- 
nitely, of  course,  that  I  favor  the  elimination  entirely  of  the  national 
origins  quota.  I  have  Avorked  out,  as  I  think  I  have  indicated  to  some 
extent,  substitute  measures.  I  have  not  attempted  to  work  it  out  in 
detail — the  legislative  and  technical  details.  But,  generally  speaking, 
I  would  set  an  over-all  top  quota  which  I  mentioned  as  350,000  or 
300,000. 

Commissioner  Pickett.  May  I  ask,  Avould  you  make  that  firm 
forever  ? 

Senator  Lehman.  No  :  I  would  not.  I  would  nud^e  it  the  top  quota 
possibly  being  firm.  I  think  that  phase  of  the  hiw  and  many  other 
phases  of  the  law  would  require  a  certain  amount  of  administrative 
discretion.  I  would  gear  the  exact  number  that  could  be  admitted 
to  the  need  for  immigration  in  this  country  and  to  the  employment  op- 
portunities. I  think  if  we  should  run  into  a  period  where  there  was 
disastrous  unemployment  again  such  as  we  faced  in  the  early  thirties 
that  pressure  to  cut  immigration  would  be  great,  and  properly  great, 
and  in  those  circumstances  through  administrative  action  the  number 
could  be  reduced. 

But,  generally  speaking,  I  believe  that  within  the  framework  of  a 
top  number,  whether  that  be  300,000  or  350,000  or  400,000,  the  number 
each  year  should  be  arrived  at  and  defined  based  on  largely  the  formula 
of  employment  opportunities  in  this  country  and  the  need  for  certain 
skills  in  this  country. 

I  have  fixed  the  number  at  350,000  because  that  is  approximately 
1  in  every  500  of  our  present  population. 

Commissioner  Pickett.  You  would  give,  I  gather,  more  adminis- 
trative flexibility  both  to  the  number  accepted  and  to  where  they 
come  from? 

Senator  Lehman.  I  would.  I  think  there  would  have  to  be  admin- 
istrative machinery  set  up  on  this  thing,  of  course.  I  based  mine  on 
an  analysis  of  the  need  of  people,  the  character  of  people,  the  situation 
in  countries  from  which  they  sprang  insofar  as  we  are  familiar  and  it 
called  for  increased  immigration.  There  were  various  factors  of  that 
sort. 

I  don't  think  you  could  fix  in  legislation  a  definite  and  completely 
binding  formula  for  this.  I  think  they  would  undoubtedly  have  to  be 
administrative  machinery,  but  that  is  not  difficult.  We  have  done 
that,  of  course,  in  many,  many  other  activities  of  the  Federal  and  State 
Government. 

Commissioner  Pickett.  Would  your  proposal  not  place  more  re- 
sponsibility in  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government  ? 

Senator  Lehman.  Well,  I  think  that  this  would  call  for  administra- 
tive action.  Of  course,  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Government  isn't 
entirely  consistent  on  this  matter  because  they  give  the  State  Depart- 
ment, for  instance,  and  their  consular  officers  complete  and  absolute 
power  with  regard  to  who  should  get  a  visa  and  who  shouldn't  get  a 
visa.  And  there  is  no  appeal  from  that,  save  through  the  good  will  of 
the  Secretary  of  State.  There  is  no  statutory  machinery  set  up  for 
appeals.    The  same  thing  is  true  with  regard  to  deportation,  on  which 


68  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

I  feel  so  strongly.  After  all,  the  McCarran  bill  sets  forth  certain 
things  which  would  reqnire  deportation.  The  Justice  Department,  the 
Attorney  General,  then  decides  whether  the  man  should  be  deported. 
He  has  got,  of  course,  an  appeals  board  there,  I  am  told.  That  is  not 
statutory.  I  think  I  am  stating  it  correctly,  Mr.  Solicitor  General. 
It  is  entirely  within  his  power  to  appoint  or  not  appoint  an  appeals 
board.  He  sets  the  regulations  himself  and  the  board  naturally  is 
bound  by  those  regulations  and  there  is  nothing  statutory. 

I  have  always  had  a  very  high  regard  for  our  Attorneys  General, 
but  I  can  conceive  that  an  Attorney  General  who  wished  to  interpret 
and  administer  the  McCarran-Walter  bill  literally  or  unfairly  and 
who  believed  in  the  principles  of  the  McCarran- Walter  bill  could  just 
work  havoc  with  our  civil  liberties,  with  the  civil  liberties  of  millions 
of  people,  and  they  would  have  no  redress  whatsoever.  That  is  the 
thing :  You  are  placing  it  in  the  hands  of  one  man  or  one  small  group 
of  men — the  power. 

All  I  am  saying  is  that  there  should  be  administrative  machinery  to 
decide  whether  there  should  be  in  a  given  year  350,000  or  300,000  or 
400,000  or  225,000.     That's  all. 

The  Chairman.  To  pursue  Dr.  Pickett's  question,  would  you  say 
there  has  been  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  eliminate  discre- 
tions which  had  theretofore  been  vested  in  many  and  exercised  ? 

Senator  Lehman.  I  think  that  is  true  in  the  McCarran- Walter  bill. 
But  we  still  are  facing  a  situation  where  in  the  event  of  deportation  the 
interpretation  is  made  by  the  Attorney  General  and  by  the  Justice 
Department,  subject  to  the  conditions  of  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  As  I  understand,  sir,  what  you  suggest  is  that  there 
be  a  method  adopted  through  which  a  total  number  of  immigrants 
could  be  admitted  or  be  made  eligible  for  admission  each  year;  that 
inside  that  total  number  you  would  set  up  a  system  of  preferences  that 
you  have  outlined  in  your  statement — escapees  and  others  requiring 
special  or  preference  consideration,  or  preference  considerations  to  be 
provided  for,  relatives  of  aliens  in  the  country  and  other  classes  of  that 
kind.  You  would  feel  that  instead  of  just  having  a  total  number  and 
admitting  them  without  regard  to  their  particular  status  that  there 
would  be  a  system  of  preferences  based  on  the  kind  of  considerations 
which  you  have  set  out  in  your  statement.  Do  you  think  that  that  is  a 
proper  and  a  reasonable  substitute  for  the  procedures  that  are  now  in 
effect  through  which  national  origins  and  race  are  made  a  factor 
under  a  quota  system  ? 

Senator  Lehman.  Well,  I  would  certainly  set  up  preferences  and  I 
would  expect  that  these  preferences  would  consume  the  greater  part 
of  any  number  that  has  been  made  legal.  I  would  also,  however,  set 
aside  a  certain  percentage  which  would  not  be  covered  by  preferences. 
In  other  words,  that  a  board  could  say  this  man  or  that  man  on  his 
merits  because  he  has  something  particular  to  offer,  because  he  is  a 
persecutee — I  mean  not  a  kind  that  isn't  covered  by  a  description  of  a 
persecutee — or  possibly  because  he  is  a  great  scientist  or  is  needed,  then 
he  would  come  in  thatVategory  which  would  not  necessarily  be  covered 
by  the  preferences.     But  I  think  that  category  would  be  relatively 

small. 

The  Chairman.  Then  would  you  say  there  must  be  administrative 
machinery  then,  a  board  or  some  administration  of  some  kind  to 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGKATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  ()9 

determine  whether  a  particiihir  applicant  fell  within  one  preferred 
class  or  another^    Someone  would  have  to  decide. 

Senator  Lehman.  You  would  have  to  have  some  administrative 
machinery. 

The  Chairman.  You  could  not  do  that  by  legislative  machinery? 

Senator  Lehman.  No,  1  don't  think  you  could  define  it. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  Bearing  in  mind  that  some  countries,  such 
as  Italy,  need  all  the  skills  they  have,  I  should  like  to  ask  your  opinion 
as  to  whether  you  consider  that  the  selecton  of  persons  through  skills 
is  a  sound  improach  to  immigration  policy? 

Senator  Lehman.  Monsignor,  I  agree  with  you  and  I  did  not  in- 
tend to  use  the  word  "skills"  in  any  narrow  sense.  I  didn't  want  to 
include  only  mechanical  or  scientific  skills.  I  consider  that  manual 
labor  requires  skills  too  of  a  certain  kind. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  I  understand. 

Senator  Lehman.  I  certainly  would  not  want  to  exclude  them.  I 
have  seen  too  much  of  it,  I  saw  persons  in  the  displaced-persons  camps 
in  Germany  right  after  the  war  and  then  I  saw  Polish  people,  largely, 
and  then  I  saw  them  come  over  here.  They  recovered  their  strength 
and  I  saw  them  marching  up  Fifth  Avenue  on  Pulaski  Da}^  in  one 
of  those  parades  and  they  were  striding  up  there  with  chests  out. 
You  coidd  see  that  they  had  convinced  themselves  and  had  convinced 
their  fellows  and  me  that  they  would  be  good  citizens  and  would 
continue  to  be  good  citizens  because  of  the  bodily  strength  and  the 
will  and  determination  to  be  good  citizens.  So,  I  certainly  do  not 
want  to  limit  it  at  all.  I  think  that,  for  instance,  when  I  read,  as  you 
gentlemen  have  read  and  are  probably  more  familiar  with  than  I  am, 
the  pitifully  snuiU  quotas  that  are  allowed  for  people  coming  from 
southern  and  eastern  countries — men  whose  history  has  been  shown  us 
by  the  immigrants  of  their  countries  who  have  come  over  here  in  the 
last  40,  50,  or  60  years  and  who  certainly  make  good  citizens — when 
I  see  the  pitifully  small  numbers,  I  am  more  and  more  and  more 
and  more  convinced  that  we  have  got  to  do  something. 

When  you  see  a  country  like  Italy,  si)ecifically,  with  a  population 
nearly  as  large  as  that  of  Great  Britain  limited  to  5,700  immigrants  a 
year  into  this  country,  and  then  see  a  country  like  Greece,  a  country 
that  certainly  has  given  culture  to  the  world,  limited  to  308  people  a 
year,  and  people  from  Austria  limited  to  less  than  1,000, 1  believe,  and 
from  Lithuania  and  Latvia  and  Estonia  not  only  limited  to  mnnbers 
of  a  couple  hundred  but  even  that  couple  of  hundred  is  mortgaged 
sometimes  for  200  years  to  the  extent  of  at  least  50  percent — it  seems 
to  me  there  is  certainly  some  evidence  that  this  country,  which  has 
been  built  up  by  immigrants,  should  be  able  to  receive  and  integrate 
and  profit  by  the  immigration  of  at  least  a  few  hundred  thousand  a 
year. 

When  you  study  the  history  of  immigration  and  realize  that,  I 
think,  during  the  years  from  1898  to  191o  Ave  received  far  more 
than  a  million  immigrants  a  year  and  every  period  in  which  immigra- 
tion has  been  at  its  greatest  it  has  also  meant  greater  prosperity  for 
this  countiy.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  inmiigration  growth  decreases  with 
deju'ession  ?  At  a  certain  point,  yes,  you  liave  to  turn  off  the  supply 
just  as  you  turn  the  water  off  when  your  tub  is  full.  Certainly  immi- 
gration far  larger  than  anything  T  have  been  asking  for  or  any  others 


70  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

are  asking-  for  has  resulted  in  great  prosperity  and  great  progress  to 
this  country. 

The  Chairman.  Tliank  you  very  much.  Senator.  We  appreciate 
your  appearance  here  and  the  Commission  is  glad  to  have  tlie  state- 
ment that  you  have  made. 

Senator  Lehman.  Thank  you  very  much  for  the  opportunity. 

The  Chahuvian.  Our  next  witness  will  be  Dr.  Margaret  Mead. 

STATEMENT  OF  MAEGAEET  MEAD.  ASSOCIATE  CUEATOE  OF 
ETHNOLOGY,  AMEEICAN  MUSEUM  OF  NATUEAL  HISTOEY 

Dr.  Mead.  I  am  Margaret  Mead,  associate  curator  of  ethnology  at 
the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  and  reside  at  72  Perry 
Street,  New  York  City.  I  am  an  anthropologist  and  am  appearing 
here  in  my  individual  capacity. 

The  Chairman.  Dr.  Mead,  have  you  a  prepared  statement? 

Dr.  Mead.  I  prepared  a  statement  and  sent  it  down  earlier  in  that 
form,  but  I  want  to  talk  rather  than  read  it,  please. 

The  CHAHtMAN.  Good.  The  Commission  will  be  glad  to  hear  from 
you. 

Dr.  Mead.  I  want  to  talk  to  two  points  and  two  quite  contemporary 
points:  the  contribution  which  educated  immigrants  have  made  to 
this  country  is  one. 

I  want  to  make  it  clear  that  I  am  not  proposing  differentiation  in 
categories  at  all,  but  I  think  it  is  important  to  realize  at  present  that 
in  the  position  of  leadership  that  the  United  States  is  in  in  the  world 
today  one  of  our  major  needs  is  to  understand — Europe  particularly. 
We  need  to  understand  the  way  the  Europeans  think  and  feel  and  the 
things  that  Europeans  are  not  going  to  want  to  do  no  matter  how  art- 
fully they  are  presented  to  them.  There  are  all  sorts  of  devices  at 
present  for  attempting  to  do  that.  We  send  Americans  to  Europe  in 
many  places  at  great  expense  and  we  bring  Europeans  here  at  great 
expense  for  short-term  trips,  but  the  most  useful  way  for  Americans 
of  all  sort,  at  National  and  State  and  local  level  and  in  industry  and 
in  education  to  learn  what  Europe  is  like,  to  know  how  Italians  think 
and  how  Poles  think  and  how  Norwegians  think  is  to  work  with  them 
and  argue  with  them  in  real  work  situations. 

Now,  since  the  beginning  of  Hitlerism  in  Europe  we  have  had  a 
]")retty  steady  stream,  interpreted  in  various  legislative  ways,  of  a 
great  variety  of  experienced  and  highly  trained  men  and  women  from 
Europe  who  have  been  distributed  throughout  this  country  in  com- 
mittees and  commissions  and  laboratories  and  engineering  depart- 
ments and  labor  unions  and  all  sorts  of  places  where  we  have  been 
able  to  work  side  by  side.  Their  contribution  has  been  incalculatable 
in  training  Americans  to  know  more  about  the  problems  in  Europe, 
the  way  Europeans  think  and  perhaps  the  sorts  of  appeals  that  are 
going  to  find  favor  in  parts  of  Europe  and  the  sorts  of  things  that 
are  going  to  fail. 

If  we  are  to  take  our  responsibility  which  we  cannot  shirk,  because 
if  we  simply  refuse  to  do  anything  in  the  world  it  would  have  a  great 
effect  upon  it,  we  need  to  know  a  great  deal  more  about  the  people  of 
Europe  and  tlie  people  of  all  the  different  parts  of  Europe,  especially 
those  ]>arts  that  are  inaccessible  to  visiting  at  the  present. 


COMMISSION    ON    liMMICRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  71 

I  would  like  to  make  a  very  special  ])lea  for  the  importance  of  hav- 
ing ill  every  i)ait  of  this  country  iind  at  every  level  experienced  indi- 
viduals ami  mature  indivitluals  who  are  able  to  communicate  and  then 
tiieic  could  be  some  picture  as  to  what  working  with  Europeans  is  like, 
can  speak  very  specifically,  having  been  in  the  natural  science  and 
social  science  for  the  last  20  years,  to  the  fact  that  the  United  States 
has  tha  sort  of  eminence  due  very  importantly  to  the  factor  that  so 
many  Europeans  came  here  and  worked  with  us.  We  were  able  to  do 
tilings  we  couldn't  have  done  without  them  and  we  were  able  to  give 
them  consideration  we  wouldn't  have  had  otherwise.  That  is  not  just 
t  he  general  statement  of  what  we  owe  to  the  many,  many  gifted  adults 
who  have  come  to  this  country  through  all  our  history,  but  with  the 
specific  emphasis  about  the  present. 

The  second  point  is  the  image  of  America  that  is  being  built  up  in 
every  part  of  the  world.  This  applies  not  only  to  Europe  but  to  the 
young  countries  of  Southeast  Asia.  Where  the  old  image  of  the 
United  States  was  that  of  a  young,  hopeful,  strong  country,  strong 
enougli  and  o])timistic  enough  and  trustful  enough  to  absorb  people 
from  all  over  the  world  and  give  them  a  place,  we  are  getting  older 
while  we  haven't  noticed  and  we  are  now  one  of  the  oldest  stable 
countries.  We  have  been  getting  enormously  powerful.  We  have  to 
deal  with  the  image  of  our  Nation  in  other  ways  and  sometimes  they 
think  it  is  a  very  grim  country.  It  is  very  easy  to  manipulate  the  deeds, 
what  is  called  the  propaganda  of  deeds  against  us.  It  is  veiy  easy 
to  show  the  Statute  of  Liberty  facing  out  toward  the  ocean,  but 
to  s:iy  that  it  has  turned  its  liack  on  the  other  nations.  It  was  done 
repeatedly  duiing  tlie  v>'ar  and  it  has  leen  done  since.  It  is  very  easy 
to  take  the  figure  of  Uncle  Sam  and  picture  him  as  becoming  very  lean 
and  tliin  and  miserly  and  no  longer  inviting  you  with  the  same  hos- 
j;itality.  It  is  exceedingly  important  that  we  should  continue  to  be 
able  to  give  that  hos[)itaiity,  especially  to  refugees  who  have  been 
victims  of  dictatorial  injustice  and  that  is  becoming  a  part  of  the  image 
being  built  up  about  us  all  over  the  world.  Today  our  reputation  is 
somewhat  in  jeopardy. 

One  can  make  a  jJarallel  pcuiit  about  the  effect  on  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  on  the  great  groups  of  Americans  whose  parents  or 
grandparents  came  from  one  of  these  other  countries.  It  is  an  essen- 
tial ingredient  for  them  to  act  as  fully  in  that  hosjiitality  as  ever  and 
to  greet  these  new  citizens.  This  hospitality  should  be  encouraged 
for  them  to  come  here  and  build  up  this  country  as  a  part  of  the  polit- 
ical picture  of  the  United  States.  This  should  be  presented  to  our 
own  ))eoi>le  and  to  the  peoples  of  other  nations  in  this  year  1952  when 
it  is  so  very  easy  because  of  our  great  power  to  mobilize  distrust  for 
this  country  in  many  other  parts  of  the  world. 

Those  are  the  points  I  wanted  to  make. 

"I'he  CiiAiKMAx.  Are  there  any  questions? 

CVjinmissioner  Pickeit.  Have  you  any  explanation  as  to  why  some 
immigrants  who  have  made  a  success  here,  or  their  children,  are  op- 
posed to  any  increase  in  immigration,  or  are  inclined  to  favor 
restricting  it  ? 

Dr.  Mkai).  1  have  plenty  of  comments  on  why  it  hajjpens.  I  don't 
know  whether  they  will  have  any  major  usefulness  in  this  context. 

We  have  the  kind  of  social  society  position  that  we  can  keep  people 
out  of  it.     One  can  live  on  as  the  others  can't  live  on.     We  have  the 


72  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

kind  of  society  that  compares  to  a  fishbowl.  And  there  are  the  fish  who 
are  there  first  pick  on  the  new  fish  regai-dless  of  whether  the  fish  are 
strong  or  weak.  That  is  a  very  old  factor  in  the  United  States.  So 
in  any  community  it  is  the  older  comers  who  look  down  on  the  new 
comers.  The  older  comers  are  likely  to  be  very  jealous  of  their 
position. 

I  don't  believe  we  can  correct  that  except  on  a  much  broader  front, 
as  we  alter  some  of  our  school  zoning  situations  in  the  cities  and  as 
we  give  more  widespread  opportunities  to  the  new  comers  as  well  as 
to  the  old  comers.  There  is  this  fear  of  losing  your  status  if  more  of 
your  own  kind  Avho  eat  more  garlic  or  more  of  some  other  kind  of 
fruit — I  like  garlic  so  well  it  always  come  to  mind.  There  is  the  fear 
of  more  coming  in  to  dilute  and  destroy  the  others'  positions  and  make 
it  less.  I  think  probably  it  is  fair  to  say  that  it  is  the  people  who 
have  benefited  less  generally  from  tlie  whole  of  the  American  system. 
I  think  the  ones  who  feel  that  way  are  those  who  don't  feel  perfectly 
secure  here  and  they  are  less  likely  to  welcome  their  second  cousins. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Dr.  Mead,  as  an  anthropologist  would  you  com- 
ment on  the  fundamental  validity  or  invalidity  of  immigration  quotas 
on  the  assumption  of  national  origin  quotas  as  relating  to  similar 
ethnic  or  national  groups? 

Dr.  ]Mead.  The  assumption,  as  I  understand  it,  is  based  on  a  very 
long  time  attitude  in  this  country  that  it  is  easier  for  us  to  assimilate 
northern  Europeans  than  southern  Europeans.  That  assumption  on 
a  short-term  basis  is  antliropologically  underwritten.  It  is  much 
easier  to  move  Norwegians  to  Denmark  or  Sweden  than  to  move  any 
one  of  the  three  to  Italy.  It  is  easier  to  move  Englishmen  to  the 
United  States  or  an  Irishman  or  at  least  up  to  the  time  they  ceased  to 
have  English  as  a  national  language,  to  the  United  States,  than  it  was, 
just  because  of  the  commonness  of  language,  than  it  was  to  bring  people 
who  spoke  different  languages  or  from  a  different  climate  or  different 
rhythm  of  life. 

On  a  short-term  basis  it  was  true.  The  thing  we  lacked  and  still 
lack  in  making  such  a  certification  is  to  realize  that  all  human  beings 
from  all  groups  of  people  have  the  same  potentialities.  They  may 
have  been  barefoot  for  a  hundred  thousand  years  but  there  again  their 
capacity  to  wear  shoes  is  exactly  like  the  people  who  have  been  wearing 
shoes  for  a  hundred  thousand  years  for  the  next  generation,  and  our 
statement  about  assimilability  is  that  it  is  the  easier  this  week  or  this 
year  and  we  neglected  the  fact  that  we  were  cutting  off — in  doing  this, 
in  picking  only  certain  ethnic  stocks  and  giving  smaller  quotas  to 
others — that  we  were  cutting  off  tlie  sources  of  great  gifts  that  might 
have  come  to  us  in  people  who  spoke  a  language  little  harder  to  trans- 
late than  English ;  who  had  ways  of  life  little  different ;  who  may  have 
been  undernourished  for  a  very  long  time. 

But  we  have  no  i)roof  that  being  undernourished  carries  over  beyond 
a  generation.  So  in  making  our  quota  in  terms  of  numbers  from  one 
group  we  let  in  the  less  imaginative  from  one  country  and  kept  out 
the  gifted,  the  enterprising  from  anothei-  country  on  a  long-time  basis, 
and  we  were  doing  something  disastrous  in  terms  of  building  up  a 
reservoir  of  human  beings.  It  is  exactly  on  that  point  of  view,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  repercussions  within  our  own  country,  of  the 
assumption  of  peo])le  whose  ancestors  s])oke  one  language  or  one  con- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  73 

tinent  beinj;  supei-ior  to  people  l)eiii<>-  horn  on  another  continent,  or  the 
idea  that  one  kind  of  hair  is  better  than  another. 

Of  conrse  these  rules  were  passed  before  all  the  strai^jht-hair  people 
spent  money  <j:ettini;  pernianent  linir,  and  kinky  liair  ]>ersons  o;etting 
it  straightened.  But  from  all  of  those  points  of  view,  from  the 
advancements  of  our  evaluation  of  humans,  those  points  are  also  dis- 
astrous, because  they  assimie  something  permanent  in  languages  one's 
grandfathers  spoke  oi'  religion  one's  grandfathers  es])oused,  or  land 
one's  grandfather  farmed  or  what  he  ate.  Our  best  anthropological 
evidence  todav  suggests  that  the  people  of  every  group  have  about  the 
same  distribution  of  potentialities.  When  you  add  to  that  that  it  is 
oji  the  whole  the  entor]U'ising  who  inunigrate  and  those  who  care  more 
about  freedom  and  are  willing  to  risk  their  skins  for  freedom  in  many 
parts  of  eastern  Europe,  you  realize  that  any  such  point  of  view  is 
artificial  and  cuts  off  good  ancestors  for  our  great  great  grandchildren. 
We  want  that  ancestor  in  good  human  stocks  from  wherever  it  comes 
in  the  world. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  consider  that  an  immigrant's  race  or  origi- 
nal geographical  location  makes  any  differenced 

Dr.  Mead.  I  think  we  have  to  admit  in  making  this  argument  that 
you  are  going  to  have  more  trouble  with  some  people  than  others  in 
the  first  10  years.  It  is  a  lot  easier  to  assimilate  people  who  wear 
shoes  or  i:)eople  accustomed  to  wearing  our  kind  of  clothes.  Then  there 
is  the  lazy  man's  position.  There  are  people  who  make  a  contribution 
in  the  first  10  years  but  not  as  great  a  contribution  in  the  future. 

I  have  been  director  of  Columbia  University  research  in  contem- 
porary cultures.  In  the  course  of  that  we  have  been  singularly  for- 
tunate in  having  a  great  many  gifted  refugees  and  immigrants,  as 
many  as  10(5,  from  many  European  countries  who  have  combined  to 
begin  to  give  us  some  understanding  of  some  European  cultures  and 
non-European  cultures  w^hich  we  need  for  the  whole  gamut  of  under- 
standing in  this  world.  We  have  a  whole  range  of  problems  con- 
fronting us  if  we  are  going  to  work  with  peoples  of  other  countries. 

The  CiiAiRjiAN.  Have  you  encountered  any  difhculty  in  having 
scientists  come  over  here  temporarily  for  lecture  purposes? 

Dr.  Mead.  Yes,  T  have  heard  that. 

Conunissioner  O'CJkady.  Have  you  any  observations  to  make  regard- 
ing our  universities,  and  Avliat  they  are  doing  to  stinudate  interest  in 
this  field? 

T)i-.  Mead.  Well,  I  can  cei'tainly  suggest  the  pi-actice  in  universities 
that  is  most  useful.  That  is,  to  the  extent  universities  have  brought  to 
their  faculties  and  to  their  student  bodies  as  many  Europeans  and 
Asiatics  as  possible  and  have  exposed  the  entire  community,  not  only 
the  univ^ersity  community  but  the  high-school  community,  the  citizen- 
ship of  the  town  to  contact  with  and  work  with  people  from  other 
countries,  I  think  on  the  whole  that  the  distrust  of  the  community  goes 
down.  But  it  is  exceedingly  discouraging  for  universities  to  plan  on 
bringing  over  some  scholar  of  note  or  try  to  plan  a  year  ahead  for 
people  to  come  over  and  do  pieces  of  research  work  and  then  find  people 
in  other  countries  unwilling  to  ex])ose  themselves  to  the  sort  of  ques- 
tions and  criticism  thtat  they  are  likely  to  meet.  So  that  I  think  at 
]U('sent  there  is  a  danger  that  the  cooperation  of  universities  and 
scientific  bodies  might  be  reduced  because  of  these  restrictions  that 
make  it  so  difficult  to  invite  people  to  come. 


74  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

It  is  exceediiifrly  difficult  to  invite  <T:uests  and  tlien  after  liis  arrang- 
inc;  for  leaves  of  absence  and  has  packed  up  his  children  and  a  few 
houseliold  goods,  to  have  them  find  that  the  United  States  will  not 
admit  thorn,  and  that  danger  has  been  sufficient,  the  doubt  great  enongh 
in  so  many  cases  that  at  present  I  would  feel  that  the  universities  feel 
a  little  discouraged. 

As  to  how  we  can  make  universities  do  some  work  in  increasing  the 
breadth  of  point  of  view,  I  tliink  the  tAvo  things  are  related  and  the 
effect  of  restricting  these  quotas  is  to  decrease  the  activities  of  uni- 
versities to  a  broader  point  of  view. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  Your  prepared  statement 
Avill  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

Dr.  Mead.  Yes ;  that  is  fine. 

(The  prepared  statement  of  Dr.  Margaret  Mead  follows:) 

Statement  of  Dk.  Makgaret  Mead,  Associate  Curator  of  Ethnology,  American 

Museum  op  Natural,  History 

I  wish  to  speak  on  two  points  (1)  the  f'ontrihutions  which  educated  members 
of  other  societies  can  make  to  American  life  in  general  and  to  America's  capacity 
for  leadership  in  the  free  world  in  particular,  and  (2)  the  importance  of  Amei- 
ica's  reputation  for  and  practice  of  hospitality  in  maintainins  the  confidence  of 
other  peoples  in  this  country's  good  faith  and  moral  leadership. 

(1)  The  TTnited  States  has  been  placed  in  a  position  of  great  power  and  respon- 
sibility no  less  arduous  because  unsought.  This  is  a  position  which  cannot  be 
evaded  because  inaction,  inattention,  and  disinterest  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  have  repercussions  on  the  world  scene  also.  In  this  situation  it  is  of  the 
gravest  importance  that  leadership  within  the  United  States  at  all  levels — Na- 
tional. State,  and  local — be  as  fully  informed  as  possible  about  the  habits  of 
thought  and  values  of  those  other  countries  of  the  world  concerning  whose  wel- 
fare we  have  such  great  responsibility,  either  as  nations,  or  as  peoples,  tem- 
porarily limited  by  dictatorial  governments.  Such  continuing  knowledge  can  only 
come  from  continuing  contact  and  for  opportunities  to  work  closely  with  educated 
members  of  these  societies,  both  at  home  and  abroad;  Americans  need  to  sit  on 
committees,  to  work  in  laltoratories,  to  cooperate  on  commissions,  to  draw  up 
industrial  plans,  to  argue  matters  of  religious  and  philosophical  significance  with 
indi\  iduals  who  are  educated  representatives  of  the  traditions  of  these  other 
countries.  Only  so,  by  actually  seeing  how  their  minds  work  in  a  great  variety  of 
situations  can  we,  as  Americans,  learn  to  understand  the  behavior  of  Europeans 
and  non-Europeans,  to  anticipate  their  acts,  to  include  in  our  plans  and  our 
thinking  such  an  understanding  of  their  ways  that  we  will  be  able  to  obtain 
cooperation  on  mutual  goals,  guard  against  unexpected  enmities,  build  a  safer 
world. 

It  is  important  that  as  many  educated  members  of  other  countries  as  possible 
should  bn  widely  distributed  over  the  United  States,  not  only  in  New  York 
and  Washington,  but  in  State  capitols  and  land-grant  colleges,  in  engineering 
and  architectural  offices  of  industry,  struggling  with  the  unfamiliarities  of 
American  ways  of  thought  and  in,  so  doing  illuminating  for  all  the  Americans 
who  have  to  work  with  them,  their  ways  of  thought,  which  often  seem  so 
inexplicable.  The  alternative  to  such  free  give  and  take  is  elaborate,  expensive 
intelligence  work  or  sending  a  great  and  impracticable  number  of  Americans 
abroad.  It  is  possible  to  spend  many  thousands  of  dollars  on  research  after 
the  event  trying  to  find  out  why  the  people  of  France  or  Italy  were  unfavorable 
to  some  move  that  seemed  obvious  to  us,  or  why  expensive  machinery  installed 
at  great  cost  in  some  unindustrialized  part  of  Europe  is  never  used.  Many 
of  these  mistakes  could  be  avoided,  these  reactions  anticipated  if  Americans  had 
an  opportunity  to  work  side  by  side  in  the  real  situations  which  arise  when  an 
educated  European  has  to  make  a  living  in  the  United  States,  has  to  keep  our 
kind  of  time  schedule,  read  our  blueiirints,  understand  our  political  system. 

To  our  long  experience  of  contributions  from  Europe  there  has  been  added 
during  the  last  20  years  the  very  particular  experience  of  benefiting  from  the 
addition  to  our  trained  groups  of  people,  refugees  from  totalitarian  regimes, 
from  which  the  more  gifted,  the  more  imaginative,  the  freer  minds  seek  to 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  75 

escape.  American  science  has  knov,'n  a  renaissance  during  these  last  20  years, 
a  product  of  the  interaction  between  this  great  variety  of  gifted  immigrants 
and  Amei-icans  trained  in  related,  but  often  strikingly  ditlerent,  habits  of 
research.  With  a  science,  both  a  natural  science  and  a  social  science,  grounded 
iu  the  entire  tradition  of  tJie  western  world,  we  are  far  better  equipi)ed  than 
we  <ouId  otherwise  have  been  to  meet  and  solve  the  diflicult  problems  that 
confronted  us  and  continue  to  confront  us  at  the  present  time.  It  is  impossible- 
to  estimate  how  great  the  contribution  of  the  Europeans  has  been  precisely 
becau.sc  it  has  been  made  where  members  of  research  teams,  Americans  and» 
Europeans  working  together,  have  made  such  striking  gains. 

(2)  The  United  States  is  dependent  upon  the  trust  and  faith  of  the  other 
peoples  of  the  world  for  the  right  to  the  kind  of  leadership  which  is  congenial  tO' 
Americans.  For  two  centuries  and  a  half  we  have  been  a  symbol  of  hospitality 
and  generosity,  able  because  we  were  strong  and  free  to  off 'r  refuge  to  those 
who  were  per-secuted  by  t.\rannies  in  other  countries.  We  were  seen  as  a  young 
country,  with  all  the  promise,  the  zest,  the  generous  hopes  of  youth.  Today,  to 
these  desirable  qualities  of  strength,  freedom,  generosity,  and  hope,  there  have 
been  added  in  spite  of  ourselves,  two  others  qualities,  age  and  power.  In  a 
world  that  is  changing  as  rapidly  as  the  present  one,  age  and  p(jwer  are  not 
seen  as  qualities  to  be  trusted,  so  much  as  to  be  feared.  Anti-American  propa- 
ganda makes  much  of  a  Statute  of  Liberty  which  is  represented  as  having, 
"turned  her  back  on  the  United  States"  and  in  representing  Uncle  Sam  as 
miserly  and  ungenerous.  It  is  more  important  than  it  has  ever  been  in  our 
Ijistory  for  our  present  actions  to  match  the  ideals  that  we  proclaim  to  the 
world,  and  at  no  point  does  this  become  more  conspicuous  than  when  we  either 
grant  or  withold  asylum  to  men  and  women  who  b,\"  their  history,  their  capacities, 
and  their  education,  can  be  seen  by  the  rest  of  the  world  as  representatives  of 
the  best  that  the  rest  of  the  world  has  to  offer. 

In  perhaps  as  great  degree,  we  are  dependent  upon  building  within  the  United 
States,  among  the  descendants  of  European  parents  and  grandparents,  that  en- 
thusia.stic  confidence  in  United  States'  strength  and  generosity  which  will  make 
them  devoted  ad  skilled  mediators  between  the  Old  World  and  the  New  during 
this  iveriod  when  the  free  world  is  building  its  ramparts  of  hope  and  tru.st. 

The  Chairman.  Dr.  William  Bernard  is  our  next  witness. 
Doctor,  will  YOU  give  your  name,  please  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  WILLIAM  BEENARD,  SECEETARY  OF  THE 
INSTITUTE  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  GOVERNMENT 

Dr.  Bernard.  Yes,  I  will  be  glad  to.  I  would  like  to  read  my  state- 
ment, please,  and  that  information  is  in  the  statement. 

I  am  William  S.  Bernard,  secretary  of  the  Institute  for  Interna- 
tional Government,  but  I  am  appearing  solely  in  my  individual  ca- 
pacity.   I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  should  like  to  read. 

The  CiiAiRMAisr.  You  may  do  so.^ 

Dr.  Bernard.  ]My  name  is  William  S.  Bernard,  my  address  is  the 
George  Washington  Hotel  in  New  York  City,  and  I  am  secretary  of 
the  Institute  of  International  Government,  an  educational  and  re- 
search organization. 

I  do  not  speak  for  that  organization,  however,  but  appear  solelj'  in 
my  individual  capacity,  as  a  specialist  on  our  immigration  policy  for 
many  years,  and  as  a  citizen  concerned  with  the  welfare  of  my  coun- 
try and  indeed  of  all  mankind. 

The  Connnission  will  hetir  others  who  will  comment  in  detail  con- 
cerning the  technical  and  legislative  aspects  of  our  immigration  and 
naturalization  system.  With  your  permission  I  will  confine  myself 
principally  to  the  subject  of  our  immigration  policy,  and  particularly 
to  that  phase  of  it  represented  by  our  so-called  quota  system :  How  it 
came  to  be,  what  it  is,  and  whether  or  not  in  my  opinion  it  is  adequate 
to  meet  the  imperatives  of  this  postwar  era. 

25356—52 6 


76  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

The  immigration  policy  of  the  United  States  has  always  been — 
whether  we  realized  it  or  not — an  integral  part  of  our  foreign,  as  well 
as  domestic,  policy.  It  has  always  had  a  profound  effect  upon  our  re- 
lations with  other  countries,  and  hence  upon  history.  The  admission 
of  immigrants  not  only  affects  the  social,  economic,  and  political 
structure  of  the  receiving  county;  it  also  affects  the  lands  of  their 
origin. 

So  far  the  immigration  policy  of  the  United  States  has  passed 
through  three  stages :  A  period  of  comparative  unrestriction,  a  period 
of  partial  selection,  and  a  period  of  growing  restriction,  with  some 
overlapping  of  the  last  tw^o. 

Originally  we  Americans  favored  unhampered  and  unlimited  im- 
migi'ation.  In  fact,  so  strong  was  our  opinion  about  this  that  we  listed 
the  interference  with  free  immigration  as  one  of  our  basic  grievances 
against  the  British  Crown  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  And 
in  our  Constitution  we  so  prized  the  diversity  of  peoples  whom  we 
hoped  to  welcome  here  and  the  freedom  we  wished  to  bestow  on  all 
men,  however  different,  that  we  made  signal  provision  for  the  equality 
of  disparate  faiths  and  of  many,  if  not  at  that  time  all,  ethnic  back- 
grounds. Indeed,  aside  from  the,  Presidency  itself,  we  barred  no 
elective  office  to  any  citizen,  regardless  of  where  he  was  born. 

This  appreciation  of  the  immigrant's  contribution  to  our  life,  and 
the  consequent  desire  for  a  continuance  of  unhampered  immigration 
persisted  for  almost  a  century.  It  was  expressed  in  particular  cogent 
form  in  the  platform  of  the  Republican  Party  (than  called  the  Union 
Party) ,  which  Abraham  Lincoln  helped  to  write : 

Foreign  immigi'ation  which  in  the  past  has  added  so  much  to  the  wealth,  re- 
sources, and  increase  of  power  in  this  Nation — the  asylum  of  the  oppressed  of 
all  nations — should  be  fostered  and  encouraged  by  a  liberal  and  just  policy. 

Until  1882  the  Federal  Government  did  not  attempt  to  regulate  the 
flow,  or  the  character,  of  immigration  in  any  way,  leaving  it  up  to  the 
States  to  prescribe  rules  of  admission  or  exclusion. 

But  by  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  it  became  clear  that  regu- 
lation by  the  several  States  was  not  a  satisfactory  device.  Immigra- 
tion affected  all  the  States,  not  merely  some  of  them,  and  in  the  new 
age  of  the  industrial  revolution  selective  standards  had  to  be  applied 
uniformly  if  we  wished  to  insure  healthy  and  law-abiding  additions 
to  our  population.  Hence  we  entered  upon  a  period  of  partial  selec- 
tion, imposing  in  1882,  and  adding  since  then,  a  number  of  prohibi- 
tions upon  the  admission  of  immigrants  whom  we  deemed  morally, 
economically,  politically,  or  medically  undesirable. 

This  selection,  however,  had  nothing  to  do  with  his  so-called  race 
or  national  origin. 

This  stage  of  our  immigration  policy  obtained  until  after  the  First 
World  War.  And  then,  with  a  dramatic  shift,  we  turned  to  the  third, 
and  present  phase:  that  of  restriction. 

In  1921  we  instituted  a  system  of  quotas  for  all  countries  outside  of 
the  Western  Hemisphere,  whose  natives  could  enter  the  United  States 
freely,  and  outside  of  Asia,  whose  natives  were  completely  barred 
from  immigration  here  until  small  token  quotas  were  extended  them 
gradually  from  1944  on.  (The  exclusion  of  orientals,  begun  in  1882, 
liad  been  a  forerunner  of  the  restriction  phase  of  our  immigration 
policy.)     Without  going  into  details,  the  restrictions  of  1921  were 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  77 

lifrliteiied  in  ]0"24,  and  made  still  more  severe  in  1920,  when  the  so- 
called  national  ori<>ins  plan  of  allocating  quotas  was  put  into  effect, 
which  ])lan  still  basically  governs  ns. 

Briefly,  the  quota  system  now  permits  the  annual  admission  of  some 
154,000  immigrants.  Within  this  total  each  inmiigrant-sending  coun- 
try receives  as  a  quota  of  its  own  a  number  which  bears  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  total  as  the  number  of  people  that  our  population  has 
derived  from  that  country  by  birth  or  descent  bore  to  our  total  popu- 
lati(m  in  1920. 

Thus  from  an  unrestricted  immigration  which  before  World  War  I 
had  on  occasion  reached  a  peak  of  more  than  1,000,000  a  year,  we  sud- 
denly closed  the  gates  to  an  unprecedented  degree. 

Why^ 

For  several  reasons,  some  good,  some  bad. 

In  the  first  place,  the  absorption  and  integration  of  immigrants  had 
proceeded  almost  automatically  in  the  days  of  the  ex])anding  frontier. 
IS  umbers  did  not  matter,  and  our  good  earth  virtually  cried  for  men. 
But  with  the  onset  and  gradual  maturation  of  an  industrial  and  ur- 
banized economy  our  absorptive  capacity,  in  the  absence  of  any  plan 
of  resettlement  or  assistance  in  adjustment,  materially  lessened.  In 
sober  fact  we  could  no  longer — and  cannot  today — permit  immigration 
in  unlimited  numbers. 

But  other  factors  also  played  a  part  in  our  adoption  of  a  restrictive 
policy.  And  preeminent  among  them  was  our  succumbing  to  a  na- 
tionalistic, almost  fascistic  philosophy  of  "racism"  in  the  hysteria- 
ridden  period  of  reaction  following  World  War  I. 

Immigration  to  the  United  States  had  changed  its  type  and  source. 
No  longer  were  most  of  our  newcomers  of  Anglo-Saxon,  Teutonic,  and 
similar  extraction  from  northwest  Europe.  After  1882,  with  the  eco- 
nomic stabilization  of  that  part  of  Europe,  and  with  increased  possi- 
l)ilities  of  emigration  opening  up  elsewhere,  more  and  more  of  our 
immigrants  were  coming  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe. 

We  did  not  miderstand  them  so  well.  They  were  more  different  and 
"strange"  and  hence  more  "suspect"  and  "undesirable." 

Above  all,  we  were  listening  to  the  siren  songs  of  nationalism  and 
racial  superiority  that  seem  ever  latent  in  a  culture  and  all  too  fre- 
quently rise  to  the  surface  of  the  body  politic  to  blemish  it  in  periods  of 
postwar  tension  and  reaction.  The  writings  of  that  time  which  dealt 
with  the  "race"  conce]:)t  and  cried  "beware  of  immigration,"  such  as 
Lothrop  Stoddard's  The  Rising  Tide  of  Color  and  Madison  Grant's 
The  Passing  of  the  Great  Race  were  the  spiritual  precursors  of  Hit- 
lerism  and  all  its  diabolic  nonsense  about  supermen  and  superblood. 

So  the  scene  was  set  and  the  political  climate  rendered  even  more 
hostile  to  the  "menace"  of  the  immigrant.  This  is  clearly  reflected  in 
the  congressional  hearings  that  preceded  the  adoption  of  the  "national 
origins"  plan,  at  which,  for  some  unspecified  reason,  the  most  influen- 
tial witness  was  an  extreme  eugenicist  chiefly  known  for  his  advocacy 
of  sterilization  of  inmates  of  institutions.  Hundreds  of  pages  of  testi- 
mony were  filled  with  false  or  distorted  pseudo-scientific  gibberish. 
Racism  had  a  field  day. 

The  practical  result  appeared  in  the  discriminations  written  into  the 
quota  law,  flagrantly  favoring  immigrants  from  northern  and  western 
Europe,  who  are  today  allotted  some  127,000  of  the  total  annual  quota. 


78  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

as  against  the  "lesser  breeds"  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe,  who 
receive  most  of  the  balance.  Of  the  former  number  it  is  interesting 
to  note  that  Great  Britain  alone  is  assigned  more  than  half,  or  some 
65,000  visas — even  though  since  1929  the  average  use  has  not  been  more 
than  10  percent  of  this  number. 

By  contrast,  the  quotas  of  southern  and  eastern  European  countries 
are  oversubscribed  for  years  to  come — and  those  from  whom  we  have 
accepted  DP's  have  been  mortgaged  by  50  percent  for  decades  and  even 
centuries. 

And  that  is  where  we  stand  today — even  though  new  preferences- 
within  quotas  have  been  established,  and  certain  discriminations 
against  orientals  have  been  removed. 

The  quota  system  as  it  now  stands  is  guilty  I  believe  of  being : 

(1)  Unscientific:  Because  the  country  of  so-called  national  origin 
on  which  the  quota  is  based,  is  not  necessarily  the  country  of  cultural 
or  social  nationality.  Czechs  may  be  born  in  Germany  for  instance, 
and  be  admitted  to  the  United  States  under  the  German  quota.  Fur- 
thermore, war  causes  population  and  boundary  shifts  Avhich  it  is  diffi- 
cult or  impossible  for  our  quota  to  catch  up  with.  Also,  the  compu- 
tation of  the  relative  contributions  of  various  nationalities  to  our 
population  of  1920,  and  hence  the  determination  of  the  various  quotas, 
was  necessarily  inaccurate ;  the  major  index  of  nationality  used  was  the- 
immigrant's  name  as  listed  in  the  census,  and  we  all  know  how  and  how 
often  names  change. 

(2)  Wasteful :  Because  of  the  amount  of  our  quotas  that  regularly 
goes  unused.     Since  1929  only  about  28  percent  has  been  utilized. 

(3)  Discriminatory:  Because  of  the  preponderance  of  quotas  al- 
lotted to  Nortliwestern  Europe,  with  the  implication  of  invidious^ 
"racial"  differences,  and, 

(•1)  Inflexible :  Because  world  emergencies  which  we  might  want  to- 
help  relieve  as  in  the  case  of  DP"s  cannot  be  coped  with  within  th& 
framework  of  the  present  set-up  and  therefore  require  special  legisla- 
tion, a  tedious  and  costly  process. 

The  world  today,  it  is  all  too  obvious,  is  far  different  than  it  was  in 
the  1920's.  World  War  II  has  brought  us  new  problems.  We  have 
entered,  for  better  or  worse,  upon  the  atomic  age.  The  United  States- 
has  been  thrust  into  a  position  of  leadership  in  the  free  world,  vis-a-vis 
the  new  imperialism  of  the  Communist  tyranny.  It  is  not  only  im- 
portant for  us  to  resist  aggression  actively,  as  in  Korea.  We  must 
resist  the  encroachments  of  Communist  propaganda  which  seeks  tO' 
distort  the  minds  and  capture  the  spirits  of  the  people  of  the  world. 

We  cannot  afford  to  be  called  hypocrites,  or  to  let  the  Communists 
allege  that  even  though  we  could  admit  some  of  the  neo-refugees  and 
surplus  peoples  of  Europe  we  will  not  do  so,  because  our  vaunted  tradi- 
tion of  asylum  is  honored  in  the  breach,  not  in  the  observance. 

In  short,  we  need  to  realize  that  our  immigration  policy  affects  other 
people  as  well  as  ourselves  and  to  understand  it  is  a  vital  part  of  our 
foreign  as  well  as  domestic  policy.  It  should  be  geared  to  the  reali- 
ties of  the  last  half  of  the  twentieth  century. 

To  do  this  I  believe  we  should  at  a  minimum — 

(1)  Eliminate  the  last  vestiges  of  racism  in  our  law. 

(2)  Provide  a  more  equitable  allocation  of  quotas.  If  they  nuist 
still  he  assigned  to  a  nationality  basis  it  might  be  done  according  to 
proportionate  use  in  the  past  linked  with  present  and  future  needs. 


COlVrMISSroX    ox    INrMKiKATIOX    AXT)    XATl^RAIJZATION  70 

I^ations  that  have  always  used  their  quotas  to  tlie  full  and  nations 
with  special  or  emergency  needs  miglit  receive  temporarily  preferential 
trcatuuMit. 

(''^)  Institute,  in  line  -with  the  above,  more  flexibility  in  our  (juota 
system,  so  that  unused  portions  of  annual  quotas  would  Hot  be  lost  but 
could  be  transferred  to  another  country  whose  needs  were  momentarily 
greater. 

(4)  Elncourage  private  voluntary  agencies,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
Government,  to  set  up  a  permanent  cooperative  plan  for  the  reception, 
distribution,  and  resettlement  of  inunigrants  and  refugees,  as  needed. 

(5)  Participate  more  fully  and  wholeheartedly  in  international 
moves  to  resettle  refugees  and  surplus  peoples  elesewhere  throughout 
the  world. 

(6)  Establish  a  permanent  commission  of  outstanding  public  citi- 
zens to  study,  make  recommendations,  and  advise  both  the  Government 
and  the  public  about  developments  in  the  field  of  immigration.  If 
these  or  similar  steps  are  taken  to  bring  our  immigration  policy  into 
line  with  the  realities  of  today  it  will  be  to  our  own  enlightened  self- 
interest,  and  it  will  be  a  contribution  to  world  order  and  world 
democracy. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much,  Dr.  Bernard.  The  Commis- 
sion is  glad  to  have  that  statement  and  appreciates  the  trouble  you 
took  to  come  down  here. 

I  believe  our  next  witness  is  Miss  Cordelia  Cox. 

STATEMENT  OF  CORDELIA  COX,  RESETTLEMENT  SERVICE  OF 
THE  NATIONAL  LUTHERAN  COUNCIL 

Miss  Cox.  My  name  is  Cordelia  Cox,  and  I  am  the  resettlement 
executive  of  the  resettlement  service  of  the  National  Lutheran  Council, 
145  East  Thirty-second  Street,  New  York  City. 

I  am  testifying  here  as  an  individual,  but  with  the  full  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  organization  which  I  represent. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commisson  will  be  glad  to  hear  your  views, 
Miss  Cox. 

Miss  Cox.  Thank  you,  sir.    I  appreciate  very  nuich  the  op])ortunity 

to  speak  to  the  Commission,  and  present  the  things  that  have  come  to 

my  attention  in  the  course  of  4  years  of  working  with  displaced  persons 

and  refugees  under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  the  United  States. 

■  The  Chairman.  Miss  Cox,  have  you  a  written  statement? 

Miss  Cox.  I  have  a  written  statement,  but  I  prefer  to  make  a  state- 
ment also,  if  I  may. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all  right.  We  will  receive  your  written 
statement  in  the  record  and  you  may  make  a  statement  also. 

(There  follows,  the  written  statement  submitted  by  Miss  Cordelia 
Cox:) 

Report  to  the  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization 

I  appreciate  the  opportunity  of  appearins:  before  tlie  Presiflent's  Commi.ssion 
on  Inimij:;ratiuu  and  X'aluralization  to  present  for  consideration  some  of  tlie 
aspects  of  iunuigration  wliicli  are  called  to  my  attention  daily  in  my  work  with 
the  resettlement  service  of  the  National  Lutheran  Council,  an  a.i:ency  which 
ias  sponsored  the  immlfiration  of  .S.j.GOO  displaced  persons  and  refugees  sin(  e 
Octoher  li)48.     I  wish  to  speak  hriefly  to  live  propositions  as  follows: 


80 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


I.  Although  we  rejoice  in  oni'  historical  heritasie  of  immij;ration,  the  United 
States  is  ceasing  to  be  a  country  of  any  considerable  immigration.  Many  citizens 
do  not  realize  this  and  would  deplore  it  if  they  did.  Others  are  opposed  to  immi- 
gration believing  there  is  not  room  in  the  United  States  and  no  more  aliens  can. 
be  integrated  into  our  life. 

II.  The  experience  in  immigration  under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  gives  evi- 
dence that  there  is  room  in  the  United  States  and  that  immigrants  "make  good," 
thereby  contributing  to  the  cultural  and  economic  wealth  of  the  country. 

III.  There  is  need  for  many  more  immigrants  in  the  United  States.  The  re- 
quests of  employers,  relatives,  and  friends  for  help  in  bringing  people  to  this 
coimtry  is  of  sufficient  volume  to  indicate  that  the  needs  and  wishes  of  people 
in  the  United  States  are  not  being  met. 

IV.  Not  only  is  international  movement  of  peoples  wholesome  and  desirable,, 
but  also  we  have  a  responsibility  as  a  free  nation  to  provide  for  our  fair  share 
of  the  homeless  people  of  the  world. 

V.  If  we  as  a  nation  do  believe  in  and  support  immigration,  the  laws  and  pro- 
cedures should  be  such  as  to  create  good  will  among  nations,  to  insure  for  every 
would-be  immigrant  reasonable  consideration  and  give  protection  to  those  who- 
are  admitted.  Constant  fear  of  deportation  for  legally  admitted  aliens  and  sec- 
ond class  citizenship  for  naturalized  citizens  are  not  tolerable  concepts  for  our 
country. 

I 

The  history,  literature,  music,  industry,  and  science  of  our  country  are  so  filled 
with  the  contributions  of  the  40,f)Oi>,000  immigrants  who  have  come  to  our  shores; 
since  we  have  been  a  nation  that  there  is  no  way  to  isolate  and  measure  these 
contributions.  They  are  part  and  parcel  of  us  and  of  our  national  heritage. 
Children  are  taught  in  our  public  schools  that  America  was  built  by  persons 
seeking  freedom  and  opjmrtunity,  that  America  is  a  great  melting  pot  of  varied 
peoples,  and  that  the  contributions  of  many  lands  have  made  America  great. 
Nevertheless,  I  believe  there  are  millions  of  Americans  who  do  not  realize  that 
under  our  present  formula  for  immigration  we  are  no  longer  the  land  of  oppor- 
tunity for  newcomers  and  that  we  are  accepting  the  contributions  of  a  minimum 
immber  of  peoples  from  other  lands. 

They  do  not  realize  that  the  numbers  of  immigrants  has  dropped  from  an 
average  of  4,750,000  during  the  decades  1850^1930  to  a  total  of  785,852  during  the 
years  1941-49 ;  and  that  under  our  present  immigration  system  the  numbers  will 
continue  to  decline.  While  unrestricted  immigration  is  no  longer  desirable,  we 
need  to  recognize  the  serious  limitations  now  placed  upon  immigration  in  our 
efforts  to  bring  it  under  control  and  to  weigh  these  facts  against  the  needs  and 
resources  of  our  country  and  against  our  world  responsibility. 

Under  the  current  quota  system  154,277  quota  immigrants  are  admissible  to 
this  country  annually.  However,  primarily  because  of  the  national  origins  re- 
quirements, in  effect  many  less  than  the  quota  maximum  are  being  admitted.  In 
1948,  only  92,526  quota  immigrants  entered  the  United  States,  which  left  61,751 
unused  numbers  at  a  time  when  in  Europe  alone  millions  of  people  were  home- 
less. For  the  years  1945-49  the  total  immigration,  quota  and  nonquota,  to  the 
United  States  was  as  follows  : 


1948 170,  570 

1949 188,  317 


1945 .88,  119 

1946 108,  721 

1947 147,  292 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  limited  as  they  are,  the  figures  for  the  years 
.iust  given  were  augmented  first  by  the  immigration  of  alien  wives  of  United 
States  servicemen,  and  second  by  the  beginning  of  the  displaced  persons  program. 

Unknown  to  many  United  States  citizens  we  have  become  a  country  unhospi- 
table  to  the  foreign  born  who  seek  entrance  to  our  land.  I  believe  many  Ameri- 
cans would  wish  to  have  immigration  restored  to  such  higher  numbers  as  can  be 
absorbed  into  the  economy  if  the  facts  were  presented  to  them. 

There  are  others  though  who  knowing  the  facts  would  still  oppose  more  ex- 
tensive immigration.  Among  these  are  people  who  sincerely  believe  there  is  no 
room  in  our  country  for  newcomers.  They  believe  our  culture  and  economy  are 
established  and  that  it  is  not  safe  to  seek  to  integrate  more  new  and  strange 
people  into  our  population.  For  these  people  the  experiences  of  the  displaced 
persons  and  refugees  may  be  reassuring. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  81 

II 

In  lOnO  our  iiumigratiou  increased  to  249,187  persons.  In  1951,  we  admitted 
20.~,717  persons  for  iiernmnent  lesidence.  These  increases  from  previous  years 
were  due  to  the  operation  of  the  l)isplaced  Persons  Act.  Of  the  4r)4,iM)4  persons 
wlio  came  in  these  li  years  it  seems  reasonahle  to  assume  approximately  40  jier- 
ceiit  hecame  breadwinners.  Was  there  danjier  to  a  country  so  vast  and  complex 
as  ours  in  absorbinii  an  estimated  90,981  workers  annually?  If  so,  it  is  yet  to 
be  seen,  for  tliere  has  been  no  economic  or  cultural  crisis  because  of  the  arrival 
<  f  these  people.  Comparatively  these  numbers  were  so  small  tliat  they  neitlier 
disturbed  tlie  balance  of  tlie  labor  marliet  nor  met  the  existini.'  need  for  labor. 

In  our  othce  there  are  records  of  tlie  ;5.j,(]00  persons  who  entered  the  United 
States  under  the  sponsorship  of  the  National  Lutheran  Council.  These  people 
Jiave  settled  in  every  State  in  the  Union,  and  a  few  are  in  Hawaii,  Puerto  Rico, 
and  Ahiska.  The  skills  of  the  people  ran.ue  from  those  of  domestic  and  laborers 
to  those  of  surji^eons,  teacliers,  en.i,nneers,  and  artists.  Only  occasionally  lias 
there  been  unemployment  among  any  of  the  able-bodied,  and  it  has  never  lasted 
long. 

We  are  now  conducting  a  survey  of  tlie  1,254  families  whose  entrance  to  the 
United  States  we  sponsored  during  the  first  6  months  of  1949.  AVe  have  received 
replies  from  657  of  tlie.'^e  families.  These  replies  show  130  families  ai"e  still  oil 
the  jobs  to  which  they  went  more  than  3  years  ago  when  they  entered  this  coun- 
try and  433  families  of  the  group  are  living  in  the  State  to  which  they  went 
originally. 

One  of  the  most  significant  figures  I  can  give  you  with  reference  to  the  35,(500 
immigrants  for  whom  we  have  records  has  to  do  witli  their  sense  of  responsi- 
bility and  their  prosperity.  Wlien  they  entered  this  country,  they  had  few  l>e- 
kjngings  and  no  money,  so  that  it  hecame  necessary  to  lend  them  inland  trans- 
portation costs.  Since  Octol)er  1948  we  have  lent  $1,297,(57S.28,  primarily  for 
transportation.  Today,  less  than  2  years  after  most  of  them  have  arrived,  I  can 
tell  you  that  7t5  percent  of  this  amount  has  been  repaid,  voluntarily  and  without 
force.  This  would  seem  to  say  the  newcomers  can  and  do  work,  support  them- 
selves, and  meet  their  obligations. 

I  wish  that  I  could  give  you  statistics  on  home  ownership  and  college  attend- 
ance, but  they  are  not  available.  I  can  tell  you,  however,  that  in  one  conmiunity 
tJO  alien  families  are  buying  their  homes  and  that  hundreds  of  young  i)eople  all 
over  the  country  are  working  their  way  through  our  colleges  and  universities. 
If  there  were  time.  I  could  tell  you  specifically  of  children  attending  school  and 
rapidly  becoming  Americans  ;  of  women  working  happily  as  nurses,  domestics,  and 
clerks;  of  men  who  are  true  farmers:  of  men  and  women  working  in  factories 
and  in  their  professions,  and  of  some  who  have  already  establislied  their  own 
businesses.  The  detailed  knowledge  we  have  of  these  people  wlio  have  immigrated 
since  1948  indicates  there  is  room  and  need  for  them  in  the  United  States,  and 
that  they  find  their  places  readily  among  us. 

Ill 

May  I  tell  you  something  of  the  current  need?  Now  that  the  Displaced  Persons 
Act  is  fulfilled,  tlie  volume  of  imnn'gi-ation  has  decreased  drastically.  Yet  there 
are  i-e(piests  for  many  more  people. 

We  liave  in  our  tiles  now  job  and  housing  offers  foi-  1.5(10  refugee  families 
(about  4,500  jiersons),  but  no  visas  are  available  to  bring  in  people  to  fill  these 
opportunities.  These  are  signed  and  sealed  offers,  endorsed  l)y  local  clergymen 
and  community  leaders  as  being  of  good  standard.  The  sponsors  of  the  offers- 
write  us  asking  "why  can't  the  people  come?" 

A  lettei-  fi'om  our  ('(ijorado  rci)r<'st'ntMtive  dated  September  25.  19.52  says.  "I 
regret  that  Colorado  did  not  send  for  families  by  tlie  several  dozen  when  visas 
were  available.  We  could  liave  placed  tliem  everyone."  Our  New  York  City 
representative  told  us  last  week  that  she  knew  of  20  openings  fen-  foreign  doc- 
tor.s — and  she  hasn't  even  looked  for  them. 

Even  though  we  no  longer  can  bring  together  refugee  workers  and  employers 
under  the  Disiilaced  Persons  Act  we  continue  to  have  appeals  for  workers. 

An  employer  in  the  construction  field  telephoned,  "We  have  plenty  of  jobs ;  is-- 
there  any  way  you  can  get  the  people  here?" 

A  large  hospital  suggested  sending  its  superintendent  of  nurses  abroad  to- 
.select  refuiree  nurses — but  it  was  too  late  for  them  to  get  visas. 

A  manufacturer  is  asking  for  women  with  linger  dexterity,  offering  to  employ 
a.s  many  as  we  will  supply. 


S2  COMMISSIOX    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Several  life  insurance  companies  who  are  successfully  using  displaced  persons 
are  ea,uer  to  employ  many  others  for  clerical  work. 

In  our  national  office  and  in  our  36  area  offices  there  are  thousands  of  requests 
for  farm  and  domestic  workers.  We  can  place  any  number  of  precision  workers, 
■engineers,  doctors,  and  nurses.  The  need  for  more  workers  is  documented  daily 
in  agencies  like  ours  which  are  known  to  be  interested  in  immigration.  These 
"sample"  experiences  of  one  agency  indicate  something  of  tlie  po.'ssible  total  needs 
in  the  United  States. 

During  the  past  month  relatives  of  more  than  200  would-be  immigrant  families 
liave  sought  our  counsel.  When  one  considers  that  some  of  our  .^fi  area  offices 
have  many  more  requests  than  the  national  office,  one  begins  to  get  the  *'feel" 
of  the  couutry-wide  struggle  of  United  States  citizens  and  residents  to  be  re- 
united with  their  relatives.  We  know  of  scores  upon  scores  of  divided  families 
Avhere  some  of  the  immediate  family  members  are  in  Europe,  Asia,  Australia,  or 
South  America.    They  cannot  be  reunited  here  because  visas  are  not  available. 

The  tragedy  of  European  refugees  in  Communist  China,  of  escapees  from  be- 
liind  the  iron  curtain,  of  able  people  unable  to  eke  out  decent  existence  in  over- 
•crowded  lands,  of  persons  separated  from  all  family  ties  and  without  status  in 
their  country  of  refuge  are  too  great  for  description.  An  immigi-ant  parent  told 
me  recently  of  his  highly  skilled  physician  son  selling  ties  on  the  streets  of  a 
South  American  city.  The  parents  had  managed  to  get  visas  to  the  United  States, 
but  the  son  did  not  qualify  as  a  displaced  person.  So  the  contribution  of  a 
skilled  man  is  denied  our  people  who  need  it  because  a  visa  is  not  available.  Our 
files  are  full  of  such  stories  of  separation  and  distress. 

IV 

I  believe  that  all  of  us  here  will  accept  the  premise  that  it  is  important  for  the 
peoples  of  the  world  to  know  and  understand  each  other— and  that  without  such 
understanding  any  nation  or  group  of  nations  is  powerless  to  build  the  peace. 
Understanding  can  come  in  many  ways,  but  it  is  self-evident  that  one  of  the  best 
-ways  is  through  interchange  of  populations.  If  we  are  to  understand  other  people, 
it  will  be  good  that  considerable  numbers  of  other  nationals  live  among  us.  It  is 
good  too  that  people  who  love  their  homelands  but  also  love  their  adopted  country 
(else,  why  do  they  stay?)  write  back  explaining  American  life  and  ideals.  I 
submit  that  as  a  part  of  our  preparation  for  and  extension  of  world  responsibility 
and  citizenship  immigration  is  a  necessity. 

In  1952,  7  years  after  World  War  II  there  are  more  homeless  people  than 
-when  the  war  ended.  Any  thought  we  may  once  have  had  that  by  admitting 
400,000  refugees  to  this  country  we  would  solve  to  any  considerable  extent  the 
problem  of  homelessness,  even  in  Europe,  was  naive.  It  is  ti'ue.  liowever.  that 
our  contribution  encouraged  other  nations  to  accept  considerable  numbers  too. 
But  the  fact  remains  that  there  is  more  to  be  done.  Many  areas  of  the  world 
face  the  major  problem  of  providing  first  asylum  to  millions  of  refugees.  The 
United  States  has  a  moral  responsibilit.v  to  help  meet  these  needs.  Unless  we 
do  help,  our  protestations  of  good  will,  democracy,  and  the  value  of  the  individual 
man  may  fall  on  deaf  ears — -and  more  important  neither  we  nor  the  rest  of  the 
world  can  be  safe  in  the  midst  of  millions  of  uprooted  peoples. 


To  attemiit  within  a  brief  space  of  time  to  define  an  immigration  policy  for 
the  Ignited  States  would  be  futile.  The  technicalities  of  immigration  are  numer- 
ous and  complex.  I  should  like,  however,  to  enunciate  eicrht  principles  which  I 
"believe  should  underlie  our  immigration  policy  and  practice.  If  these  principles 
could  be  kept  in  policy  and  in  practice,  immigration  to  the  United  States  could 
become  a  great  boon  to  immigrants  and  nationals.     Therefore  I  recommend : 

1.  That  immigration  be  recognized  as  desirable  and  valuable  and  that  an  im- 
migration quota  in  keeping  with  our  need  and  with  our  ability  to  integrate  new- 
comers should  be  established. 

2.  That  this  quota  should  be  made  available  to  people  of  all  lands  in  relation 
to  our  need  and  their  need,  and  in  reasonable  relation  to  their  population. 

3.  That  reasons  for  exclusion  of  aliens  be  carefully  defined  to  cover  only  those 
situations  which  are  dangerous  to  the  United  States  and  that  there  be  an  appeals 
procedure  for  those  who  are  rejected. 

4.  That  special  provision  be  made  for  the  immigration  of  family  groups. 

5.  That  aliens  admitted  for  permanent  residence  receive  the  protection  of  public 
«care  when  it  becomes  necessary  in  times  of  illness,  distress,  and  unemployment. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  83 

6.  That  dt^portation  (if  aliens  be  a  last  resoi't  used  only  for  f-auses  clearly  shown 
to  be  hazardous  to  our  safety  and  that  lesser  offenses  be  handled  in  the  same- 
manner,  as  those  of  citizens. 

7.  That  citizenship  be  available  to  all  aliens  admitted  for  jiermaneut  residence 
and  that  aliens  be  encouraged  to  become  citizens. 

8.  That  when  citizenship  is  once  bestowed  on  an  alien  it  cannot  be  revoked 
except  for  liagrant  abuse  of  rights  and  privileges  and  that  other  than  flagrant 
offenses  be  punished  or  restricted  in  the  same  manner  as  Avhen  the  offender  is 
a  native-born  citizen. 

CONCLUSION 

I  should  like  to  restate  my  belief  that  it  is  important  to  the  spiritual,  cultural,, 
and  economic  well  being  of  the  TTnited  States  that  we  retain  our  status  as  a 
country  of  immigration  in  a  way  which  will  give  consideration  to  our  needs, 
safeguard  the  mutual  interests  of  our  people  and  others,  and  make  possible  th» 
fultilling  of  our  responsibilities. 

Miss  Cox.  In  presenting  the  situation  as  I  see  it,  I  should  like  to 
speak  to  five  main  points :  My  first  point  would  be  that  although  we 
rejoice  as  a  nation  in  our  national  heritage  of  having  been  immigrants, 
of  having  received  into  this  country  many,  many  immigrants,  of  hav- 
ing assimilated  the  culture  of  many,  many  peoples,  we  are  today  becom- 
ing a  country  of  very  little  immigration,  and  I  submit  that  it  is  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  American  people;  that  the  American  people  as  a 
group  do  not  know  that  we  are  no  longer  a  country  of  immigration. 

I  should  like  to  s^^eak  to  that  point,  and  to  the  point  that  there  is 
room  still  in  the  United  States  for  many  immigrants. 

Second.  That  the  experience  within  the  Displaced  Persons  Act 
and  the  operation  of  the  act  is  such  as  to  show  that  new  people  can  be 
assimilated  into  this  country  and  that  readily,  and  that  the  people  who 
have  come  have  given  us  an  increase  in  culture,  an  increase  in  wealth, 
an  increase  in  faith  in  democracy,  which  is  well  worth  all  that  we  have 
put  into  the  program. 

Third.  That  as  a  follow-up,  or  as  a  corollary  of  the  displaced  per- 
sons program  where  interest  in  immigration  has  been  aroused,  that 
there  has  been  expressed  by  employers,  by  relatives,  by  friends,  an 
interest  in  continuing  immigration,  and  a  demand  for  continuing 
iimnigration  that  is  very  real  and  is  of  considerable  volume. 

Fourth.  Tluit  not  only  is  the  international  movement  of  peoples 
desirable  and  wholesome  for  the  sake  of  world  citizenship  and  our 
assuming  our  world  responsibility,  but,  also,  that  the  United  States 
does  carry  a  very  special  responsibility  for  meeting  its  fair  share  of 
the  need  of  the  refugees  of  the  world. 

And,  finally,  that  if  we  as  a  nation  do  believe  in  and  support  immi- 
gration to  this  country,  then  we  need  in  this  Nation  an  immigration 
law.  and  an  immigration  policy,  which  will  give  just  and  fair  consid- 
eration to  every  applicant,  vrhich  will  admit  to  this  country  a  number 
that  the  country  can  absorb,  which  will  give  those  people  who  come 
adequate  protection  and  adequate  recognition  as  individuals  having 
rights  and  being  self-respecting  human  beings. 

If  I  may,  I  should  like  to  speak  briefly  to  each  of  those  five  points. 
First,  to  the  point  that  the  United  States  is  no  longer  a  country  of  any 
considerable  immigration:  I  was  taught  in  school,  and  I  believe  the 
average  youngster  in  school  today  is  being  taught,  that  America  is  the 
great  melting  pot ;  that  America  is  great  because  of  the  very  cultures 
that  have  come  to  her,  and  that  have  contributed  to  her  life.  '  They  are 
taught  that:  they  go  out  into  the  world  carrying  that  idea  and  ideal 
without  realizing  that  it  is  no  longer  true. 


84  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

I  also  believe  that  if  they  knew  it  were  time — and  if  we  could  bring 
to  the  American  people  the  true  fact  that  there  is  not  extensive  immi- 
gration in  this  country  today — we  would  have  a  real  resurge  of  regret 
and  demand  that  there  be  greater  immigration.  I  think  that  is  one  of 
our  needs  right  now— that  the  American  people  know  that. 

During  the  decades  1850  to  1930  an  average  of  4,750,000  people  came 
to  our  shores  every  decade;  yet  in  1941-49  only  785,852  people  came — 
4,750,000  for  decades;  then  785,852  for  the  9  years  1941^9. 

Since  the  operation  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  is  over,  immigra- 
tion will  continue  to  decline  unless  something  is  done  about  it.  It  will 
]iot  even  sustain  the  figure  that  we  have  achieved  during  the  past 
decade.  It  is  true  that  we  no  longer  can  tolerate  unrestricted  immi- 
gration; it  is  true  that  we  must  be  sold  immigration,  but  perhaps  it 
is  also  true  that  in  our  zeal  to  do  so  we  have  almost  cut  the  lifeline  of 
immigration  to  this  country. 

In  1945  there  were  38,119  immigrants  coming  to  this  country.  That, 
of  course,  was  the  end  of  the  war  year.  In  1946  it  went  up  to  108,721. 
By  1949  it  was  188,317.  Why  did  it  increase?  Not  because  we  had  a 
basic  law  that  would  admit  those  people  but  because  there  were  special 
immigration  schemes  for  the  wives  of  American  servicemen.  Then, 
in  1949  the  effects  of  the  displaced-persons  program  was  seen.  I  call 
your  attention  again  to  the  188,317  in  1949,  while  in  the  early  decades 
of  the  twentieth  century  we  received  more  than  a  million  a  year. 

We  have  become  an  inhospitable  country  almost  unknowingly  to 
some  of  the  American  people;  others  of  the  American  people  are  truly 
concerned,  and  believe  there  is  no  room  for  other  people,  and  that  if 
they  come  among  us  they  cannot  be  integrated  among  us.  For  those 
people,  I  would  like  to  present  the  facts  and  the  learnings  of  the  dis- 
placed-persons program,  which  is  my  point  2 : 

During  1950  and  1951,  454,904  immigrants  came  to  this  country,  a 
larger  number  in  that  2-year  period  than  had  come  for  10  or  20  years 
previous  to  that.  Let  us  assume  that  40  percent  of  those  people  were 
l)readwijnners,  and  that  half  of  them  came  each  year.  That  means  that 
there  were  absorbed  into  our  country,  or  that  we  attempted  to  absorb 
into  our  country,  about  90,981  breadwinners  a  year.  Can  anyone  ques- 
tion that  a  country  as  vast  and  complex  as  ours,  as  large,  can  absorb 
90,981  breadwinners  a  year?  We  did  do  it,  and  there  were  no  serious 
repercussions;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  we  could  say  there  were  no 
repercussions  during  those  2  years  when  the  people  were  coming. 

In  our  office  we  have  records  of  35,600  displaced  persons  and  refugees 
who  have  entered  this  country  during  the  last  4  years.  These  people 
are  living  in  every  State  of  the  Union;  a  few  are  living  in  Alaska, 
Hawaii,  and  Puerto  Rico.  They  run  the  whole  gamut  as  far  as  voca- 
tional interest  and  employment  is  concerned.  They  are  day  laborers, 
they  are  domestics,  they  are  farmers,  they  are  surgeons,  they  are  elec- 
tricians, they  are  veterinarians,  they  are  nurses,  they  are  lawyers — 
everything  that  a  country  has  and  loses,  as  the  Baltic  States,  for  in- 
stance, have  lost,  then  is  available  in  skill  and  culture  to  a  country 
1  ike  ours.  Those  people  have  come,  we  have  seen  them,  we  have  watched 
them,  we  have  their  addresses,  we  know  what  is  happening  to  them, 
and  only  very  occasionally  has  there  been  any  unemployment,  and 
when  there  has  been  unemployment  of  a  few  people  it  has  not  lasted 
ior  long;  in  other  words,  they  have  been  assimilated  and  integrated 
Tery  rajjidly  into  our  culture. 


COMMISSION  ON  immic;katiox  and  naturalization         85 

"\\'e  are  now  making  a  survey  of  the  1.25-1:  families  that  entered 
flie  country  the  fii'st  (>  months  of  11)4'.)  under  our  sponsorshij):  of  that 
1,254  families,  Ave  ha\e  already  received  reports  on  G57  families — 
they  came  more  than  3  years  ago,  and  of  that  grouj)  130  are  still 
on  the  same  job — 1.')0  families — and  433  families  are  still  in  the  same 
State  as  they  were  before.  AVe  think  that  speaks  something  for  the 
stability  of  the  peo4)le,  and  speaks  something  for  the  fact  that  they 
are  accepted  on  jobs  and  do  stay  on  jobs. 

There  is  one  figure  I  would  like  to  give  you  that  I  think,  perhai)s 
more  than  any  other,  illustrates  quickly  the  caliber  of  the  ])eoi)le  and 
their  ability  to  adjust  to  this  country;  that  figure  is  this:  that  within 
the  last  4  years  we  have  lent  them  $1,297,678.28  primai-ily  for  inland 
transportation  costs,  and  of  that  amount  76  percent  has  already  been 
repaid,  although  they  came  into  this  country  without  anything. 

I  would  like  to  speak  very  quickly  to  the  current  need:  We  have  in 
our  files  right  now  1,500  signed  and  sealed  offers  for  refugee  families. 
They  are  good  ofi'ers;  they  are  endorsed  by  leading  citizens  and  by 
local  pastors.  The  sponsors  are  asking:  "Why  can't  the  people 
come?"  We  talked  with  our  Xew^  York  City  representative  the  other 
day,  and  she  said  that  she  knew  now^  of  20  opportunities  in  New  York 
for  foreign  doctors,  and  she  hadn't  even  looked  for  them.  We  had  a 
factory  call  us  the  other  day  and  say  that  they  could  use  all  the 
women  that  we  could  suggest  who  had  manual  dexterity,  but  we 
couldn't  suggest  anyone.  A  large  hospital  called  and  offered  to  send 
their  superintendent  of  nurses  abroad  to  select  foreign  nurses,  but 
there  were  no  visas  on  which  the  nurses  could  come,  and  so  it  goes  on. 

I  speak  for  the  national  office  of  an  organization.  AVe  have  36  area 
offices  wdiere  sometimes  the  demands  are  much  higher  than  they  are  in 
ours. 

I  know  my  time  is  up,  but  I  must  speak  quickly  for  relatives.  Every 
day  there  come  to  our  office  relatives  asking  for  help  to  bring  their 
families,  their  friends,  their  close  kin  to  the  United  States.  The 
tragedy  of  divided  families  is  great  indeed.  What  can  they  do  ?  They 
can  do  nothing.  We  had  200  such  requests  for  help  last  month,  and 
our  offices  in  New  York  City,  San  Francisco,  Tacoma,  Los  Angeles, 
and  various  other  places  had  many  more  requests  than  we  had.  It 
speaks  somewhat  for  the  volume  of  need  that  there  is  for  relatives  to 
come  and  to  rejoin  their  own  here.  The  China  refugees,  who  are 
starving  today;  the  people  coming  out  from  behind  the  iron  curtain, 
the  able  peo])le  in  all  of  the  countries  of  the  world  who  lack  opportun- 
ity in  the  country  in  which  they  are- — all  of  these,  and  many  more, 
are  pleading  for  entrance  to  this  country,  and  I  submit  that  we  need 
them. 

IVIy  time  is  up.  I  would  only  like  to  say  that  the  paper  which  I 
have  submitted  does  emphasize  the  other  two  points,  also :  that  we,  as 
a  woi-ld  ])ower,  believing  in  world  citizenship,  camiot  afford  to  limit 
immigration  to  this  counti-y  to  the  extent  that  we  do  not  have  a  free 
give-and-take  among  peoples,  nor  can  we  afford  to  deny  ourselves  the 
privilege,  the  opportunity  of  bringing  to  this  country  our  fair  share 
of  refugees. 

I  submit,  as  my  last  point,  the  fact  that  there  are  princi})les,  clearly 
defined  principles,  upon  which  an  inuuigration  law  could  be  based  that 
would  give  protection  to  the  ])eo])le  of  the  United  States,  that  woidd 
give  enriched  culturi'.  and  (MU'iched  economic  o])poi'l  unity  in  the  United 


86  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

States  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  itself,  and  that  would  make 
for  the  immigration  to  the  country  in  an  orderly,  dignified,  self- 
respecting  manner  of  people  who  need  to  come,  and  whom  we  need. 

I  am  sorry  there  isn't  time  for  me  to  enunciate  that,  but  you  do- 
have  it. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD,  Miss  Cox,  I  wonder  if  I  may  ask  you  a  question  on 
your  first  two  recommendations  on  the  last  page  of  your  statement. 
Your  first  recommendation  is : 

1.  That  immigration  be  recognized  as  desirable  and  valuable  and  that  an  im- 
migration quota  in  keeping  with  our  need  and  with  our  ability  to  integrate  new- 
comers should  be  established. 

Would  you  care  to  indicate  what  the  scope  of  that  quota  would  be 
in  numbers  ? 

Miss  Cox.  Well,  I  would  like  to  say  that  we  admitted  somewhat 
more  than  250,000  in  1951,  and  that,  so  far,  we  haven't  felt  any  ill 
results,  and  I  think  we  would  have  felt  them  before.  I  don't  want  to 
comment  technically,  but  I  do  want  to  say  that  what  we  are  doing,^ 
have  been  doing  up  until  1951,  was  a  mere  trickle. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  The  second  recommendation  you  have  is : 

2.  That  this  quota  should  be  made  available  to  people  of  all  lands  in  relation 
to  our  need  and  their  need,  and  in  reasonable  relation  to  their  population. 

Are  you  proposing  that  you  would  base  the  immigration  system  on 
a  national  origins  system? 

Miss  Cox.  I  would  not. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  You  would  not  employ  the  national  origins 
system  ? 

Miss  Cox.  I  would  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  may  I  ask  one  other  question?  You  stated 
that  a  substantial  amount  of  the  money  that  you  had  loaned  for  trans- 
portation expenses  has  been  repaid — within  what  period  of  time? 

Miss  Cox.  The  first  people  we  brought  in  came  on  Hallowe'en  night,, 
1948.  The  first  bill  we  sent  out  was  about  a  year  later.  But  the  great 
majority  of  our  people  came  in  the  last  part  of  1950  and  in  1951.  In 
other  words,  the  payment  has  been  primarily  by  people  who  have  not 
been  here  2  years. 
■    The  Chairman.  Thank  j'ou  very  much. 

Miss  Cox.  Thank  vou,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now^,  we  have  scheduled  the  Right  Reverend  Mon- 
signor  James  J.  Lynch,  director.  Catholic  Charities  Office,  122  East 
Twenty-second  Street,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  Rosenfield.  Mr,  Chairman,  Monsignor  Lynch  finds  himself 
unable  to  be  here,  and  has  sent  me  a  note  asking  that  his  prepared  state- 
ment be  incorporated  into  the  record,  if  I  may  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  it  may  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  prepared  statement  of  Rt.  Rev.  Msgr.  James  J.  Lynch,  direc- 
tor, Catholic  Charities  Office.  122  Fast  Twenty-second  Street,  New 
York,  N.Y.,  follows:) 

I  apprec'iate  the  invitation  to  speak  before  your  Commission.  I  am  here  not 
as  an  expert  on  the  law  of  immigration  and  nationality,  but  as  a  citizen,  as  a 
priest  and  as  the  director  of  a  very  large  charitable  agency.  I  have  a  deep 
concern  for  our  policy  in  a  matter  which  merits  the  application  of  Christian 
charity  and  the  acceptance  of  responsibility  toward  the  needs  of  others,  a  matter 
that,  for  good  or  bad,  portrays  for  other  i>eople  our  attitude  to  them. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  87 

The  now  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  of  1952  was  preredpfl  by  consider- 
jible  study  and  was  attended  by  earnest  debate  on  the  part  of  zealous  and  ex- 
perienced legislators.  This  act  has  made  definite  and  important  contributions 
but  it  has  not  attained  perfection.  I  am  here  to  make  to  this  committee  two 
recommendations  for  lejiislation.  I  urge  that  the  act  needs  prompt,  careful 
reexamination  in  the  matter  of  quotas  and  their  use,  and  that  prompt  action 
should  be  taken  to  admit  to  our  country  con.siderably  more  displaced  persons. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  our  national  practice  on  immigration  should  be 
liased  on  right  principles.  The  most  basic  principle  involved  is  the  brotherhood 
of  man  under  the  fatherhood  of  (Jod.  That  truth  should  pei-meate  our  entire 
attitude  to  the  problem  of  immigration  and  nationality.  Involved,  secondly,  is 
the  fact  that  all  lower  creation — animate  and  inanimate — was  made  to  serve 
man,  not  this  or  that  man.  not  this  or  that  community,  but  mankind.  An  im- 
portant part  of  that  creation  is  the  land.  I  do  not  mean  in  any  way  to  belittle 
the  right  of  private  property  or  the  proper  rights  of  nations  and  governments. 
I  cannot  subscribe  to  the  blind  seltisliness  that  turns  its  back  on  others,  even 
when  the  individual  or  the  nation,  as  the  case  may  be,  can  help  another  or  others 
in  bitter  need.  Respect  for  human  rights  is  vitally  important.  Among  these 
rights  is  the  right  to  migrate  freely,  for  peaceful  purposes,  subject  only  to  the 
reasonable  requirements  of  public  and  economic  welfare. 

It  is  not  enough  to  be  Christian  in  principle,  we  should  be  Christian  in  practice. 
By  that  I  mean  we  should,  where  we  can.  apply  ourselves,  reach  out  to  help  others 
iu  want  wherever  they  may  be.  We  should  consider  the  needs  of  people  here 
and  abroad.  Possibly  much  of  the  world's  suffering  in  the  last  few  decades  could 
have  been  alleviated  by  a  more  humane  and  Christian  iKilicy  of  inimigraticm  on 
the  part  of  the  richer  countries.  Indeed,  one  might  ask.  whether  the  imperial- 
istic drive  for  expansion  by  certain  nations  might  not  at  least  have  been  lessened 
by  more  genei'osity  by  other  nations  in  the  matter  of  immigration. 

IMy  point,  therefore,  is  this  :  our  national  policy  on  immigration  and  nationality 
should  How  from  an  acceptance  of  Christian  values;  in  particular,  we  can  and 
should  reexamine  and  improve  upon  the  establishment  and  use  of  our  quota 
system. 

What  ([o  1  suggest?  I  do  not  come  here  to  make  a  firm  specific  proposal  but 
I  make  the  following  suggestions  to  be  weighed  in  reexamination  of  the  problem  : 

1.  Con.sider  an  increase  in  the  total  number  of  immigrants  authorized  for 
entrance  each  year.  I  believe  the  quota  can  and  should  be  increased.  It  may  be 
that  present  percentage  (one-sixth  of  1  percent)  has  a  certain  validity  but  could 
It  not  be  applied  to  the  most  recent  census? 

2.  Study  means  to  remove  the  inequities  to  southern  and  eastei'n  Europe  and 
other  places  brought  about  by  the  present  national  origins  quota  s.ystem.  Our 
own  Declaration  of  Independence  belies  any  such  suggestion. 

3.  A  valuable  change  might  be  made  through  permitting  the  use  by  other 
nations  and  peoples  of  quotas  unused  elsewhere. 

May  I  take  this  opportunity  to  express  also  my  urgent  hope  that  Congress  will 
enact  at  the  next  session  legislation,  such  as  the  Celler-IIendrickson  bill  of  1952, 
to  continue  the  resettlement  of  displaced  persons.  It  is  a  matter  of  keen  regret 
that  this  was  not  accomplished  at  the  last  Congress.  Mousignor  Swanstrom 
recently  advised,  after  an  on-the-spot  survey  in  Europe,  "I  am  now  convinced 
that  more  than  ever  United  States  leadership  through  special  emergency  legisla- 
tion is  imperative.  I  can  think  of  no  more  important  contribution  at  this  time 
not  only  for  the  welfare  of  refugees  but  for  the  peace  and  security  of  the  w^hole 
world." 

Tlie  CiiAiR^r.vx.  ]\lr.  Read  Lewis  will  be  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  READ  LEWIS,  EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR  OF  THE 
COMMON  COUNCIL  FOR  AMERICAN  UNITY 

Mr.  Lewis.  My  name  is  Read  Lewis,  and  I  am  executive  director  of 
the  Common  Council  for  American  Unity.  In  testifyintr,  however,  I 
am  expressing  my  personal  \  iews,  and  not,  except  as  specifically  indi- 
cated, the  views  of  that  oriranizatioii. 

The  Connnon  Coimcil  foi-  American  Unity  has  been  working  for 
more  than  -'JO  years  with  the  problents  of  inuni*2:rants,  and  I  have  been 


88  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

connected  witli  it  for  somewhat  over  oO  years,  so  that  I  have  had  a  long^ 
background  of  experience  in  this  particidar  field. 

The  Chairman.  Just  Avhat  is  the  Common  Council  for  Americaii 
Unity? 

Mr.  Lewis.  The  Common  Council  for  American  Unity  is  a  nonprofit 
organization,  the  outgroAvth  of  work  started  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  Woild  War  I  to  work  in  interpreting  America  to  the  new- 
comer, and  to  interpret  the  newcomer  to  America.  The  council  has 
continued  to  work  in  that  general  area  through  these  three  decades 
and  more. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  a  council  of  what  organizations  ? 

Mr.  Lewis,  It  is  an  independent  organization.  It  has  no  other 
affiliated  organizations. 

The  Chairman.  Has  it  a  Nation-Mide  membership? 

Mr.  Lew^is.  It  has  members  throughout  the  country.  If  I  may,  I 
would  like  to  begin  with  a  woid  about  what  I  feel  this  Commission  can 
accomplish. 

The  Commission  faces  a  difficult  problem  both  substantively  and 
politically.  Its  report  is  due  1  w^eek  after  the  new  and  highly  contro- 
versial Nationality  Act  becomes  effective;  2  days  later  a  new  Congress 
will  meet,  which,  in  all  probability,  will  have  more  or  less  hostile  sub- 
committees on  immigration  in  both  Senate  and  House  irrespective  of 
the  way  it  comes  out. 

Within  o  weeks,  there  will  l)e  a  new  administration  in  Wash- 
ington  

The  Chairman.  Within  3  weeks? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Within  3  weeks  after  your  report  is  due.  It  will  have 
many  urgent  questions  pressing  on  it  and  immigration  may  not  b& 
reached  for  a  very  considerable  period.  Consequently,  the  influence 
of  this  Commission  is  not  likely,  it  seems  to  me,  to  be  so  much  in  the 
area  of  immediate  legislative  enactment,  as  in  the  field  of  public  edu- 
cation, and  more  particularly  in  the  formulation  of  a  philosophy  and 
realistic  program  on  which  the  many  diverse  elements  and  groups 
interestecl  in  a  more  liberal  immigration  and  naturalization  policy 
can  unite.  That  is  a  task  of  great  importance.  Indeed,  such  formula- 
tion and  public  education  must  precede  any  new  legislation. 

I  do  not,  of  course,  mean  to  overlook  the  fact  that  the  Democratic 
Party  in  the  platform  it  adopted  in  July  included  an  immigration 
plank  in  which  it  pledged  itself  to  continue  aid  to  refugees  from 
communism,  and  the  enactment  of  President  Truman's  legislation  in 
this  field  of  our  immigration  and  naturalization  laws.  Should  the 
Democrats  win  on  November  4,  specific  recommendations  by  the  Com- 
mission as  to  the  fulfillment  of  these  pledges  would  be  important.  It 
might  have  more  influence  on  near-term  legislation  than  is  otherwise 
likely.  The  Commission's  near-term  influence  on  legislation  would  also 
be  strengthened,  I  would  like  to  suggest,  if  it  finds  some  way  to  as- 
sociate representatives  of  the  Senate  and  House  Subcommittees  on 
Immigration  in  the  activities. 

Despite  these  possibilities,  it  seems  probably  that  the  Commission's 
chief,  immediate  contribution  may  be  the  formulation  of  a  concrete, 
realistic,  liberal  naturalization  and  immigration  policy,  and  the  public 
education  thereon,  which  the  Commission's  hearing  and  report  will  set 
in  motion. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  89 

111  fonnulatiii<2;  such  a  policy,  the  Commission's  recommendations 
mialit  well,  1  feel,  cover  tliree  areas  :  One.  tlie  basic.  lon*»:-term  clian<2;es 
needed  to  make  our  immigration  policy  more  nearly  consistent  with  our 
traditions  and  ideals,  our  foreign  policy  and  position  of  world  leader- 
ship. 

Two.  such  special  legislation  as  may  be  necessary  to  do  our  share 
in  meeting  the  i)robleni  of  refugees  from  conmiimism,  ami  of  other 
displaced  persons. 

Three,  amendments  which,  without  attempting  to  change  the  gen- 
eral framework  of  the  new  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act,  would 
help  to  correct  some  of  its  major  dehciencies.  The  changes  which 
would  change  the  general  framework  would  come  under  No.  1. 

Under  these  three  headings  I  should  like  to  discuss  briefly  several 
s]:)ccific  points.  Our  present  national  origins  quota  system  has  been 
widely  criticized,  but  a  weakness  of  such  criticism  has  been  the  failure 
to  propose  realistic  alternatives.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  unlimited 
immigration  is  generally  regarded  as  not  feasible  or  desirable,  Con- 
gress should.  I  believe,  adopt  more  or  less  arbitrarily  an  immigration 
ceiling;  that  is,  the  total  number  of  immigrants  w^e  are  prepared  to 
receive,  and  absorb  in  a  year.  This  total  will  continue  to  be  in  effect 
year  after  year  until  changed.  It  should  cover  both  nonquota  and 
quota  immigrants.  Obviously,  if  we  admit  more  nonquota  immigrants 
than  quota  immigrants  in  any  year,  it  is  only  reasonable  to  decrease 
the  quota  immigrants  admitted,  although  I  think  that  is  not  often 
always  appreciated. 

I  would  personally  feel  that  that  immigration  ceiling  should  not  be 
less  than  ii50,00()  a  year;  that  is  less  than  two-tenths  of  1  percent  of 
our  present  poi)ulation,  and  I  think  our  laws  should  be  designed  to 
assure  the  admission  of  that,  or  whatever  number  might  be  adopted, 
and  not  be  so  rigid  as  our  present  hiAv  actually  to  sometimes  act  as 
exclusion  barriers.  Our  present  quota  system  takes  into  account, 
really,  only  one  important  factor;  that  is,  our  own  origins,  the  origins 
of  our  present  population. 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  are  two  other  im])ortaiit  factors  which 
should  be  taken  account  of:  One,  is  the  total  population  of  any  par- 
ticular foreign  country.  It  seems  to  me  comjdetely  illogical  that 
countries  with  millions  of  people,  like  India,  and  Indonesia,  have  the 
same  miiiimum  (uiotas  as  like  Tientsin  and  San  Marino — one  might 
go  on  indehnitely  with  examples  of  that  sort. 

The  second  factor  is  that  I  think  our  quota  system  should  take  into 
i'ccount  the  demand  for  immigration  within  a  particular  country. 

Now,  how  could  those  two  things  be  accomplished?  I  think  the 
American  way  is  often  to  build  on  what  we  have,  and  I  think  the 
])resent  quota  .system  could  be  adapted  to  cover  a  much  more  liberal 
l)hilosophy  if  account  is  taken  of  these  other  factors  in  working  the 
thing  out:  Wifh  reference  to  the  population  of  a  foreign  counlry. 
It  seems  to  me  that  we  could  devise  a  system  of  establishing  minimum 
()Uotas  which  would  be  related  to  the  population  of  the  countries  in 
(juestion.  I  se*^  no  reason  why  there  should  always  be  the  same  mini- 
niuin  (|U()ta  irrespective  of  the  jiopulation  of  the  country,  and  that 
would  make  it  possible  to  meet  many  decisions  which  cannot  be  taken 
care  of  at  the  present  time. 


90  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

Further,  I  believe  that  there  should  be  some  system  of  pooling  un- 
used quotas  worked  out  so  that  within  your  original  quotas,  modified 
by  quite  a  different  system  of  minimums,  you  will  still  have  a  con- 
siderable number  which  will  not  be  used,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  those, 
after  perhaps  making  them  available  to  certain  special  categories 
where  there  are  humanitarian  or  other  considerations  of  particular 
importance  to  be  met,  should  be  distributed  according  to  demand — I 
mean  on  quotas  of  different  countries — in  order  to  meet  that  particular 
factor. 

Now  if  something  along  those  lines  could  be  worked  out,  you  would 
have  a  very  different  kind  of  system  than  you  have  at  the  present 
time — one  far  more  flexible,  one  taking  into  account  a  much  more 
varied  array  of  factors  than  our  present  very  rigid  system.  Further- 
more, it  would  be  quite  possible  to  think  in  regional  as  well  as  purely 
national  terms.  That  is,  you  have  got  certain  great  regions  of  the 
world,  four,  for  example,  outside  of  the  United  States:  you  have 
Europe;  you  have  Asia  and  the  Pacific;  you  have  the  Americas;  you 
have  Africa,  it  might  be  that  it  would  be  desirable  in  pooling  these 
uniLsed  quotas  to  make  the  unused  quotas  of  European  countries  ap- 
plicable to  the  region  of  Europe;  that  might  safeguard  a  lot  of  criti- 
cism from  people  who  would  fear  increased  immigration  from  other 
areas  in  the  world.  You  could*  take  unused  quotas  from  Asiatic 
countries  and  make  them  available  to  different  countries  in  that 
particular  region.  I  mention  that  as  one  of  the  possiblities,  and  many 
others,  I  am  sure,  will  occur  to  you,  if  it  seems  desirable  to  think 
along  those  lines. 

I  should  like  to  make  a  particular  plea  for  the  importance  of  in- 
creasing Asian  immigration.  If  some  system  of  minimum  quotas, 
adapted  to  populations,  were  worked  out,  those  would  automatically 
be  increased  above  the  present  minimums.  But  it  seems  to  me  im- 
portant, if  the  Commission  is  going  to  set  our  country  thinking  in  new 
directions,  as  I  hope  it  will,  that  a  good  deal  of  thought  be  given  to 
this  particular  problem,  because  from  the  standpoint  of  long-term 
perspective,  I  can  see  few  things  that  are  more  important  to  the  future 
of  our  country  than  good  relations  with  that  area  of  the  world,  where 
considerably  more  than  half  the  population  of  the  world  resides.  It 
seems  to  me  if  we  think  of  immigrants,  as  I  think  we  should,  as  some- 
thing far  more  than  individuals — they  are  individuals,  and  they  bring 
us  all  of  the  individual  qualities  which  each  one  may  have.  But  they 
are  also  representatives  of  peoples  and  of  cultures,  and  if  America 
is  going  to  maintain  and  justify  its  position  of  world  leadership,  it  is 
particularly  important,  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  understand  by  having 
in  our  midst,  as  we  have  never  had  before,  in  relation  to  Asiatic  coun- 
tries, representatives  of  those  people  here. 

I  think  we  are  just  beginning,  as  we  emerge  into  this  new  period  in 
the  history  of  our  country,  to  realize  how  important  the  backgrounds 
of  our  people  are  in  reference  to  better  relations  with  European 
countries,  and  that  is  going  to  be  quite  as  true,  perhaps  even  more  so, 
it  seems  to  me,  in  relation  to  Asia. 

Now  that  is  looking  ahead,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  is  what  this 
Commission  needs  to  do,  despite  the  opposition  of  a  sort  that  one  is 
bound  to  encounter,  because  it  does  represent  a  new  idea  from  the 
-standpoint  of  our  country  at  large.     There  is  a  Pacific  community 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  91 

quite  as  much  as  an  Atlantic  community,  and  it  is  going  to  grow 
jukI  become  increasingly  imi)()rtant,  and  we  ought  to  give,  it  seems  to 
me,  even  "with  the  ui-gent  refugees'  and  displaced  persons'  problems 
in  Europe,  a  great  deal  of  thought  to  that  aspect  of  the  situation. 
1  emphasize  it  because  I  think  fewer  ])eople  will  prol)ably  speak  on 
that  at  tliis  time  than  they  will  regarding  the  urgent  human  situa- 
tions in  Euro])e,  which  I  do  not  deprecate  for  a  moment  but  I  would 
like,  as  much  as  possible,  to  give  a  certain  balance  to  the  considerations 
Avhich  need  to  be  considered. 

T  would  urge,  therefore,  that  through  some  such  device  as  increased 
mininuuus  that  the  immigration  from  Asia,  increased  immigration, 
should  be  made  possible.  And,  further,  of  course,  that  all  racial  dis- 
criminations be  eliminated;  that  there  be  made  a  uniform  rule  for 
determining  the  quotas  to  which  an  alien  is  charged.  Many  of  us,  of 
course,  have  argued  that  point  during  the  last  few  years  in  connection 
with  the  McCarran-Walter  bill  without  success,  but  it  is  a  thing  we 
must  comljat,  and  sooner  or  later,  I  am  sure,  we  will  see  the  wisdom  of 
eliminating  that  particular  discrimination — not  only  because  the  dis- 
crimination is  unjust,  but  because  I  think  we  need  those  people,  I 
think  they  are  going  to  be  an  asset  if  they  should  come — and  have  a 
larger  representation  from  important  Asian  peoples.  So  much,  per- 
haps, for  immigration.  I  was  speaking  only  along  the  broadest  line 
and  not  attempting  to  go  into  detail. 

Another  major  point,  wdiich  I  hope  the  Commission  will  give  con- 
sideration to,  is  an  entirely  new  concept  with  respect  to  deportation. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  old  concept  of  deportation  is  something  that 
belonged  to  another  period  in  our  history;  that  we  are  going  into  a 
period  where  the  thing  is  no  longer  consonant  either  with  our  foreign 
policy  or  with  our  general  goals.  Deportation  may  have  been  all 
right  when  we  thought  of  America  as  more  or  less  independent  of  the 
rest  of  the  world,  but  where  we  are  in  partnership  with  other  peoples, 
what  purpose  does  it  serve  to  send  back  to  countries  wdiich  are  our 
allies  in  defense  against  a  communistic  struggle,  people  who  may  be 
a  liability  to  them  when  we  are  better  able,  perhaps,  to  handle  that 
problem  right  here. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  basic  principle  is  that  there  should  be  no 
deportations,  for  whatever  cause,  in  the  case  of  aliens  admitted  to 
the  United  States  legally,  freely,  and  without  fraud,  for  permanent 
residence,  except  for  subversives  who  can  be  deported  to  totalitarian 
countries. 

Now  that  would  mean  a  very  radical  departure  from  our  whole  his- 
tory of  procedure  in  this  field,  but  I 

The  Chairman.  What  are  you  advocating:  that  we  eliminate  all 
deportation  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  All  deportations  in  the  case  of  persons  who  have  been 
legally  and  freely,  without  fraud,  admitted  to  this  country;  we  make 
at  this  time  the  most  searching  investigations  of  persons  who  apply 
for  admission  here.  Wlien  I  say  investigate  people,  I  mean  just  as 
much  as  we  want  to,  but  once  having  investigated  them,  and  accepted 
them,  and  they  having  declared  their  wish  to  depart  from  their  native 
countries  to  come  here,  I  think  the  responsibility  for  those  peojjle  is 
ours,  and  that  w^e  have  no  right  to  send  them  back,  for  any  cause  Avhat- 
soever,  to  other  countries  which  are  our  friends.    If  they  are  subver- 

2535G — 52 7 


92  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

sives,  and  that  means,  in  a  way,  a  kind  of  political  enemy,  and  we  can 
send  them  to  totalitarian  countries,  by  all  means  let's  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  What  should  this  country  do  with  subversives  that 
it  can't  deport  because  their  country  of  origin  refuses  to  take  them  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I  would  treat  them  as  we  do  our  native-born  subversives. 
I  see  no  basic  difference  there.  If  we  can't  deport  them  to  totalitarian 
countries,  let's  deal  with  them  exactly  as  we  would  our  native-born 
subversives.    Now  we  put  them  in  jail  if  they  offend  against  our  laws. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  we  issue  deportation  orders,  but  where  those 
orders  cannot  be  carried  out,  I  would  like  to  know  what  solution  can 
be  offered  to  that  problem  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  What  I  am  saying  about  deportation,  of  course,  does 
not  apply  to  the  person  who  comes  in  illegally — there,  we  have  not 
accepted  hipi,  and  it  seems  to  me  entirely  proper  to  deport  those 
people. 

Commissioner  Harrison.  Or  one  who  misrepresented  any  situa- 
tion— such  as  fraud? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Any  element  of  fraud. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  you  treat  people  who  have  been  ad- 
mitted legally  on  a  temporary  visa,  and  who  do  not  leave  when  the 
visa  has  expired  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  But  we  have  not  admitted  them  for  pennanent  residence^ 
and  I  thinli:  deportation  in  such  cases  is  entirely  justified.  Whether 
there  may  be  other  reasons  that  would  make  us  want  to  change  the 
status  of  such  people  is  a  thing  to  be  answered  on  other  grounds. 

Now  I  don't  want  to  take  too  much  time.  In  regard  to  emergency 
legislation,  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  that  because  I  am  not  nearly 
as  well  qualified  as  many  other  people  that  will  appear  before  you; 
There  is  one  point  that  I  would  like  to  make  in  regard  to  emergency 
legislation.  There  have  been  a  number  of  proposals.  President  Tru- 
man submitted  one  to  Congress :  That  we  admit  100,000  persons  in 
certain  categories  per  year  for  the  next  3  years.  I  would  like  to  sug- 
gest to  the  Commission  the  possibility  of  perhaps  utilizing,  pooling 
the  unused  quotas,  as  a  device  to  take  care  of  many  thousands  of  the 
persons  in  that  emergency  category.  Congress  has  shown  the  greatest 
reluctance  to  look  favorably  upon  the  idea  of  pooling  unused  quotas. 
Possibly,  it  would  be  an  opening  wedge  to  try  and  tie  that  particular 
device  to  the  solution  of  some  of  these  emergency  problems. 

They  might  be  willing — and  this  is  only  a  suggestion — to  try  the 
thing  out  for  a  limited  number  of  years  on  an  emergency  basis.  My 
hope  would  be  that  the  thing  would  work  so  well,  and  we  would  get 
so  used  to  seeing  that  the  thing  could  practicably  be  done,  that  it 
could  be  adopted  as  a  part  of  a  more  permanent,  flexible,  long-term 
system.     ' 

Now  the  third  area  that  I  mentioned,  amendments  to  the  new  Im- 
migration and  Nationality  Act,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Commission 
could  do  a  real  service  by  calling  emphatic  attention  to  some  of  the 
most  serious  deficiencies  of  that  act  within  tlie  framework  of  our 
quota  system.  Tliat  is,  without  trying  to  cliange  the  wliole  system, 
because  I  think  that  the  act  offends  against  many  of  our  stanchest 
American  traditions.  For  example,  we  have  in  the  act  instances  of 
where  deportation  is  provided  for  acts  which  were  not  grounds  for 
deportations  when  admitted.     Now  I  think  that  is  thoroughly  un- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  93 

American,  and  I  tliink  if  the  Commission  could  bring  home  to  the 
American  people  that  that  was  done,  that  there  would  be  a  tremendous 
public  sentiment  for  cliangin<^  that  kind  of  thing.  I  think  there  is  no 
justification  for  providing  deportation  for  past  membership  in  sub- 
versive organizations  where  such  membership  may  have  occurred 
years  ago,  and  where  there  is  no  question  but  what  the  person,  what- 
ever his  original  motive,  has  completely  reformed.  Now  I  see  no  justi- 
fication for  deportation  under  those  circumstances,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  purpose  of  this  Commission,  one  of  them,  is  to  call  public 
attention  to  certain  things  which  are  thoroughly  outside  of  the  Ameri- 
can tradition,  because,  unfortunately,  a  lot  of  those  things  are  in  that 
act.  Now  that  doesn't  in  any  way  change  the  general  framework  of 
the  act,  and  you  could  amend  some  of  these  things  that  are  thoroughly 
un-American  without  doing  away  with  the  quota  system,  or  admitting 
a  lot  more  immigrants,  or  things  like  that. 

Another  thing:  The  act  has  practically  eliminated  the  statute  of 
limitations.  Now  that  is  a  concept  which  we  know,  or  most  of  us 
take  for  granted,  is  sound.  I  mean  it  seems  a  just  thing  not  to  have 
jDeople  forever  in  jeopardy  for  something  that  they  may  have  been 
more  or  less  innocent  of.  and  in  a  period  of  years  if  our  Government 
has  not  taken  action  against  a  person,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  statute 
of  limitations  should  step  in,  and  that  we  should  revive  it  in  regard, 
to  certain  types  of  cases  at  least. 

Another  point :  The  act  includes — I  spoke  of  Asian  immigration  a 
few  moments  ago — that  there  shall  be  a  limitation  of  2,000  on  quotas 
for  Asiatic  countries,  and  if  any  new  country  should  come  along,  or 
divisions  and  so  forth,  so  that  you  got  more  than  20  more  than  the 
minimum  quotas,  then  you  have  to  reduce  your  minimum  quotas  below 
100.  I  mean  that's  sort  of  insulting  it  seems  to  me — the  nvunbers  don't 
mean  anything.  But  why,  I  mean,  just  insult  the  Asian  Continent 
with  a  provision  of  that  kind? 

Then,  there  are  certain  discriminations  against  naturalized  citizens 
Mhich  it  seems  to  me  should  be  wiped  off  of  the  law.  For  example,  it 
permits  the  revocation  of  naturalization  in  the  case  of  a  naturalized 
citizen  who  refuses  to  testify  before  congressional  committees  within 
10  years  after  naturalization.  Now  I  can  see  no  real  justification  for 
singling  out  naturalized  citizens  on  a,  point  like  that.  It  may  not  be 
very  important  in  practical  effect,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  is  wrong  in 
principle. 

Another  thing  is  I  think  it  is  sound  that  there  should  be  equal  immi- 
gration rights  for  the  natives  of  independent  and  nonindependent 
countries  in  the  Western  Hemisphere.  There,  again,  that  may  have 
no  great  numerical  effect,  but  I  think  that  is  sound.  It  will  promote 
better  feeling  and  would  not  change  the  basic  framework  of  the  act 
itself. 

There  will  b«  other  points  like  that  which,  I  am  sure,  many  people 
will  put  before  you.  But  it  seems  to  me  a  ringing  challenge  of  some 
of  those  provisions  of  that  kind  would  be  important  in  arousing  public 
opinion,  and  perhaps  get  much  prompter  action  than  we  might  under 
all  circumstances  hope. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Lewis. 

Rabbi  Kramer,  you  are  scheduled  as  our  next  witness. 


94  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT  OF  EABBI  SIMON  G.  KRAMER,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
SYNAGOGUE  COUNCIL  OF  AMERICA  AND  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
NATIONAL  COMMUNITY  RELATIONS  ADVISORY  COUNCIL,  ACCOM- 
PANIED BY  HIS  ASSISTANT,  WILL  MASLOW 

Eabbi  Kramer.  My  name  is  Eabbi  Simon  G.  Kramer  and  I  am  pres- 
ident of  the  Sjaiagogue  Council  of  America  and  president  of  the  Na- 
tional Community  Relations  Advisory  Council,  and  am  representing 
both  of  those  organizations. 

I  am  here  in  behalf  of  37  national  and  local  Jewish  organizations. 
In  the  interest  of  time  I  shall  not  enumerate  them  but  mention  only 
their  two  parent  bodies,  the  Synagogue  Council  of  America  and  the 
National  Community  Relations  Advisory  Council.  Also,  in  order  to 
stay  within  the  time  allotted  to  me,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  reading 
a  statement,  and  would  also  like  for  the  record  to  submit  a  larger  state- 
ment which  has  also  been  prepared  for  your  Commission's  considera- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

Rabbi  Kramer.  I  should  like  to  thank  the  Commission  at  the  outset 
for  this  opportunity  to  testify  and  to  commend  the  Commission  for  its 
wise  decision  to  hold  hearings  across  the  country  to  learn  at  first  hand 
what  the  people  think  about  the  issues  of  immigration  and 
naturalization. 

Now  I  shall  get  to  the  body  of  this  presentation : 

This  statement  is  addressed  to  an  appraisal  of  the  general  assump- 
tions upon  which  our  immigration  system  is  built  and  from  which  its 
major  inadequacies  derive,  rather  than  to  a  detailed  resume  of  each 
of  its  specific  faults.  Recent  proposals  have  been  in  the  nature  of  cos- 
metic legislation  aimed,  like  cosmetic  surgery,  at  patching  and  pretty- 
ing an  essentially  unsound  condition,  without  appreciably  changing 
its  underlying  character.  We  have  become  so  preoccu]:)ied  with  a 
strategy  of  tinkering  that  we  have  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  concepts 
lying  at  the  heart  of  our  immigration  system  are  incredibly  out  of 
joint  with  the  knowledge  and  needs  of  our  time  and  with  the  hopes 
and  beliefs  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  American  people. 

These  concepts  may  be  grouped,  as  is  done  in  this  statement,  under 
the  following  headings:  (1)  National-origins  quota  system;  (2)  de- 
portation ;  (3)  inequality  between  native-born  and  naturalized  Ameri- 
cans; and  (4)  opportunity  for  appellate  review. 

The  organizations  which  join  in  this  presentation  have  no  special 
private  cause  to  plead,  they  have  no  special  self-interest  in  the  im- 
provement of  our  immigration  laws.  It  is  a  tragic  fact  that  such 
betterment  neither  primarily  nor  directly  will  redound  to  the  benefit 
of  prospective  Jewish  immigrants  or  to  the  special  advantage  of  the 
J  ewish  community  in  this  country.  The  remnants  of  Avorld  Jewry  are 
largely  scattered  islands  steadily  shrinking  in  size,  mostly  destined  for 
migration  to  Israel.  Our  interest  with  immigration  laws  is  of  a  differ- 
ent character.  It  is  the  interest  of  Americans  concerned  with  the 
reformulation  of  basic  laws  to  accord  with  democratic  principles. 

Of  course,  we  have  an  obligation  to  protect  ourselves  against  those 
who  seek  to  enter  the  United  States  for  puri^oses  of  subverting  our 
democratic  system  of  govermnent.  In  addition,  we  are  compelled  to 
set  up  some  principles  of  selection  to  choose  the  comparative  few  out 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  95 

of  the  many  who  wish  to  enter.  But  these  principles  of  selection  must 
not  be  motivated  by  fear  or  dislike.  Xenophobia  has  no  place  in  a 
vigorous  and  confident  democracy.  More  important  than  any  other 
changes  which  might  be  recommended  by  this  Commission  is  a  change 
in  official  attitude  from  one  of  suspicion  to  one  of  welcome.  Immigra- 
tion is  not  only  a  humanitarian  gesture.  It  expresses  our  national  need 
for  manpower  to  maintain  the  strength  and  vigor  of  our  economy.  We 
must  recase  our  thinking  and  begin  looking  upon  the  immigrant  as  a 
dignified  human  being  who  should  be  made  to  feel  at  home  and  per- 
mitted to  take  his  place  among  us  without  subjection  to  unending  or- 
deals, tests,  and  challenges.  If  we  are  to  meet  our  responsibilities 
Justly,  we  must  stop  daring  the  immigrant  to  get  here  and  start  invit- 
ing him  to  come. 
Let  me  address  myself  now  to  the  major  items  I  mentioned  a  moment 

First,  the  national-origins  quota  system.  The  national-origins  for- 
mula was  no  legislative  accident.  The  end  of  World  War  I  brought 
with  it  an  intensified  demand  for  sharp  limitation  of  immigration. 
These  demands  were  strengthened  and  made  persuasive  in  the  atmos- 
phere of  a  severe  postwar  recession  and  the  emergence  of  the  bigoted 
Ku  Klux  Klan  as  a  political  force.  Even  cursory  review  of  legislative 
debate  in  1924  discloses  that  the  authors  of  the  quota  plan  deliberately 
and  carefully  and  consciously  contrived  to  encourage  immigration 
from  western  Europe  and  to  discourage  all  other  inunigration. 

Senator  Reed,  who  introduced  the  national-origins  formula  into  the 
Senate  and  who  then  served  as  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Immigration,  revealingly  declared  during  hearings  on  the  immigra- 
tion bill  conducted  by  his  committee  that — 

I  think  most  of  us  are  reconciled  to  the  idea  of  discrimination.  I  think  the 
American  people  want  us  to  discriminate — our  duty  is  to  the  American  people, 
and  we  owe  no  duty  to  be  fair  to  all  nationals. 

The  national-origins  quota  system  assumes  that  our  national  insti- 
tutions bear  the  stamps  of  a  particular  nationality  in  the  same  propor- 
tion that  persons  of  that  national  descent  bear  to  the  whole  population. 
But  cultures  are  not  amenable  to  such  analysis  any  more  than  plants, 
animals,  or  humans  can  be  viewed  as  a  result  of  a  simple  addition  of 
the  chemical  compounds  they  absorb.  The  vast  developments  which 
have  taken  place  in  American  life  throughout  our  history  are  not  the 
mechanical  result  of  simple  additions  from  elements  of  immigrant 
cultures  but  rather  the  evolution  of  a  new  and  distinctive  culture  in 
response  to  the  demands  of  a  new  environment. 

To  use  but  one  illustration,  the  new  German  quota  that  will  come 
into  effect  under  the  McCarran  law  is  about  25,814,  while  quotas  for 
Italy,  Greece,  and  Turkey  are  5,645,  308,  and  225,  respectively.  This 
discre])ancy  can  find  no  warrant  in  the  theory  that  it  results  in  the 
selection  of  immigrants  from  countries  whose  traditions,  languages, 
and  political  systems  are  akin  to  ours.  It  would  be  absurd  to  claim 
that  the  Germany  which  twice  precipitated  the  world  into  war,  which 
was  warpcMl  by  Nazi  propaganda  for  more  than  a  decade  prior  to  1933 
and  molded  by  12  years  of  Nazi  power,  is  culturally  closer  to  America 
than  Italy,  Greece,  or  Turkey.  And  if  Germany  is  closer,  is  the  degree 
of  propinquity  80  times  greater  than  in  the  case  of  Greece,  or  four 
times  greater  than  in  the  case  of  Italy,  or  115  times  greater  than  in 
the  case  of  Turkey  ? 


96  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

America's  richness  has  not  been  merely  our  material  resources,  amply 
endowed  though  we  are.  It  has  been,  even  more,  our  diversity  of 
peoples  and  cultures  and  our  unique  ability  to  fashion  a  creative  na- 
tional unity  out  of  that  diversity.  This  has  proved  to  be  our  real 
strength. 

The  failure  of  successive  legislatures  to  expunge  the  national  origins 
system  from  our  statutes  has  resulted  in  the  retention  of  a  series  of 
preferences,  priorities,  bars,  and  prohibitions  which  stamp  a  seal  of 
inferiority  upon  persons  of  other  than  Anglo-Saxon  origin.  For  all 
of  its  highly  advertised  purging  of  racism  from  our  immigration  laws, 
closer  inspection  of  the  McCarran  law.  Public  Law  414,  reveals  that 
it  contains  such  provisions  as  the  section  establishing  the  "Asia-Pa- 
cific Triangle"  (sec.  202  (b) )  limiting  annual  innnigration  from 
countries  in  that  area  to  a  maximum  of  100  a  year,  with  no  reference 
to  any  formulas  or  figures  and  with  no  rationale  save  that  of  antipathy 
to  persons  coming  from  that  part  of  the  world.  Negro  immigration, 
in  like  fashion,  is  carefully  restricted  by  denying  certain  dependent 
areas  in  the  West  Indies,  for  the  first  time,  the  right  to  use  quotas  be- 
longing to  the  mother  country.  Moreover,  quotas  under  Public  Law 
414  continue  to  be  premised  upon  the  1920  census,  a  device  clearly 
intended  to  freeze  if  not  paralyze  the  composition  of  our  population. 

In  support  of  the  national  origins  system  it  is  frequently  urged  that 
given  the  need  for  some  quantitative  restriction  of  immigration,  there 
exists  no  other  feasible  method  of  apportionment.  Surely,  human 
ingenuity  is  not  so  feeble.  To  claim  that  the  existing  discriminatory 
and  arbitrary  scheme  is  just  because  no  other  alternative  can  be 
devised  is  to  confess  to  an  extraordinary  lack  of  imagination.  With- 
out, by  any  means,  exhausting  the  alternatives  the  following  changes 
in  the  method  of  apportionment  might  be  suggested  : 

(1)  Distribution  of  visas  on  a  first-come,  first-served  basis  with 
preferences,  for  relatives  of  citizens  or  legal  residents,  and  victims 
of  racial,  religious,  or  political  persecution  and  those  who  possess 
special  skills.  Existing  laws  set  minimum  qualifications  for  admis- 
sion. Those  who  are  physically,  mentally,  or  morally  unfit  may  not 
enter.  There  is  thus  reasonable  assurance  that  those  who  do  qualify 
for  entrance  are  sound  human  beings.  The  present  large  British  quota 
of  over  65,000  is  currently  being  administered  on  a  first-come,  first- 
served  basis.  There  is  no  reason  this  could  not  be  done  for  the  over- 
all quota.  The  advantages  of  the  system  of  course  lie  in  its  simplicity, 
the  abolition  of  the  discriminatory  bias  of  the  national  origins  formula, 
and  the  increased  opportunity  for  obtaining  persons  with  needed  skills 
through  broadeninjT  the  geographical  sources  of  immigration.  It  is 
porfectly  practicable  to  control  the  annual  issuance  of  visas  from 
Washington.  Moreover,  emergency  situations  could  be  handled  by 
Executive  order  creating  special  priorities  within  the  nonpreference 
class. 

(2)  Utilization  of  a  flexible  system  of  apportionment  by  adminis- 
trative determination :  Once  the  national-origins  quotas  are  dropped, 
it  would  be  possible  to  establish  an  administrative  or  executive  com- 
mission to  fix  annual  quotas  taking  into  account  numerous  factors 
such  as  individual  and  national  needs,  mental  and  physical  ability, 
familv  status  or  special  skills.  This  commission's  determinations 
would  be  based  upon  the  absorptive  capacity  of  our  economic  and  so- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION  97 

ciiil  system  and  would  allow  periodic  readjustment  of  the  total  to  be 
admitted  each  year.  There  is  nothing  hallowed  about  the  140,000  or 
150,000  annual  visa  figure.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  ever  to  fix  a  final 
immigration  ceiling  to  remain  in  effect  for  all  time.  The  possibility 
that  an  illiberal  agency  might  exploit  this  opportunity  to  reduce  an- 
imal immigration  could  be  precluded  by  establishing  the  present  figure 
of  150,000  annual  visas  as  a  minimum.  We  would  then  have  a  firm 
floor  and  a  flexible  moving  ceiling  which  could  be  made  responsive  to 
our  domestic  economic  health  and  to  our  responsibilities  abroad. 

We  are,  of  course,  cognizant  of  the  problem  of  refugees  and  surplus 
populations  to  which  President  Truman  drew  attention  in  his  message 
to  Congress  last  March  24.  It  is  our  conviction  that  this  problem 
should  not  be  approached  on  the  basis  of  piece-meal  emergency  legis- 
lation. It  is  possible  within  the  bounds  of  our  permanent  immigration 
laws  to  give  special  attention  to  distressed  areas  by  increasing  the  total 
number  of  immigrants  to  be  admitted  annually  and  by  reserving  a  sub- 
stantial priority  within  that  number,  for  persons  who  are  persecutees 
or  refugees.  The  world  situation  urgently  requires  that  the  national- 
origins  system  be  eliminated.  Once  this  is  accomplished  we  are  then 
equipped  to  meet  emergency  needs  within  the  framework  of  a  just, 
humane,  and  flexible  immigration  system.     So  much  for  point  No.  1. 

B.  Deportation :  The  concept  of  deportation  as  employed  in  our 
basic  innnigration  laws  is  not  less  in  need  of  drastic  revision.  We  be- 
lieve that  once  a  person  is  admitted  into  the  United  States  for  per- 
manent residence,  he  should  have  the  privilege  of  remaining  in  this 
country  unless  his  immigration  was  based  on  fraud  or  illegal  entry. 
Deportation  used  as  a  penalty  is  inhumane  and  medieval.  It  fre- 
quently punishes  persons  entirely  innocent,  such  as  members  of  the 
immediate  family  of  the  deportee.  An  alien  who  does  wrong  should 
be  ]>unished  for  his  wrong  the  same  as  a  citizen  but  the  punishment 
shnulil  not  carry  with  it  the  additional  penalty  of  "banishment." 

lunnigrants  who  come  to  this  country  are  not  here  on  consignment. 
Those  persons  who  pull  up  their  roots  and  rearrange  their  lives  to 
come  to  the  United  States  Under  our  laws  and  under  a  system  of  quali- 
fications which  we  draw  and  which  we  administer  are  entitled  to 
believe  that  once  here  they  will  be  allowed  to  remain  and  that  they  will 
be  dealt  with  justly  and  equally.  This,  of  course,  does  not  imply  that 
they  are  not  to  be  penalized  or  held  fully  accountable  for  their  crimes 
or  their  mistakes.  Of  course,  they  should.  It  does  mean  that  they 
are  not  to  be  assessed  with  penalties  higher  in  degree  or  in  character 
from  those  imposed  on  native  Americans  for  like  acts. 

We  hold  no  brief  for  the  criminal,  the  wrongdoer,  the  narcotics  user, 
the  subversive,  or  the  alien  who  seeks  through  innnoral  means  to  obtain 
personal  advantage.  The  criminal  alien  represents  a  menace,  but  it 
differs  in  no  discernible  character,  quality,  or  degree  from  the  menace 
represented  by  the  criminal  native-born.  The  reconstruction  and  re- 
habilitation of  defective,  sick  individuals  is  a  job  for  our  entire  com- 
munity. It  is  not  one  which  can  be  avoided  by  the  simple  means  of 
ejecting  those  whom  we  find  unpleasant.  The  marriage  of  the  immi- 
grant and  of  the  United  States  is  presumably  one  premised  on  sincerity 
on  the  j)art  of  both  and  it  is  marriage  for  better  or  for  worse. 

Now  as  to  ])oint  No.  3. 

C.  Inequality  between  native-born  and  naturalized  citizens:  Dis- 
tinctions between  nati\e-boin  aiul  naturalized  citizens  in  our  immigra- 


98  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

tion  laws  must  be  eliminated  as  contrary  to  tlie  spirit  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  naturalization  process  should  insure  that  before  a  person 
is  naturalized,  he  is  genuinely  attached  to  the  governing  principles  of 
this  country.  Thereafter,  certificates  of  naturalization  should  not  be 
canceled,  save  upon  a  showing  of  fraud. 

The  stamp  of  a  free  and  secure  society  is  its  abjuration  of  all  forms 
of  limited  citizenship.  Our  courts  have  declared  that  under  our  Con- 
stitution a  naturalized  citizen  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  a  native- 
born  citizen,  in  all  respects  save,  of  course,  eligibility  for  the 
Presidency.  They  have  explicitly  rejected  the  notion  that  "tlie 
framers  of  the  Constitution,  intended  to  create  two  classes  of  citizens, 
one  free  and  independent,  one  haltered  with  a  lifetime  string  attached 
to  its  status." 

Now  as  to  point  No.  4. 

D.  Opportunity  for  appeal  and  review :  The  core  of  the  American 
system  of  justice  is  that  each  person  shall  be  accorded  a  fair  hearing. 
Public  Law  414  fails  to  accord  to  immigrants  or  aliens  the  necessary 
judicial  protection  which  accompanies  the  concept  of  fair  hearing  by 
omitting  any  provision  for  a  statutory  board  of  immigration  appeal 
and  a  visa  review  board.  To  prevent  prejudice,  arbitrariness,  or 
caprice  in  the  award  of  visas,  and  in  the  grant  of  the  all-important 
opportunity  for  immigration,  we  urge  legislation  or  legislative  pro- 
vision for  the  establishment  of  a  visa  review  board  empowered  to 
review  and  reverse  consular  decisions  to  issue  or  deny  visas  and  a 
statutory  board  of  immigration  appeals.  Measures  addressed  to  these 
objectives  will  surround  the  immigration  process  with  the  protection 
and  safeguards  it  merits. 

Now  in  conclusion :  The  eloquent  affirmation  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  that  "all  men  are  created  equal"  expresses  the  cardinal 
democratic  belief  that  all  persons  are  to  be  regarded  as  equally  capable 
of  intelligence,  freedom,  and  social  usefulness;  that  every  individual 
can  claim  the  right  to  be  judged  on  his  merits.  The  immigration 
policy  enacted  in  1924  was  a  repudiation  of  that  doctrine,  for  it  as- 
serted that  persons  in  quest  of  the  opportunity  to  live  in  this  land  were 
to  be  judged  according  to  breed  like  cattle  at  a  countiy  fair  and  not 
on  the  basis  of  their  character,  fitness,  or  capacity. 

This  Commission  has  a  significant  opportunity  to  recommend  the 
shaping  of  our  immigration  and  naturalization  laws  so  that  they  may 
better  conform  to  American  ideals  and  experience,  which  require  equal 
treatment  of  all  persons  and  the  fullest  guaranties  of  basic  civil  lib- 
erties. In  the  light  of  our  knowledge  and  aspirations  and  indeed  in 
the  light  of  the  needs  of  the  Nation,  the  national  origins  quota  system 
and  th6  concept  of  penal  deportation  must  be  abolished  and  the  internal 
administration  of  our  immigration  processes  must  be  improved.  Our 
immigration  and  naturalization  laws  must  be  purged  of  eveiy  taint  of 
racial,  religious,  and  ethnic  discrimination.  Nothing  less  than  this 
is  worthy  of  a  freedom-loving  people. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  concluded. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  have  just  one  question. 
You  mentioned  that  immigrants  wlio  came  here  "are  not  here  on  con- 
signment," and  that  although  an  alien  should  be  punished  for  a  wrong 
he  connnits,  like  any  citizen,  nevertheless  that  punishment  should  not 
also  carry  with  it  what  you  referred  to  as  the  penalty  of  "banishment." 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION  99 

Would  you  call  it  bftnisliment  when  the  alien  who  chooses  to  remain 
here  and  chooses  not  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  com- 
mits aji  offense  a^^ainst  the  laws  of  the  counti'y  where  he  has  chosen  to 
remain  as  a  guest? 

Kabbi  Kilvmer.  I  understand  what  you  are  asking  me.  I  under- 
stand what  you  are  saying.  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  technicalities 
of  either  the  laws  pertaining  to  aliens  or  the  laws  pertaining  to  those 
who  have  become  naturalized  as  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

It  seems  to  me  that  on  a  broad  base,  that  an  offense  against  America 
is  an  offense  against  America  whether  it  is  made  by  a  native-born 
citizen  or  naturalized  citizen,  or  whether  it  is  made  by  an  alien  who 
has  been  after  due  processes  of  law  and  after  those  safeguards  which 
American  institutions  have  provided  for  the  admission  of  immigrants, 
that  the  same  laws  ought  to  pertain  to  all  of  them,  even  to  the  alien 
who  has  not  chosen  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  for  what- 
ever the  reason  may  be,  after  a  certain  period  of  time. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  chooses  to  remain  here  and  accept  the  hospi- 
tality of  this  country,  maybe  to  prosper  here,  but  to  remain  a  citizen 
of  the  country  from  which  he  came.  Now  I  just  don't  quite  follow 
you  when  you  say  that  a  deportation  order  that  violates  the  hospitality 
of  the  country  that  he  has  voluntarily  chosen  to  accept,  that  that  is 
banishment  or  punishing  him  to  a  degi'ee  not  necessary,  and  you  put 
him  in  the  same  class  as  a  native-born  citizen  or  naturalized  citizen. 
I  don't  follow  that. 

Rabbi  Kramer.  I  am  thinking  of  the  Biblical  injunction  that  there 
should  be  one  law  for  both  a  native-born,  as  well  as  the  stranger  in 
your  midst.  Now  I  am  interpreting  the  "stranger"  in  the  Bible  a  little 
more  broadly  than  most  people,  perhaps.  But  the  word  "stranger" 
as  used  in  the  Bible  in  my  interpretation  is  an  individual  who  even 
lives  as  an  alien  in  a  country  without  having  applied  for  citizenship. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  but  you  do  that,  you  follow  the  Bible,  and 
there  is  one  law.  But,  suppose  he  chooses  to  violate  that  law,  what 
then  < 

Rabbi  Kramer.  Then  he  should  be  punished  the  same  as  a  native- 
bom  citizen,  both  for  the  good  of  the  citizen  and  for  the  good  of  the 
country. 

The  Chairman,  There  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  that  enjoins  anybody 
to  compel  you  to  keep  a  stranger  in  your  midst  who  violates  the  laws 
of  vour  country. 

Commissioner  Harrison,  Now  the  chairman  may  be  getting  over 
into  another  field.  It  may  be  a  wise  policy — and  I  have  heard  it  advo- 
cated by  the  Attorneys  General  of  the  United  States — that  all  aliens 
we  admitted  should  be  required  to  make  a  choice  at  the  end  of  a  given 
number  of  years,  and  then  either  become  citizens  or  else  depart.  That 
is  a  large  policy  question  in  itself. 

But  are  you  saying  that  you  would  not  differentiate  between  the 
alien  who  admitted  or  was  admitted  for  permanent  residence  and 
admitted  legally  and  admitted  without  fraud,  that  you  would  not 
distinguish  between  that  person  2  years  after  his  admission  or  10  years 
after  his  admission? 

Rabbi  Kramer,  That  is  right.  Thank  you  very  much  for  clarifying 
my  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  for  appearing.  Your  other  prepared 
statement  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 


100         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

(The  prepared  statement  of  Kabbi  Simon  G.  Kramer  follows :) 

This  statement  is  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  following  organizations:  The 
Synagogue  Council  of  America,  which  includes  rabbinic  and  synagogal  groups  rep- 
resenting the  three  wings  of  Jewish  religious  life  in  this  country  as  follows  :  Cen- 
tral Conference  of  American  Rabbis  ;  Rabbinical  Assembly  of  America  ;  Rabbini- 
cal Council  of  America  ;  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  ;  Union  of  Or- 
thodox Jewish  Congregations  ;  and  the  United  Synagogue  of  America  ;  and  Jewish 
community  relations  organizations,  both  national  and  local,  which  are  engaged  in 
programs  to  foster  iiiterreligious  and  interracial  amity  in  furtherance  of  the  prin- 
ciple that  all  men  are  to  be  dealt  with  justly  and  equally  in  total  disregard  of  race^ 
creed,  religion,  or  ancestry.  These  organizations,  affiliated  in  the  National  Com- 
munity Relations  Advisory  Council,  include  the  American  Jewish  Congress,  the 
Jewish  Labor  Committee,  the  Jewish  War  Veterans  of  the  United  States,  Union  of 
American  Hebrew  Congregations  and  27  local  Jewish  councils  throughout  the 
United  States,  including  one  regional  council  in  the  Southwest,  embracing  parts 
of  three  States,  two  State  councils  in  Minnesota  and  Indiana,  and  local  councils  in 
Alameda  and  Contra  Costa  Counties,  Calif. ;  Akron,  Ohio ;  Baltimore,  Md. ; 
Boston,  Mass. ;  Bridgeport,  Conn. ;  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ;  Cincinnati,  Ohio ;  Cleveland, 
Ohio  ;  Detroit,  Mich. ;  Essex  County,  N.  J. ;  Hartford,  Conn. ;  Indianapolis,  Ind. ; 
Kansas  City,  Kans. ;  Los  Angeles,  Calif. ;  Milwaukee,  Wis. ;  New  Haven,  Conn. ; 
Norfolk,  Va. ;  Philadelphia,  Pa. ;  Pittsburgh,  Pa. ;  Rochester,  N.  Y. ;  St.  Louis,  Mo. ; 
San  Francisco,  Calif. ;  Washington,  D.  C. ;  and  Youngstown,  Ohio. 

This  statement  is  addressed  to  an  appraisal  of  the  general  assumptions  upon 
which  our  immigration  system  is  built  and  from  which  its  major  inadequacies 
derive,  rather  than  to  a  detailed  resum6  of  each  of  its  specific  faults.  The  hear- 
ings and  congi-essional  debates  on  the  McCarran-Walter  immigration  bill  per- 
mitted private  agencies,  at  least  partially,  to  express  criticism  of  individual  sec- 
tions of  the  present  law  and  the  McCarran-Walter  measures  which  have  since  been 
enacted  as  the  immigration  and  naturalization  law  of  1952  and  which  will  become 
effective  on  December  24  of  this  year.  Because  of  the  failures  of  the  last  Congress 
those  criticisms  remain  tragically  in  point.  At  the  same  time,  much  of  the  dis- 
cussion in  this  field  has  tended  to  obscure  consideration  of  basic  immigration 
principles.  Recent  proposals  have  been  in  the  nature  of  cosmetic  legislation 
aimed,  like  cosmetic  surgery,  at  patching  and  prettying  an  essentially  unsound 
condition,  without  appreciably  changing  its  underlying  character.  We  have  be- 
come so  preoccupied  with  a  strategy  of  tinkering  that  we  have  lost  sight  of  the 
fact  that  concepts  lying  at  the  heart  of  our  immigration  system  are  incredibly 
out  of  joint  with  the  knowledge  and  needs  of  our  time  and  with  the  hopes  and 
beliefs  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  American  people. 

These  concepts  may  be  grouped,  as  is  done  in  this  statement,  under  the  fol- 
lowing headings :  National  origins  quota  system,  deportation,  inequality  between 
native-born  and  naturalized  Americans,  and  opportunity  for  appellate  review. 

The  organizations  which  join  in  this  presentation  have  no  special  private  cause 
to  plead,  they  have  no  special  self-interest  in  the  improvement  of  our  immigra- 
tion laws  save  that  of  Americans  concerned  with  the  reformulation  of  basic  laws 
to  accord  with  democratic  principle.  It  is  a  tragic  fact  that  such  betterment 
neither  primarily  nor  directly  will  redound  to  the  benefit  of  prospective  Jewish 
immigrants  or  to  the  special  advantage  of  the  Jewish  community  in  this  country. 
More  than  6  million  Jews  in  Europe  were  exterminated  in  Nazi  gas  chambers  and 
concentration  camps ;  another  3  million  remain  irretrievably  locked  behind  the 
iron  curtain  with  no  foreseeable  prospect  of  fight.  The  remnants  of  world 
Jewry  are  largely  scattered  islands  steadily  shrinking  in  size,  mostly  destined 
for  migration  to  Israel.  Our  concern  with  immigration  laws  is  of  a  different 
character. 

Immigration  laws  crystallize  and  express  a  society's  basic  human  values.  They 
deal  with  our  relationship  with  people  other  than  our  immediate  neighbors.  Such 
laws  affirm  the  degree  of  our  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  essential  quality  of  all 
human  beings.  They  codify  our  prejudice  or  our  freedom  from  prejudice.  They 
reveal  the  measure  of  correspondence  between  our  professed  ideals  and  our 
practices.  In  our  endeavor  to  increase  this  measure  of  correspondence,  it  would 
be  unintelligent  and  profligate  deliberately  to  blind  ourselves  to  the  body  of  social 
and  scientific  knowledge  and  experience  we  have  acquired  since  1924.  The  many 
urgent  problems  of  migration  and  resettlement  now  demanding  immediate  solu- 
tion prohibit  continued  indulgence  in  artificial  respiration  of  the  phobias,  fears, 
and  phantasies  of  some  25  or  50  years  ago.  Concepts  like  the  national  origins 
quota  system  or  deportation  have  hardened  over  the  years  until  they  have  come 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  101 

to  he  ref,'ar(lo(l  as  sonu'liow  sacrosanct  ami  iiniiintahlo.  Since  1024  we  have  main- 
tained by  default  a  method  for  the  selection  of  immigrants  and  for  the  treatment 
of  aliens  and  naturalized  Americans  which  flies  arrogantly  in  the  face  of  every- 
thing we  know  and  have  learned,  and  which  stand  as  a  gratuitous  affront  to  the 
peoples  of  many  regions  of  the  world.  Th(»  welfare  of  this  country  and  its  people 
requires  that  we  put  aside  our  palliatives  and  half-way  measures  and  that  we 
come  to  grips  with  those  fundamental  central  provisions  of  our  immigration  laws 
which  have  been  a  source  of  national  eniharrassment  in  the  conduct  of  attitude 
from  one  of  suspicion  to  one  of  welcome.  Inunigral  ion  is  not  only  a  humanitarian 
gesture.  It  expresses  our  national  need  for  mani)ower  to  maintain  the  strength 
and  vigor  of  our  economy.  We  must  recast  our  thinking  and  begin  looking  upon 
the  immigrant  as  a  dignified  human  being  who  should  be  made  to  feel  at  home 
and  permitted  to  take  his  place  among  us  without  subjection  to  unending  ordeals, 
tests,  and  challenges.  If  we  are  to  meet  our  responsibilities  justly,  we  must  stop 
daring  the  immigrant  to  get  here  and  start  inviting  him  to  come. 

A.    NATIONAL  ORIGINS  QUOTA  SYSTEM 

In  brief,  the  national  origins  formula  adopted  in  1924  and  employed  ever  since, 
admits  a  total  of  approximately  150.000  people  a  year  and  except  for  nations  of 
the  Western  Hemisphere  fixes  maximum  quotas  for  each  country.  Quotas  range 
from  100  to  65,000  and  each  country's  quota  is  based  on  a  percentage  of  persons 
of  that  national  origin  resident  in  tlie  United  States  in  the  year  1920. 

Under  present  quota  allocations  over  70  percent  of  the  number  of  visas  avail- 
able annually  are  allotted  to  natives  of  northern  and  western  European  countries. 
In  the  years  1010-14  immigration  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  was  more 
than  four  times  as  large  as  that  from  northern  and  western  Europe.  Yet  under 
the  permanent  quotas  of  the  1924  act  five  times  as  many  immigration  quotas  are 
assigned  to  northern  and  western  Europe  as  are  allotted  to  eastern  and  southern 
Europe. 

The  national  origins  formula  was  no  legislative  accident.  The  end  of  World 
War  I  brought  with  it  an  intensified  demand  for  sharp  limitations  upon  immi- 
gration. The  quest  for  normalcy  which  dominated  the  time  was  associated  with 
the  rise  of  isolationism  and  of  antipathy  toward  the  peoples  of  Europe  and  the 
rest  of  the  world.  Rumors  were  widespread  that  the  United  States  would  soon 
be  inundated  by  a  flood  of  new  immigrants  from  a  devastated  Europe.  Restric- 
tionists  pointed  to  the  arrival  of  802.228  immigrants  in  the  fiscal  year  of  1921, 
65.3  percent  of  which  came  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe,  as  proof  that 
literacy  tests  and  other  comparable  tests  of  personal  physical,  mental,  and  moral 
qualification,  failed  to  achieve  a  lessening  of  the  flow  of  new  immigration.  These 
arguments  were  strengthened  and  made  persuasive  in  the  atmosphere  of  a  severe 
postwar  recession  and  the  emergence  of  the  bigoted  Ku  Klux  Klan  as  a  political 
force. 

Congress  thereupon  quickly  passed  the  first  quota  act  of  1921  limiting  immigra- 
tion to  an  annual  total  of  approximately  350,000  and  setting  a  celling  to  the 
number  of  any  nationality  admitted  at  8  percent  of  the  foreign-born  persons  of 
that  nationality  who  resided  here  in  .1910.  The  1921  act,  however,  was  drawn 
only  as  an  emergency,  makeshift  measure.  Not  until  1924  was  the  national 
origins  formula  enacted  and  our  quota  system  placed  on  a  new  and  permanent 
basis. 

Even  cursory  review  of  legislative  debate  in  1924  discloses  that  the  authors  of 
the  quota  plan  deliberately,  carefully,  and  consciously  contrived  to  encourage 
immigration  of  the  English,  French,  Irish,  Germans,  and  other  western  Euro- 
peans and  to  discourage  all  other  immigration.  Resting  upon  a  theory  com- 
pounded of  bigotry  and  ignorance  they  argued  that  persons  of  other  national 
origins  represented  inferior  biological  stocks  and  possessed  ethnic  qualities  mak- 
ing them  unassimilable.  The  pages  of  the  Congressional  Record  of  tiiose  days 
reflect  an  intense  preoccupation  with  race  and  blood,  a  preoccupation  which  today 
would  seem  monstrous.  A  report  was  submitted  by  Dr.  Harry  Laughlin,  ap- 
pointed in  1922  by  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration  to  study  the  biological 
aspects  of  immigration  and  reportedly  cited  during  debate  by  those  who  favored 
the  national  origins  forniula.    The  Laughlin  report  asserted: 

"Our  outstanding  conclusion  is  that  making  all  logical  allowances  for  envi- 
ronmental conditions  which  may  be  favorable  to  the  immigrant,  the  recent  immi- 
grants (southern  and  eastern  Euroxw)  as  a  whole  present  a  higher  percentage 
of  inborn  socially  inadequate  qualifies  than  do  the  older  stocks.  *  *  ♦  The 
differences  in  institutional  ratios  by  races  and  nativity  groups  found  by  these 


J  02         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

studies  represent  real  differences  in  social  values,  which  represent,  in  turn,  real 
differences  in  the  inborn  values  of  the  family  stocks  from  which  the  immigrant 
springs." 

Senator  Reed,  who  introduced  the  national  origins  formula  into  the  Senate  and 
who  then  served  as  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration,  reveal- 
iiigly  declared  during  hearings  on  the  immigration  bill  conducted  by  his  committee 
that:  "I  think  most  of  us  are  reconciled  to  the  idea  of  discrimination.  I  think 
the  American  people  want  us  to  discriminate.  *  *  *  Our  duty  is  to  the 
American  people  and  we  owe  no  duty  to  be  fair  to  all  nationals." 

At  the  time  of  its  adoption,  there  was  no  misunderstanding  on  anyone's  part 
as  to  the  significance  and  objectives  of  the  national  origins  formula.  A  vigorous 
minority  report  of  the  House  committee  bluntly  named  the  national  origins  plan 
for  what  it  was  and  condemned  it  for  imposing  an  arbitrary  and  adventitious 
test  out  of  keeping  with  national  policy : 

"The  obvious  purpose  of  this  discrimination,  however  much  it  may  now  be 
disavowed,  is  the  adoption  of  an  unfounded  anthropological  theory  that  the 
nations  which  are  favored  are  the  progeny  of  the  fictitious  and  hitherto  unsus- 
pected Nordic  ancestors,  while  those  discriminated  against  are  not  classified  as 
belonging  to  that  mythical  ancestral  stock.  No  scientific  evidence  worthy  of  con- 
sideration was  introduced  to  substantiate  this  pseudo-scientific  proposition.  It  is 
pure  invention  and  the  creation  of  a  journalistic  imagination." 

Then,  as  now,  the  national  origins  formula  was  founded  on  the  dual  premise 
that  racial  strains  other  than  those  which  might  roughly  be  grouped  as  Anglo- 
Saxon  have  a  contaminating  effect  upon  the  people  of  this  country.  And, 
secondly,  that  the  non-Anglo-Saxon  groups  comprise  an  indigestible  lump  in  the 
life  stream  of  our  community,  detrimental  if  not  fatal  to  the  creation  of  a 
distinctively  American  tradition. 

Were  it  not  for  the  continued  support  accorded  the  national  origins  plan  and 
were  it  not  for  the  sliocking  statements  made  by  supposedly  knowledgeable  men 
on  the  floor  during  debate  on  the  McCarran-AValter  bill,  one  would  assuredly 
think  it  unnecessary  in  this  day  and  age  to  elaborate  the  point  that  from  a 
scientific  view,  doctrines  of  Nordic  or  Anglo-Saxon  ancestry  are  sheer  undiluted 
hokum.  Because  of  these  statements,  however,  and  at  the  risk  of  needlessly 
reiterating  truisms,  it  should  again  be  recorded  that  the  unanimous  testimony  of 
physical  anthropologists  is  that  the  concept  of  a  "pure  race"  is  nothing  more 
than  an  abstraction,  bearing  no  concrete  relation  to  the  real  world.  No  pure  race 
can  be  found  in  any  civilized  comitry.  Racial  purity  is  restricted  at  best  to 
remnants  of  savage  groups  in  isohited  wildernesses.  The  present  races  of  man 
have  intermingled  and  interbred  for  so  many  thousands  of  years  that  their 
genealogical  lines  have  become  inextricably  confused.  The  concept  of  race  is  at 
the  most  a  zoological  device  whereby  indefinitely  large  groups  of  individuals  of 
more  or  less  similar  physical  appearance  and  approximately  similar  hereditary 
background  are  classified  together  for  the  sake  of  convenience.  In  the  words  of 
Prof.  Ashley  Montagu,  "not  one  of  the  great  division  of  men  is  unmixed,  nor  is 
anyone  of  its  ethnic  groups  pure     *     *     *     all  are  a  mixture." 

Moreover,  even  conceding  for  purposes  of  classification  the  existence  of  sep- 
arate and  distinct  races,  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that  mental  capacity,  moral 
sensibility,  or  cultural  achievement  are  a  function  of  race.  It  is  evident  to  the 
scientist,  if  not  to  tlie  legislator,  that  each  racial  type  runs  the  gamut  from 
idiots  and  criminals  to  geniuses  and  statesmen.  And,  no  racial  type  produces  a 
majority  of  individuals  at  either  end  of  the  scale.  So  far  as  is  known  there  are 
no  racial  monopolies  either  of  human  virtues  or  of  vices. 

Scientific  study  and  social  experience  have  surely  withered  these  racist  fictions 
with  the  finality  of  an  atomic  blast.  It  is  paradoxical  that  America,  which  prides 
itself  on  its  loyalty  to  the  dictates  of  scientific  knowledge  and  discovery,  should 
continue  to  base  so  significant  a  portion  of  its  legal  and  legislative  structure  on 
foundations  thoroughly  and  irrevocably  exploded  by  scientific  finding. 

Recognizing  the  stupidity  of  alleging  a  biological  "ranking  among  racial  groups, 
some  restrictionist  spokesmen  have  attenapted  instead  to  stress  the  value  of  the 
national-origins  foi-mula  as  expressing  the  ease  with  which  the  various  peoples 
submit  to  cultural  assimilation.  Setting  aside  for  a  moment  the  question  of 
cultural  homogeneity  as  a  desirable  national  objective,  it  is  worth  pausing  to 
examine  a  few  of  the  old  wives'  tales  that  have  evolved  in  this  connection. 

The  allegation  that  the  new  immigrants  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  de- 
pre.ss  wage  levels  and  resist  unionization  is  answered  by  the  rise  of  the  Interna- 
tional Ladies'  Garment  Workers  Union,  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  Union 
and  other  trade  union  organizations  which  have  brought  about  a  stabilization  of 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         103 

eiuplo.vuient  ((tnditinns  and  industries  into  whith  ne\\>M-  inimlj,'rjints  liow.  Lastly, 
tho  froqut'iit  allt'jr:Ui«in  lliat  soutlu'rn  and  eastern  Europeans  liave  tended  to 
coniiTeirate  in  c-ities  is  an  nbvious  distortion  of  tlie  fact  tliat  urbanization  is  a 
charaetoristic  of  modern  industrial  life,  by  no  means  conlined  to  imnii}?rants. 
Mechanization  of  farms  has  led  to  a  shift  of  population  to  urban  centers.  More- 
over, insufficient  emphasis  has  been  given  to  foreif^n  colonies  as  stepping  stones 
to  assimilation.  In  time  inniiiurants  from  such  colonies  tend  to  distribute  them- 
selves irenerally  throuuliout  America.  Analysis  of  available  statistics  indicates 
that  since  liHti  immigrants  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  have  not  concen- 
trated in  urban  areas  to  a  greater  extent  than  other  groups. 

The  national-origin.s  quota  system  incorporates  into  law  a  network  of  un- 
founded estimates  of  cultural  assimilability.  It  wholly  disregards  the  phe- 
nomenon of  cultural  change.  It  assumes,  for  example,  that  our  national  institu- 
tions bear  the  stamp  of  a  particular  nationality  in  the  same  proportion  that  per- 
sons of  that  national  descent  bear  to  the  whole  population.  But  cultures  are 
not  amenable  to  such  analysis  any  more  than  plants,  animals,  or  humans  can 
be  viewed  as  a  result  of  a  simple  addition  of  the  chemical  compounds  they 
absorb.  The  vast  developments  which  have  taken  place  in  American  life 
throughout  our  history  are  not  the  mechanical  result  of  simple  additions  from 
elements  of  immigrant  cultures  but  rather  the  evolution  of  a  new  and  distinc- 
tive culture  in  response  to  the  demands  of  a  new  environment. 

To  use  but  one  illustration,. the  new  German  quota  that  will  come  into  effect' 
under  the  McCarran  law  is  25,814.  It  is  the  second  largest  in  size  ranking^ 
after  tliat  of  Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  (G5,361).  Quotas  for  Italy, 
Greece,  and  Turkey  are  5,645,  308,  and  225,  respectively.  This  discrepancy  can 
find  no  warrant  in  the  theory  that  it  results  in  the  selection  of  immigrants 
from  countries  whose  traditions,  languages,  and  political  systems  are  akin  to 
ours.  It  would  be  absurd  to  claim  that  the  Germany  which  twice  precipitated 
the  world  into  war,  which  was  warped  by  Nazi  propaganda  for  more  than  a 
decade  prior  to  1933  and  molded  by  12  years  of  Nazi  powers,  is  culturally 
clo.ser  to  America  than  Italy,  Greece,  or  Turkey.  And  if  Germany  is  closer,  is 
the  degree  of  pi'opinquity  80  times  greater  than  in  the  case  of  Greece,  4  times 
greater  than  in  the  ease  of  Italy,  and  115  times  greater  than  in  the  case  of 
Turkey? 

That  northern  and  western  Europeans  adjust  to  American  life  better  than 
eastern  and  southern  Europeans  is  a  baseless  assertion.  Those  who  inisist  upon 
assimilation  by  the  obliteration  of  all  foreign  traits  with  the  utmost  speed 
and  thoroughness  have  ignored  the  development  and  enrichment  of  our  cultural 
life  which  has  accrued  from  the  adaptation  of  ideas  and  customs  of  European 
or  other  origin.  As  Prof.  Franz  Boas  has  said:  "The  social  resistance  to 
Americanizing  influence  is  so  weak  that  it  may  rather  be  regretted  that  we 
pr(ifit  so  little  from  the  cultural  heritage  of  the  immigrants  than  that  we 
should  fear  their  modifying  intinence  upon  American  thought  and  sentiment." 

America's  richness  has  not  been  merely  our  material  resources,  amply  en- 
dowefl  though  we  are.  It  has  been,  even  more,  our  diversity  of  peoples  and 
cultures  and  our  unique  ability  to  fashion  a  creative  national  unity  out  of  that 
diversity.  That  has  proved  to  be  our  strength  as  well  as  our  richness.  Total- 
itarianism carries  within  itself  the  seeds  of  its  own  destruction  thnmgh  the 
mechanical  uniformity  it  seeks  to  impose,  for  imposed  uniformity  must  ultimately 
result  in  social  and  human  degeneration.  Uniformity  can  emerge  not  only 
from  legal  or  physical  coercion,  but  as  a  result  of  rigidly  limiting  the  human 
resources  on  which  we  should  be  free  to  draw.  The  "American  tyyte"  has  not 
been  nourished  at  a  single  fount ;  it  has  drawn  from  many  springs,  and  it 
must  continue  to  draw  from  many  springs  if  it  is  to  be  enriched — indeed,  if  it 
is  to  remain  healthy. 

The  failure  of  successive  legislatures  to  expunge  the  national  origins  system 
from  our  statutes  has  resulted  in  the  retention  of  a  seri(>s  of  preferences, 
priorities,  bars  and  prohibitions  wliich  stamp  a  seal  of  inferiority  upon  per- 
sons of  other  than  Anglo-Saxon  origin.  For  all  of  its  highly  advertised  purging 
of  racism  from  our  immigration  laws,  closer  inspection  of  the  McCarran  law. 
Public  Law  414,  reveals  that  it  contains  such  provisions  as  the  section  estab- 
lishing tlie  "Asia-Pacific  triangle"'  (sec.  202  (b))  limiting  aimual  inunigration 
from  countries  in  that  area  to  a  maximum  of  100  a  year,  with  no  reference  to 
any  formulas  or  figures  and  with  no  rationale  .save  that  of  antipathv  to  i)ersons 
coming  from  tliat  part  of  the  world. 

Indeed,  the  new  law  is  so  thoroughly  immer.sed  in  racist  feeling  that  for 
persons  deriving  from  the  "Asia-Pacific  triangle"  usual  procedures  are  exactly 


104         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  '' 

reversed.  Country  of  birth  for  this  group  is  made  irrelevant  and  the  fact  of 
racial  ancestry  becomes  the  single  important  criterion  upon  which  admissibility 
depends.  A  native  Englishman,  even  one  of  whose  parents  derived  his  ancestry 
from  China,  Japan,  Korea,  or  other  countries  within  the  so-called  Asia-Pacific 
triangle  is  not  permitted  to  enter  this  country  under  the  ample  British  quota ; 
he  is  compelled  to  seek  admission  under  the  limited  quota  of  100  for  the  Asia- 
Pacific  country.  Public  Law  414  thus  imposes  an  inescapable  onus  upon  some 
racial  groups,  never  to  be  avoided  no  matter  to  what  ends  of  the  earth  their 
members  may  travel.  Negro  immigration,  in  like  fashion,  is  carefully  restricted 
by  denying  certain  dependent  areas  in  the  West  Indies,  for  the  first  time,  the 
right  to  use  quotas  belonging  to  the  mother  country.  Moreover,  quotas  under 
Public  Law  414  continue  to  be  premised  upon  the  1920  census,  a  device  clearly 
intended  to  freeze  if  not  paralyze  the  composition  of  our  population.  Be- 
cause those  areas  of  the  world  whose  peoples  are  most  urgently  in  need  of  re- 
settlement and  most  deserving  of  assistance  have  among  the  lowest  of  the  quotas 
and  because  these  quotas  are  in  almost  every  case  oversubscribed  for  years  to 
come,  our  present  immigration  laws  are  more  ironic  than  helpful.  All  of  these 
inequities,  along  with  a  host  of  others,  would  be  removed  at  one  stroke  with  the 
elimination  of  the  quota  system. 

In  support  of  the  national-origins  system  it  is  frequently  urged  that  given  the 
need  for  some  quantitative  restriction  of  immigration,  there  exists  no  other  feas- 
ible method  of  apportionment.  Surely,  human  ingenuity  is  not  so  feeble.  To 
claim  that  the  existing  discriminatory  and  arbitrary  scheme  is  just  because  no 
other  alternative  can  be  devised  is  to  confess  to  an  extraordinary  lack  of  imagi- 
nation. Without,  by  any  means,  exhausing  the  alternatives  the  following  changes 
in  the  method  of  apportionment  might  be  suggested : 

(1)  Selection  on  the  basis  of  individual  merit.  Ideally  this  would  be  most 
desirable.  Practically,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  scientific  testing  has  yet 
reached  the  point  of  accurately  predicting  which  of  two  qualified  visa  applicants 
would  make  a  better  resident  of  the  United  States. 

(2)  Distribution  of  visas  on  a  first-come,  first-served  basis  with  preferences, 
for  relatives  of  citizens  or  legal  residents,  and  victims  of  racial,  religious,  or 
political  persecution  and  those  who  possess  special  skills.  Existing  laws  set 
minimum  qualifications  for  admission.  Those  who  are  physically,  mentally,  or 
morally  unfit  may  not  enter.  There  is  thus  reasonable  assurance  that  those  who 
do  qualify  for  entrance  are  sound  human  beings.  It  is  perfectly  practicable  to 
control  the  annual  issuance  of  visas  from  Washington.  The  present  large  British 
quota  of  over  65,000  is  currently  being  administered  on  a  first-come,  first-served 
basis.  There  is  no  reason  this  count  not  be  done  for  the  over-all  quota.  The 
advantages  of  the  system  of  course  lie  in  its  simplicity,  the  abolition  of  the  dis- 
criminatory bias  of  the  national-origins  formula  and  the  increased  opportunity 
for  obtaining  persons  with  needed  skills  through  broadening  the  geographical 
sources  of  immigration.  Moreover,  emergency  situations  could  be  handled  by 
Executive  order  creating  special  priorities  within  the  nonpreference  class. 

Abolition  of  the  national-origins  quota  system  does  not  necessarily  entail  in- 
creasing the  number  of  immigrants  to  l)e  admitted  yearly.  We  are  speaking  here 
not  of  the  size  of  the  loaf  but  to  the  evenness  and  wisdom  of  the  slices.  It  should 
be  noted,  however,  that  once  the  waste  intrinsic  in  the  national  origins  plan  is 
eliminated,  there  will  ensue  an  automatic  increase  in  the  number  of  persons 
eligible  for  admission.  At  present,  for  example,  Great  Britain  is  allowed  almost 
half  the  available  visas  and  yet,  year  after  year,  it  fails  to  use  more  than  a  small 
percentage.  The  remaining  visas  now  are  lost.  Under  a  plan  which  looks  toward 
the  personal  qualifications  of  the  individual  rather  than  to  the  extraneous  fact 
of  his  place  of  birth,  we  could  be  assured  of  maximum  use  of  the  yearly  visa 
allocation. 

(3)  Utilization  of  a  flexible  system  of  apportionment  by  administrative  deter- 
mination. Once  the  national-origins  quotas  are  dropped,  it  would  be  possible  to 
establish  an  administrative  or  executive  commission  to  fix  annual  quotas  taking 
into  account  numerous  factors  such  as  individual  and  national  need,  mental  and 
physical  ability,  family  status  or  special  skills.  This  Commission's  determina- 
tions would  be  based  upon  the  absorptive  capacity  of  our  economic  and  social 
system  and  would  allow  periodic  readjustment  of  the  total  to  be  admitted  each 
year.  There  is  nothing  hallowed  about  the  150,000  annual  visa  figure.  Nor  is 
there  any  reason  ever  to  fix  a  final  immigration  ceiling  to  remain  in  effect  for  all 
the  time.  The  dangers  of  permitting  apportionment  of  visas  by  a  commission  lie 
in  the  possibility  that  inadequate  or  improper  congressional  standards  and  lack 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         105 

of  opportunity  for  review  of  administrative  determinations  would  permit  the 
Comuiissit)n  to  allocate  quotas  in  conformity  with  its  own  prejudices,  or  the 
prejudices  of  other  special  groups  rather  than  with  individual  merit  and  national 
needs.  However,  possiltility  that  an  illiberal  ajj;ency  might  thus  exploit  this 
opportunity  to  reduce  annual  immigration  could  be  precluded  by  establishing 
the  present  ti;:ure  of  ir»(),(KH)  animal  visas  as  a  mininumi.  We  would  then  have 
a  firm  floor  and  a  flexibh'  moving  ceiling  which  could  be  made  responsive  to  our 
domestic  economic  health  and   to   our  responsibilities   abroad. 

We  are,  of  course,  cognizant  of  the  problem  of  refugees  and  surplus  popula- 
tions to  which  President  Truman  drew  attention  in  bis  message  to  Congress  last 
March  24.  In  our  view,  these  dislocated  peoples  represent  a  continuing  emer- 
gency which  will  harass  the  free  world  for  many  years  and  possibly  generations 
to  come.  It  is  our  conviction  that  this  problem  should  not  be  approached  on  the 
basis  of  piecemeal  emergency  legislation.  It  is  possible  within  the  bounds  of  our 
permanent  immigration  laws  to  give  special  attention  to  distressed  areas  by 
increasing  the  total  number  of  immigrants  to  be  admitted  annually  and  be  reserv- 
ing a  substantial  priority  within  that  number,  for  persons  who  are  persecutees  or 
refugees.  The  world  situation  urgently  requires  that  the  national  origins  system 
be  eliminated.  Once  this  is  accomplished  we  are  then  equipped  to  meet  emergency 
needs  within  the  framework  of  a  just,  humane,  and  flexible  immigration  system. 

B.    DEPORTATION 

The  concept  of  deportation  as  employed  in  our  basic  immigration  laws  is  not 
less  in  need  of  drastic  revision.  The  present  law  stands  in  flat  opposition  to 
the  principle  that  once  a  person  is  admitted  into  the  United  States  for  perma- 
nent residence,  he  should  have  the  privilege  of  remaining  in  this  country  unless 
his  immigration  was  based  on  fraud  or  illegal  entry.  Deportation  used  as  a 
penalty  is  inhumane  and  medieval.  It  frequently  punishes  persons  entirely 
innocent,  such  as  members  of  the  immediate  family  of  the  deportee.  An  alien 
who  does  wrong  should  be  punished  for  his  wrong  the  same  as  a  citizen  but  the 
punishment  should  not  carry  with  it  the  additional  penalty  of  "banishment." 

Immigrants  who  come  to  this  country  are  not  here  on  consignment..  Those 
persons  who  pull  up  their  roots  and  rearrange  their  lives  to  come  to  the  United 
States  under  our  laws  and  under  a  system  of  qualifications  which  we  draw  and 
which  we  administer  are  entitled  to  believe  that  once  here  they  will  be  allowed 
to  remain  and  that  they  will  be  dealt  with  justly  and  equally.  This  of  course 
does  not  imply  that  they  are  not  to  be  penalized  or  held  fully  accountable  for 
their  crimes  or  their  mistakes.  It  does  mean  that  they  are  not  to  be  assessed 
with  penalties  higher  in  degree  or  in  character  from  those  imposed  on  native 
Americans  for  like  acts. 

We  must  admit  to  a  measure  of  responsibility  for  persons  entering  this  coun- 
try from  the  moment  they  disembark.  Immigration  is  a  profound  experience. 
It  entails  the  breaking  up  of  preexisting  ties  and  the  reconstruction  of  a  whole 
life.  Immigrants  who  fail  are  as  much  our  problem  as  native  Americans  who 
fail.  The  inunigration  system  nmst  not  be  made  to  bear  a  bui-den  properly 
residing  in  our  economic  institution^,  our  communities  and  neighborhoods,  or 
in  our  scbools.  It  is  much  too  easy  a  solution  to  slough  off  responsibility  simply 
by  sending  the  alien  back  where  he  came  from,  rather  than  recognize  our  own 
Implication  in  his  failure. 

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  asserted  that  loss  of  the  right  to  remain 
in  the  United  States,  technically  not  a  criminal  penalty,  nevertheless  partakes 
of  the  nature  of  such  penalties  and  in  most  cases  imposes  an  even  more  serious 
injury.  Deportation  usually  entails  the  breaking  up  and  separation  of  the  family 
unit.  Innocent  dependents  who  remain  behind  are  the  jiriine  sufferers  when  the 
head  of  tlie  family  and  the  sole  source  of  income  and  livelihood  is  expelled. 

Compounding  of  penalties  for  immigrants  has  no  basis  in  American  life. 
Theoretically  all  persons  who  reside  within  our  borders  are  entitled  to  identical 
treatment.  And,  indeed,  it  is  a  radical  and  dangerous  practice  to  initiate  a  system 
of  caste  among  our  residents.  No  one  denies  that  tho.se  who  intiailly  obtain  entry 
into  this  country  illegally  or  ])y  virtue  of  deceit  or  fraud  should  not  be  entitled 
to  capitalize  on  their  duplicity  and  should  be  made  deportable.  With  the  sole 
exception  of  fraudulent  entry,  we  must  concede  tenure  to  immigrants  once  they 
have  been  admitted  permanently,  otherwise  liberty  is  a  meaningless  term.  Elim- 
ination of  the  notion  of  deportation  as  a  penalty  would  initiate  a  sin-de  system 
for  the  punishment  of  wrongdoers  and  would  compel  our  courts  and  our  adminls- 


106  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

trative  bodies  to  bring  practice  into  line  with  theory  and  grant  to  all  persons 
within  our  borders  equal  standing  under  our  laws. 

Public  Law  414  completely  departs  from  this  principle.  Under  that  law  immi- 
grant culpability  for  a  variety  of  acts,  many  of  them  minor,  inexorably  results 
in  deportation.  Thus,  the  new  law  permits  expulsion  of  an  alien  who  becomes  a 
public  charge  even  though  at  the  time  of  his  entry  there  was  no  reason  to  believe 
or  anticipate  that  he  would  encounter  financial  or  employment  difficulties  (sec. 
241  (a)  (8) ).  Immigrants  thus  are  made  to  bear  the  brunt  of  inadequacies  and 
faults  inhering  not  in  themselves  but  in  our  domestic  conditions. 

Similarly,  Public  Law  414  permits  deportation  of  any  person  who  is  institu- 
tionalized in  a  mental  hospital  within  5  years  of  entry  even  though  his  illness 
failed  to  manifest  itself  prior  to  his  arrival  in  the  United  States  (sec.  241  (a) 
(3)).  Provisions  which  deal  more  harshly  with  persons  suffering  from  mental 
conditions  than  with  those  who  are  physically  ill  have  little  validity  or  justifica- 
tion in  what  is  presumably  an  era  of  enlightened  medicine. 

Still  another  section  of  McCarran's  law  provides  that  in  addition  to  regular 
criminal  penalties,  and  after  their  sentences  have  been  completed,  aliens  con- 
victed of  crimes  involving  moral  turpitude,  in  some  cases  no  matter  for  how 
many  years  they  previoiisly  have  been  resident  of  the  United  States,  are  made 
deportable  (Sec.  241  (a)  (4)).  In  a  comparable  provision,  where  an  alien 
has  violated  one  of  a  group  of  Federal  laws,  the  Attorney  General  is  empowered 
to  deport  the  alien  in  the  event  he  finds  him  to  be  "an  undesirable  resident,"  a 
term  obviously  lacking  in  precision  and  definiteness  and  inviting  administrative 
abuse  (sec.  241  (a)   (17)). 

We  hold  no  brief  for  the  criminal,  the  wrongdoer,  the  narcotics  users,  the  sub- 
versive, or  the  alien  who  seeks  through  immoral  means  to  obtain  personal  ad- 
vantage. At  the  same  time  we  recognize  that  this  country  is  necessarily  im- 
plicated in  his  actions.  The  criminal  alien  represents  a  menace,  but  it  differs 
in  no  discernible  character,  quality,  or  degree  from  the  menace  represented  by 
the  criminal  native-born.  The  reconstruction  and  rehabilitation  of  defective, 
sick  individuals  is  a  job  for  our  entire  community.  It  is  not  one  which  lies 
within  the  province  of  the  immigration  system.  It  is  not  one  which  can  be 
avoided  by  the  simple  means  of  ejecting  those  whom  we  find  unpleasant.  The 
marriage  of  the  immigrant  and  of  the  United  States  is  presumably  one  premised 
on  sincerity  on  the  part  of  both  and  it  is  marriage  for  better  or  for  worse.  The 
use  of  deportation  as  a  means  of  coercing  conformity  or  of  inflicting  extra- 
judicial punishment  is  a  repudiation  of  the  principle  of  equality. 

C.  INEQUALITY  BETWEEN  NATIVE-BORN  AND  NATURALIZED  CITIZENS 

Distinctions  between  native-born  and  naturalized  citizens  in  our  immigration 
laws  must  be  eliminated  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  The 
naturalization  process  shoiild  be  so  devised  as  to  insure  that  before  a  person 
is  naturalized,  he  is  genuinely  attached  to  the  governing  principles  of  this  coun- 
try. Thereafter,  certificates  of  naturalization  should  not  be  canceled,  save 
upon  a  showing  of  fraud. 

The  stamp  of  a  free  and  secure  society  is  its  abjuration  of  all  forms  of  limited 
citizenship.  Our  courts  have  declared  that  under  our  Constitution  a  naturalized 
citizi'U  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  a  native-born  citizen,  in  all  respects 
save  eligibility  for  the  Presidency.  They  have  explicitly  rejected  the  notion  that 
"the  framers  of  the  Constitution  intended  to  create  two  classes  of  citizens,  one 
free  and  independent,  one  haltered  with  a  lifetime  string  attaching  to  its  status." 
The  naturalized  citizen,  being  invested  with  all  the  rights  of  citizenship,  has  been 
held  no  more  responsible  for  anything  he  may  say  or  do,  or  omit  to  say  or  do, 
after  assuming  his  new  character,  than  if  he  were  born  in  the  United  States. 

This  guaranty  of  equal  rights  to  naturalized  Americans  is  not  a  doctrine 
recently  come  by  or  lightly  held.  It  is  of  the  very  fal)ric  of  our  history.  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  long  ago  definitively  declared  that  a  naturalized  citizen  be- 
comes "a  member  of  the  society,  possessing  all  the  rights  of  a  native  citizen  and 
standing,  in  the  view  of  the  Constitution,  on  the  footing  of  a  native.  The  Con- 
stitution does  not  authorize  Congress  to  enlarge  or  abridge  those  rights.  The 
simple  power  of  the  national  legislature  is  to  prescribe  a  uniform  rule  of  naturali- 
zation, and  the  exercise  of  this  power  exhausts  it,  so  far  as  respects  the  indi- 
vidual" {Oshome  v.  United  Stales  Bank,  22  U.  S.  738,  S27).  The  grant  of  Amer- 
ican citizen  is  not  a  partial  grant  and  it  is  not  a  grant  upon  a  condition  sub- 
sequent. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         107 

Finally,  Puhlic  Law  414  rcenacts  those  sections  of  the  Nationality  Act  of 
1940  which  expatriated  naturalized  Americans  merely  hecause  of  residence 
abroad  for  a  i)eriotl  of  ">  years  or  more  while  permitting  native  Americans  to 
remain  away  indefinitely,  without  loss  of  penalty.  The  State  Department  re- 
peatedly has  testified  that  in  its  opinion  these  provisions  Ix'ar  no  reasonalde 
or  perceptible  relation  to  our  national  interest.  'I'he  expatriation  statutes 
symbolize  the  suspicion  felt  toward  the  alien,  and  the  unjustiliable  rigorous 
standards  of  conduct  demanded  of  him.  If  our  professions  or  equality  are  to 
he  seriously  regarded,  all  grants  of  preferential  treatm(>nt  of  the  native-boni, 
whether  direct  or  indirect,  must  be  erased  from  the  body  of  our  law. 

I).    orPOKTU.N'l'FY  FOR  APPEAL  AND  KEVIKW 

The  core  of  the  American  system  of  justice  is  that  each  person  shall  be 
accorded  a  fair  hearing.  Public  Law  414  fails  to  accord  to  immigrants  or 
aliens  the  necessary  judicial  protection  which  accompanies  the  concept  of  fair 
liearing  by  omitting  any  provision  for  a  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals  and  a  Visa 
Review  Board.  Even  more,  it  explicitly  denies  opportunity  for  further  inquiry  to 
any  alien  wlio  may  ai)pear  to  the  examining  ofticer  to  be  excludable  under 
paragraphs  27,  28,  and  20  of  section  212  (a),  relating  to  subversive  classes 
(se<-t.  20.")  (c)  ) — a  discretion  that  is  contrary  to  normal  democratic  procedures. 
Where  the  exclusion  is  for  security  reasons,  and  it  is  deemed  vital  to  protect 
the  Government's  sources  of  information,  it  is  imperative  that  the  alien,  at  least, 
be  accorded  a  chance,  in  accordance  with  normal  standards  of  American  justice, 
to  plead  his  side  of  the  story  and  bring  any  witnesses  he  may  desire.  Further, 
it  is  necessary  that  the  existing  nonstatutory  Board  of  Immigration  Api)eals  be 
retained  and  made  statutory,  and  that  the  existing  procedure  be  retained, 
whereby  appeal  may  be  made  to  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  and  Naturali- 
zation- from  a  decision  of  a  lower  othcial  to  exclude  an  alien,  and  from  the 
latter's  decision,  if  adverse,  to  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals.  The  Board 
of  Immigration  Appeals  should  he  written  into  the  law  and  not  remain  at  the 
mercy  of  administrative  decision. 

Under  present  law,  consular  officials  have  an  absolute  right  to  deny  issuance 
of  a  visa,  and  there  is  virtually  no  means  whereby  an  interested  American  citizen 
or  organization  may  obtain  a  hearing  to  put  in  question  the  correctness  of  the 
action  of  the  consul.  While  the  Department  of  State  may  require  a  report  of  the 
comisul,  final  discretion  lies  with  the  latter,  the  Department's  participation 
being  limited  to  an  advisory  opinion.  To  prevent  prejudice,  arbitrariness,  or 
caprice  in  the  award  of  visas,  and  in  the  grant  of  the  all-important  opportunity 
for  immigration,  we  urge  legislative  provision  for  the  establishment  of  a  Visa 
Review  Board  empowered  to  review  and  reverse  consular  decisions  to  issue  or 
deny  visas.  Such  Board  should  provide  an  opportunity  for  an  American  citi- 
zen or  organization  interested  in  bringing  an  alien  to  this  country  to  appeal 
on  his  behalf.  Measures  addressed  to  these  objectives  will  surround  the  immi- 
gi-ation  process  with  the  iK>rtection  and  safeguards  it  merits. 

CONCLUSION 

The  eloquent  affirmation  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  that  "all  men 
are  created  e<iual"'  expresses  the  cardinal  democratic  belief  that  all  persons  are 
to  be  regarded  as  equally  capable  of  intelligence,  freedom,  and  social  usefulness, 
that  every  individual  can  claim  the  right  to  be  jtidged  on  his  own  merits.  The 
immigration  iM)licy  enacted  in  1!)24  was  a  repudiation  of  that  doctrine,  for  it 
asserted  that  iK-rsons  in  quest  of  the  opportunity  to  live  in  this  land  were  to  be 
Judged  ac<ordiiig  to  breed  like  cattle  at  a  country  fair  and  not  on  the  basis  of 
their  character,  fitness,  or  capacity. 

This  Commission  has  a  significant  opportunity  to  recommend  the  shaping  of 
our  imnugration  and  naturalization  laws  so  that  they  may  better  conform  to 
American  ideals  and  exixnience,  which  reijuire  eipial  treatment  of  all  persons 
and  the  fullest  guaranties  of  basic  civil  liberties.  In  the  light  of  our  knowledge 
and  aspirati<ms  and  indeed  the  needs  of  the  Nation,  the  national-origins  (juota 
systeni  and  concept  of  penal  dei)ortation  must  i)e  abolished  and  the  internal 
administration  of  our  inunigration  processes  must  be  improved.  Our  immigra- 
tion laws  must  l>e  purged  of  every  taint  of  racial,  religious,  and  ethnic  de.scrimi- 
nation.     Nothing  less  than  this  is  worthy  of  a  freedom-loving  iieople. 


25356—52- 


108         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT  OF  LESTER  GUTTEEMAN,  REPRESENTING  THE 
AMERICAN  JEWISH  COMMITTEE  AND  THE  ANTI-DEFAMATION 
LEAGUE  OF  B'NAI  B'RITH 

Mr.  GuTTERMAN.  My  name  is  Lester  Gutterman,  my  address  is  507 
Clavain  Avenue,  Mamaroneck,  N.  Y.,  and  I  speak  for  the  American 
Jewish  Committee  and  the  Anti-Defamation  League  of  B'nai  B'rith. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  wish  to  submit  for  the  record, 
since  it  would  take  longer  to  read  it  than  the  allotted  time.  I  would, 
however,  like  to  make  a  prefacing  remark,  with  your  permission. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so.  I  must  warn  you,  however,  that 
your  time  will  be  necessarily  limited,  in  view  of  the  number  of  wit- 
nesses who  yet  remain  to  be  heard  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Gutterman.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Commission,  I 
speak  for  the  Anti-Defamation  League  of  B'nai  B'rith  and  the  Ameri- 
can Jewish  Committee,  established  in  1906  "to  prevent  the  infraction 
of  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  Jews  in  any  part  of  the  world." 
Both  organizations  are  dedicated  to  preserving  this  way  of  life,  with 
their  origin  being  a  concern  for  persecution  and  discrimination  against 
Jews.  But  as  time  has  gone  on  the  idea  of  preserving  this  way  of 
living  has  been  the  major  activity  of  both  organizations.  I  find  my- 
self in  the  very  enjoyable  position  of  not  being  what  is  commonly 
termed  the  "dog  in  the  manger,"  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  reser- 
voir of  potential  Jewish  immigration  from  abroad  has  been  substan- 
tially diminished  in  the  last  10  or  15  years,  and  everything  we  say  is 
predicated  on  the  kind  of  immigration  policy  this  Nation  should  have 
with  regard  to  all  immigrants. 

I  might  comment  about  several  false  notions  concerning  immigra- 
tion. The  first  is  that  by  having  quotas  that  we  limit  immigration,  we 
limit  the  number  of  additions  from  our  population.  Nothing  is  fur- 
ther from  the  truth,  because  with  an  unlimited  or  free  quota  from  the 
Western  Hemisphere,  that  nation  could  very  easily  be  flooded  with  a 
number  of  people  who  do  not  have  such  a  restriction. 

Then  there  are  the  usual  misconceptions  concerning  housing  and 
jobs.  The  success  of  this  country  and  its  progress  has  been  consistent 
with  its  ratio  of  immigration,  and  at  the  time  of  its  greatest  achieve- 
ment and  greatest  success  it  had  correspondingly  its  greatest  number 
of  immigrants. 

There  are  a  certain  number  of  false  misconceptions  concerning 
crimes ;  and  one  statistic  might  demonstrate  the  fallaciousness  of  that 
false  impression  better  than  any  other.  I  think  our  criminal  inmates 
of  foreign-born  comprise  four  and  a  fraction  percentage,  whereas 
immigrants  in  this  country  comprise  over  6  percent  of  our  population. 

The  birth  rate  being  what  it  is  and  the  death  rate  having  decreased, 
in  1  year  the  increase  from  births  in  this  Nation  far  surpass  or  at  least 
equals  the  number  of  immigrants  taken  in  the  country  in  excess  of  it. 

We  come  to  the  conclusion  that  our  quota  laws  are  not  limitations 
upon  immigrants  but  rather  limitations  on  non-western-liemispheric 
immigration.  We  have  given  this  a  great  deal  of  thought  insofar  as 
our  foreign  policy  is  concerned.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  both  civil 
rights  and  foreign  policy,  for  the  simple  reason  when  we  have  legisla- 
tion that  is  exclusive  in  character  it  affects  the  feeling  of  nations  we 
want  to  be  our  allies,  and  anything  excluding  this  tends  to  affect  these 


COMMISSION    ON    IMIVUGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  109 

people  in  a  manner  whereby  they  will  not  become  our  allies  at  this 
time  of  our  greatest  need. 

As  far  as  the  numerical  differences  in  those  allowed  entry  in  this 
country,  it  is  fixed  on  a  fallacious  base.  If  there  are  a  certain  number 
of  immigrants  allowable  a  year,  we  have  only  received  about  65,000 
of  them  a  year.  This  does  not  include  those  who  ha\e  left  these  shores 
and  have  returned  for  one  reason  or  another. 

But  this  complex  situation  reduced  to  its  simple  equation,  where  you 
will  allow  60,000  Euglishnien  and  a  very  few  thousand  Italians,  would 
give  the  impression  to  the  rest  of  the  world  that  for  every  1  Italian 
permitted  to  come  into  this  country  we  would  prefer  to  have  12  more 
Englishmen.  I  say  that  within  itself  is  an  offense  to  the  nations  of 
this  world. 

Under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  we  find  that  under  the  mortgaging 
of  quotas  there  are  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  which  for  the  next 
century  on  the  very  small  quota  that  they  have,  that  very  small  one, 
for  the  next  50  to  100  years  is  cut  right  in  half,  of  those  that  are 
allowable. 

There  are  other  things  that  are  discriminatory.  One  has  to  do  with 
Negroes,  and  one  has  to  do  with  Asiatics. 

One  of  the  favorable  things  had  to  do  with  the  granting  of  minimum 
quotas  permitting  a  hundred  per  year  from  the  various  Asiatic  nations. 
At  the  same  time  there  is  almost  a  direct  slap  in  the  face  of  these 
Asiatic  nations,  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  McCarran- Walter  Act 
provides  that  any  person,  regardless  of  where  he  is  born,  "who  is 
attributable  by  so  inuch  as  one-half  of  his  ancestry-'  to  races  indigenous 
to  the  Asiatic  Pacific  triangle,  shall  be  chargeable  to  the  small  quota 
for  that  area. 

As  far  as  colored  persons  are  concerned,  it  is  definitely  discrimina- 
tory, because  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  McCarran- Walter  Act,  British 
West  Indies  and  Jamaica  were  charged  to  the  British  quota  which  is 
in  excess  of  60,000,  whereas  right  now  they  are  limited  to  100.  These 
policies  in  our  estimation  make  it  impossible  to  combat  Soviet  charges 
that  we  consider  nouAvhites,  who  comprise  two-thirds  of  the  world's 
population,  as  inferior  and  second-rate  stuff. 

We  have  certain  recommendations  to  make,  in  appraising  proposals 
to  revise  innnigration  laws.  It  is  necessary  to  consider  what  changes 
l)est  serves  tlie  interests  of  the  United  States,  and  we  find  that  there 
are  three  main  features  to  our  immigration  laws.  The  first  concerns 
persons  who  may  be  harmful  to  this  country,  such  as  criminals,  sub- 
versives, et  cetera.  The  second,  that  of  immigrants  permitted  to  enter 
in  any  year.  The  third  is  a  system  of  racial  and  national  exclusions 
and  preferences  by  which  quotas  are  assigned  to  some  lands  and  denied 
to  others.  I  am  not  going  to  elaborate  on  that  because  I  imagine  this 
Commission  has  learned  an  awful  lot. 

We  believe  that  the  national-origins  quota  system  is  racist  and 
undemocratic.  Implicit  in  it  is  an  evaluation  along  racial  lines  of  the 
comparative  worth  of  individuals.  For  example,  it  says  that  a  person 
of  Anglo-Saxon  derivation  is  worth  at  least  13  times  as  much  to  the 
United  States  as  a  person  of  Italian  derivation.  It  seeks  to  maintain 
the  racial  composition  of  our  country  in  terms  of  a — first — a  fixed 
norm,  even  though  our  country  has  grown  great  as  the  open-arm  recip- 
ient of  millions  of  persons  from  outside  our  borders.    It  assumes  that 


110         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

the  racial  composition  of  a  nation's  population  should  be  made  rigid 
and  that  it  does  harm  to  a  nation  to  permit  its  population  to  undergo- 
the  normal  changes  which  time  and  the  flow  of  people  bring  about^ 
This  contradicts  the  basic  principle  of  American  democracy,  that  an 
individual  is  to  be  judged  solely  on  his  own  accomplishments  and  not 
on  the  basis  of  the  racial  group  to  which  he  belongs. 

For  these  reasons  we  are  convinced  that  the  national-origins  quota 
system  must  be  done  away  with.  It  may  be  difficult,  even  if  possible,  to 
find  a  perfect  substitute  for  this  system.  But  one  substitute  that  we- 
consider  is  one  of  the  policy  of  "first  come,  first  served.''  This  has  many 
difficulties.  A  major  danger  may  be  that  it  becomes  the  foreign  policy 
of  a  particular  country  to  encourage  the  immigration  of  a  proportion- 
ate population  so  that  with  this  encouragement  its  particular  citizens- 
will  enjoy  an  advantage  over  other  countries  where  the  same  policy- 
does  not  exist. 

Another  plan  is  to  follow  the  first-come,  first-served  policy  except 
that  visas  would  be  issued  only  in  response  to  applications  received 
from  American  citizens  for  the  admission  of  their  relatives  or  friends. 
It  is  apparent  that  is  not  riglit,  because  the  American  citizens  abroad 
would  have  a  terrific  advantage. 

Still  another  system  would  be  to  set  a  maximum  figure  to  be  ad- 
mitted each  year  and  to  divide  that  number  up  in  proportion  to  the- 
existing  unsatisfied  registered  demand  for  visas  by  qualified  immi- 
grants as  evidenced  through  applications  filed  with  the  American 
consuls  in  each  country. 

Each  of  the  foregoing  plans  has  serious  difficulties.  Some  are  open 
to  the  danger  that  a  few  highly  populous  countries  will  preempt  most 
of  the  visas  available.  Each  would  result  in  a  terrific  administrative 
burden  resulting  from  a  race  by  would-be  immigrants  to  be  first  in 
applying  at  the  consulates  in  their  countries. 

It  was  a  recognition  of  the  racism  and  unfairness  implicit  in  the- 
national-origins  quota  system  that  led  organizations  such  as  ours  to 
support  the  proposal  contained  in  the  Humphrey-Lehman  immigra- 
tion bill,  to  pool  unused  quotas.  We  felt  that  the  pooling  of  unused 
quotas  would  make  additional  visas  available  to  would-be  immigrants 
badly  in  need  of  assistance.  We  were  concerned  at  the  unconscionable 
waste  of  visas  resulting  from  failure  to  use  fully  the  large  English  and 
Irish  quotas.  At  the  same  time  we  supported  pooling  of  unused  quotas 
because  that  necessarily  involved  some  breaking  down  of  the  structure 
of  the  national-origins  quota  system. 

Another  item  of  our  consideration  is  the  Visas  Review  Board.  It  is 
our  contention  that  our  consuls  throughout  the  world  have  unlimited 
power,  without  anything  to  interfere,  not  even  the  right  of  review  or 
right  of  appeal.  We  take  exception  to  any  one  man  having  such 
power. 

Another  item  is  deportation.  We  have  considered  deportation  the- 
equivalent  of  banishment,  which  in  medieval  times  was  the  worst  sort 
of  punishment  meted  out — and  I  am  not  unmindful  of  your  questions 
of  Rabbi  Kramer  concerning  banishment.  I  should  like  to  quote  some 
words  of  Justice  Douglas  in  a  recent  case  when  he  said : 

Banishment  is  punishment  in  the  practical  sense.  It  may  deprive  a  man  and 
his  family  of  all  that  makes  life  worth  while.  Those  who  have  their  roots  here 
have  an  important  stake  in  this  counrty.    Tlieir  plans  for  themselves  and  their 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         111 

aiopcs  for  their  children  all  dopend  on  thoir  right  to  stay.  If  they  are  uprooted 
4incl  sent  to  lands  no  longer  known  to  them,  no  longer  hospitable,  they  become 
displaced,  homeless  people  condemned  to  bitterness  and  despair. 

We  urge  that  deportation  be  used  with  circumspection. 

We  have  several  recommendations  to  make,  three  of  them.  I  would 
like  to  give  them  brieflv. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  all  set  forth  in  your  prepared  statement? 

Mr.  GuTTERMAN.  Ycs  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  afraid  that  we  will  not  be  able  to  hear  further 
from  you  since  your  alloted  time  is  more  than  used  up.  However,  your 
whole  prepared  statement  will  be  inserted  in  the  record.  I  am  grateful 
to  you  for  taking  the  trouble  to  appear  here  and  prepare  that  statement. 

Mr.  GuTTERMAN.  Thank  you. 

(The  prepared  statement  of  Mr,  Lester  Gutterman  on  behalf  of  the 
American  Jewish  Committee  and  the  Anti-Defamation  League  of 
B'nai  B'rith  follows :  ) 

•Statement  on  American  Immigration  Poucy  by  Lester  Gxttterman  for  the 
American  Jewish  Committee  and  the  Anti-Defamation  League  of  B'nai 
B'bith 

PURPOSE  OF  appearance 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Commission,  the  American  Jewish  Com- 
mittee and  the  Anti-Defamation  League  of  B'nai  B'rith  welcome  this  oppor- 
tunity to  present  their  views  on  American  immigration  policy. 

The  American  Jewish  Connnittee,  established  in  1906  "to  prevent  the  infrac- 
tion of  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  Jews  in  any  part  of  the  world,"  has  been 
closely  concerned  with  the  questions  of  immigration  for  the  46  years  of  its 
existence.  In  addition  to  its  concern  for  the  persecuted  Jews  of  other  countries 
who  yearned  to  come  to  the  United  States  because  of  its  tradition  of  freedom 
and  succor  for  the  oppressed,  the  American  Jewish  Committee  has  always  held 
it  a  matter  of  prime  importance  that  the  immigration  legislation  of  the  United 
States  be  in  Ijeeping  with  the  heritage  of  freedom,  equality,  and  opportunity 
which  has  made  this  country  great. 

B'nai  B'rith,  founded  in  1843,  is  the  oldest  civic  organization  of  American 
Jews.  It  represents  a  membership  of  300,000  men  and  women  and  their  families. 
The  Anti-Defamation  League  was  organized  in  1913,  as  a  section  of  the  parent 
organization,  in  order  to  cope  with  racial  and  religious  prejudice  in  the  United 
States.  The  program  developed  by  the  league  is  designed  to  achieve  the  fol- 
lowing objectives:  To  eliminate  and  counteract  defamation  and  discrimination 
against  the  various  racial,  religious,  and  ethnic  groups  which  comprise  our 
American  people:  to  counteract  un-American  and  antidemocratic  activity;  to 
advance  good  will  and  mutual  understanding  among  American  groups;  and  to 
■encourage  and  translate  into  greater  effectiveness  the  ideals  of  American 
■democracy.  As  an  organization  of  immigrants  and  descendants  of  immigrants 
it  has  always  been  concerned  with  preserving  and  strengthening  the  policies  of 
freedom  on  which  our  country  is  based.  It  has  fought  to  preserve  our  demo- 
cratic country  as  a  liaven  of  refuge  and  a  beacon  of  hope  for  the  oppressed 
and  persecuted  of  the  world.  Hence  it  has  always  sought  a  democratic  and  hu- 
mane immigration  policy  and  fair  treatment  of  new  Americans. 

Our  concern  with  immigration  is  not  prompted  by  any  narrow  Jewish  need, 
but  by  consideration  of  the  general  well-being  of  our  country.  Unlike  the  situa- 
tion that  prevailed  during  the  past  quarter  century,  when  the  economic— and 
later,  the  very  physical — survival  of  most  Jews  of  Europe  depended  on  hold- 
ing ajar  the  doors  of  America,  in  the  last  2  years  the  European  reservoirs  of 
potential  Jewish  emigration  have  been  substantially  diminished.  We  are  and 
always  have  been  aware  that  our  immigration  policies  and  practices  are  of  vital 
importance  in  preserving  the  health  of  our  democratic  American  society,  and 
play  a  major  role  of  our  country's  leadership  in  the  maintenance  of  a  stable 
world  order.  Our  objectives  should  be  maintaining  of  America's  tradition  of 
welcome  to  newcomers;  adherence  to  the  principle  of  nondiscrimination  on 
grounds  of  race,  creed,  or  national  origin;  the  p/rotection  of  the  rights  of  all  of 
our  citizens,  whether  native-born  or  naturalized,  as  well  as  of  our  resident  aliens ; 
and  the  preservation  of  our  standards  of  fair  judicial  process. 


112  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

FALSE  NOTIONS  ABOUT  IMMIGRATION 

Even  though  restrictive  immigration  laws  work  against  the  best  interests  of 
the  United  States,  they  have  been  tolerated  because  of  certain  misconceptions 
that  were  once  widely  held  by  Americans  but  are  now  thoroughly  discredited. 
One  such  misconception  is  the  idea  that  our  quota  laws  put  a  fixed  limit  on  the 
total  number  of  immigrants  who  may  come  into  this  country,  and  thus  make  it 
impossible  for  the  United  States  to  be  flooded  by  new  immigrants.  This  is  not 
the  case.  In  allowing  natives  of  the  Western  Hemisphere  to  enter  quota-free, 
our  present  laws  theoretically  make  it  possible  for  many  millions  of  immigrants 
lawfully  to  enter  the  United  States  during  any  year.  It  is  important  to  note 
that  notwithstanding  conditions  of  poverty,  hardship,  and  tyranny  under  which 
millions  of  these  potential  immigrants  are  living  today,  only  a  handful  accept 
our  open  invitation  to  migrate.  The  fact  is  that  most  people  in  other  countries 
of  the  Western  Hemisphere  do  not  want  to  leave  their  homes.  INIost  people  in 
foreign  lands  grow  up  and  die  in  the  locality  where  they  were  born.  An  immi- 
grant is  a  person  whose  passion  for  freedom  or  self-improvement  is  .so  strong  that 
it  overbalances  the  inertia  tliat  keeps  most  people  rooted  to  the  place  where 
they  were  born. 

Another  mistaken  impression  is  that  immigrants,  by  increasing  the  population,^ 
take  up  housing,  jobs,  and  business  opportunities  which  would  otherwise  be  avail- 
alile  to  those  already  in  this  country.  Actually,  the  opposite  is  true,  since  an 
increasing  population  expands  the  national  economy  and  increases  the  number  of 
jobs  and  houses  available. 

Under  the  present  quota  formula,  the  population  increase  due  to  immigration 
is  almost  imperceptible  anyway  and  the  constructive  influence  it  could  have  has 
therefore  been  negligible.  As  has  been  pointed  out  repeatedly,  the  actual  number 
of  quota  immigrants  arriving  in  our  country  each  year  is  far  less  than  the  maxi- 
mum of  154,000  available  under  existing  immigration  laws.  From  1930  to  1947, 
inclusive,  the  number  of  immigrants  coming  to  the  United  States  has  averaged 
only  60,868  per  year,  and  if  the  figures  for  net  immigration  are  used  (subtracting 
returning  immigrants  and  other  persons  emigrating  from  the  United  States)  only 
33,520  per  year.  This  latter  figure  represents  about  one-fortieth  of  1  percent  of 
our  population. 

Far  greater  increases  in  population  result  from  the  fluctuations  in  the  birth 
rate.  For  instance,  the  lowest  number  of  births  since  1924  was  in  1933,  when 
2,290.000  children  were  born  in  the  United  States.  The  high  year  was  1947,  when 
3,908,000  were  born.  The  difference,  1,618,000.  was  more  than  the  total  number 
of  immigrants  entering  our  country  in  the  last  18  years.  These  figures  show  the 
insignificance,  in  terms  of  population  growth,  of  immigration. 

Our  quota  laws  must  therefore  be  viewed  for  what  they  are,  not  as  limits  upon 
the  total  number  of  immigrants,  but  rather  as  effoi-ts  to  limit  non- Western  Hemis- 
phere immigration.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  our  quota  law  was  first  enacted  during 
a  wave  of  reaction  against  everything  European.  It  came  at  a  time  when  the 
Ku  Klux  Klan  was  at  the  peak  of  its  power  and  it  represented  the  high-water 
mark  of  narrow  isolationism  in  our  country.  American  public  opinion  and  both 
of  our  major  political  parties  have  repudiated  the  irrational  antiforeignism  of 
the  1920's.  It  is  time  that  we  cast  aside  the  fruit  of  that  narrow  nationalism, 
our  quota  system. 

We  are  happy  to  note  that  both  major  political  parties  agree  that  this  out- 
worn anti-immigi'ation  philosophy  should  no  longer  be  reflected  in  our  laws.  The 
Democratic  Party  platform  adopted  July  24,  1952,  says  that  "the  solution  to  the 
problem  of  refugees  from  communism  and  overpopulation  has  become  a  perma- 
nent part  of  the  foreign  policy  of  the  Democratic  Party."  It  promises  "con- 
tinued aid  to  refugees  from  communism  and  the  enactment  of  President  Truman's 
proposals  for  legislation  in  this  field"  and  pledges  "continuing  revision  of  our 
immigration  and  naturalization  laws,  to  do  away  with  any  injustice  and  unfair 
practices  against  national  groups  which  have  contributed  some  of  our  best 
refuge  with  us     *     *     *." 

The  Republican  Party  speaking  through  General  Eisenhower  said  before  the 
American  Legion  on  August  25.  1952 ;  "We  must  tell  the  Kremlin  that  never  shall 
we  desist  in  our  aid  to  every  man  and  woman  of  those  shackled  lands  who  seeks 
refugee  with  us     *     ♦     *." 

THE   ECONOMICS    OF   IMMIGRATION 

We  turn  now  to  the  question  of  the  impact  of  immigration  upon  the  national 
standard  of  living.    Immigration  has  enriched  our  Nation  economically  and  could 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         113 

continue  to  enrich  it.  With  the  expansion  of  our  technology  and  the  fuller  devel- 
opment of  our  national  resources,  the  need  is  for  an  ever-growing  labor  force. 
The  basic  determinants  of  the  Nation's  capacity  to  produce  are  its  labor  supply 
and  consumer  domiind.  Whether  in  peace  or  in  war,  our  most  precious  resource 
is  manpower. 

Immigrants  have  always  played  a  major  role  in  this  process  of  industrial 
divers! tication.  A  region  populated  by  people  with  identical  background  may 
easily  become  a  one-crop  or  one-industry  or  even  a  one-party  region. 

Inunijirants  have  pioneered  the  organization  of  many  of  our  industries.  Johtt 
August  Idden.  a  Swedish  geologist,  was  chiefly  responsible  for  the  opening  of 
the  Texas  oil  fields.  Albert  Arent,  a  German  metallurgist,  did  pioneering  work 
in  exploring  the  mining  pos.sibilities  of  the  Rocky  Mountain.s.  Herman  Frasch, 
a  German,  developed  the  oil-refining  process  and  the  extraction  of  sulfur.  Lucas 
Petrou  Kyrides,  a  Greek,  made  other  important  contributions  to  industrial 
chemistry. 

We  must  not  forget  that  the  newcomers  to  our  country  are  not  only  workers, 
but  consumers  too.  E\  ery  pair  of  hands  that  comes  to  our  shores  is  accompanied 
by  a  mouth  to  feed  and  a  body  to  clothe.  Immigrants  furnish  effective  demand 
for  goods  and  services  as  well  as  a  supply  of  them.  As  immigrants  raise  their 
economic  status,  they  develop  a  higher  rate  of  consumption.  As  high-level  con- 
sumers, they  create  an  additional  imi^etus  to  economic  progress. 

THE  POSITION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  THE  WORLD'S  POPULATION 

Without  a  sizable  immigration,  the  United  States  will  chance  losing  its  demo- 
graphic position  in  the  world.  While  the  population  of  this  country,  according 
to  the  most  expert  forecasts,  appears  headed  for  a  short-term  slow  growth  and 
then  for  ultimate  decline,  the  population  of  Asia  and  the  Soviet  Union  are 
increasing  at  a  rapid  rate,  with  no  sign  of  a  slackening  in  sight. 

The  rapid  increase  of  population  experienced  in  the  United  States  since  the 
outbreak  of  World  War  II  is  believed  to  be  merely  a  transitory  phenomenon 
resulting  from  the  unusually  high  birth  rates  brought  about  l3y  war  condi- 
tions ;  evidence  of  a  sharp  fall  in  the  birth  rate  i^  already  beginning  to  appear. 
The  most  reliable  population  forecasts  indicate  that  the  low  rates  of  human  re- 
production which  lead  to  an  ultimately  declining  population  may  be  with  us 
within  the  next  two  decades. 

It  is  important  to  note  that,  without  immigration,  the  population  of  the  United 
States  will  increase  by  about  10  percent  from  19."»0  to  1970  and  that  the  popula- 
tions of  England  and  Wales  and  of  France  will  fall ;  the  net  population  increase 
of  these  3  countries  will  be  less  than  9,000,000.  At  the  same  time,  the  popula- 
tion of  Soviet  Russia  will  increase  by  almost  50,000,000,  a  rise  of  almost  25  iier- 
cent  in  the  two  decades.  Great  increases  are  also  likely  for  China  and  India. 
The  political,  military,  cultural,  and  economic  implications  of  such  population 
shifts  must  be  taken  into  account  in  any  reformulation  of  United  States  immi- 
gration policy. 

It  may  be  possible  to  find  Malthusians  who  advocate  all  steps  necessary,  includ- 
ing govenunental  action,  to  reduce  the  population  of  the  United  States.  But 
whatever  be  the  extremes  to  which  the  advocates  of  governmental  control  of  poj)- 
ulation  may  go,  one  fact  is  clear:  With  a  stationary  or  declining  population,  our 
economic  system  will  face  many  hazards.  Gunnar  Myr<lal,  an  eminent  Swedish 
economist,  enumerates  the  following  conseiiuences  of  such  a  situation  :  Increased 
risk  of  investment,  a  decline  of  investment  in  production,  a  decline  In  demand  for 
capital  goods,  a  decline  of  agriculture,  and  free  enterprise  giving  way  to  social 
planning.  Furthermore,  a  declining  population  burdened  with  a  huge  public 
debt,  such  as  this  country  now  has,  faces  prospects  of  a  rising  tax  rate  with  its 
inevitable  drag  on  full  production  and  consumption.  In  brief,  declining  popula- 
tion will  have  a  twofold  result.  First,  it  will  give  the  United  States  a  relatively 
weaker  voice  in  the  councils  of  the  world  from  year  to  year.  Secondly,  declining 
economic  opportunities  will  entail  larger  and  larger  Government  invasions  of 
fields  still  left  to  private  enterprise.  Thus,  while  the  United  States  comes,  year 
by  year,  to  have  less  to  .say  about  international  affairs,  the  individual  American 
citizen  will,  so  long  as  these  population  tendencies  prevail,  come  to  have  less  and 
less  to  say  about  his  own  economic  and  domestic  affairs. 

CONSIDERATIONS  OF  FOREIGN  POLICT 

There  is  widespread  conviction  among  statesmen  of  both  political  parties  that 
the  most  effective  way  to  fight  the  world  Communist  menace  is  to  win  over  the 


114         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

support  of  the  peoples  suffex-ing:  under  Soviet  tyranny,  and  that  this  goal  can  he 
achieved  only  if  these  peoples  are  assured  of  the  generous  and  sympathetic 
concern  of  the  American  people  for  their  well-being. 

It  is  submitted  that  this  objective  is  impossible  of  fulfillment  under  the  present 
immigration  law  of  this  country.  This  goal  could  not  be  implemented  under  the 
law  that  obtained  during  the  quarter  century  since  the  passage  of  the  Immigra- 
tion Act  of  1924,  and  much  less  so  under  the  McCarran-Walter  Omnibus  Immi- 
gration Act,  adopted  on  June  27,  1952,  over  the  President's  veto.  By  enacting 
this  law.  Congress  not  only  re.1ected  the  opportunity  to  improve  our  immigration 
policy  but  instead  adopted  a  measure  confirming  the  inequitable  national-origins 
quota  system  and,  in  addition,  introducing  a  series  of  new  and  even  more  restric- 
tive practices. 

Our  present  law  provides  for  tlie  admission  of  a  maximum  of  approximately 
154,000  quota  immigrants  annually.  Of  these,  over  65,000  are  assigned  to  the 
United  Kingdom,  26,000  to  Germany,  nearly  IS.OOO  to  Ireland,  and  the  remaining 
share  of  less  than  50,000  is  divided  among  all  the  other  countries  of  the  world. 
Compared  to  the  large  British,  German,  and  Irish  quotas,  the  quotas  of  the  very 
countries  in  Eastern  Europe,  which  we  hope  some  day  to  see  liberated  from  the 
stranglehold  of  the  Soviet  yoke,  are  insignificant :  Czechoslovakia  2,858 ;  Estonia 
115 ;  Hungary  865 ;  Latvia  235 ;  Lithuania  383 ;  Poland  6,488 ;  Rumania  293. 

Meager  as  these  quotas  are,  the  actual  number  of  those  whom  we  will  admit 
from  these  countries  is  even  less  because  in  passing  the  McCarran-Walter  Act, 
Congress  declined  to  agree  to  the  urgent  suggestion  made  by  nuiny  groups  to 
eliminate  from  the  law  the  charges  against  future  quotas  resulting  from  admis- 
sions under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  in  1948.  As  a  result,  one-half  of  the  quotas 
of  these  eastern  European  countries  will  be  unavailable  well  into  the  next 
century:  Latvia  until  the  year  2,274;  Estonia  till  2,146;  Greece  until  2,013; 
Hungary,  1,985  ;  Lithuania,  2,087  ;  Poland,  1,999 ;  and  Rumania,  2,003. 

Furthermore,  the  current  law  retains  the  provision  wliich  prohibits  transfer 
to  other  countries  of  the  unutilized  portions  of  the  larger  quotas.  For  example, 
in  the  period  1930-48,  only  about  one-quarter  of  the  total  available  quota  numbers 
was  used,  mainly  because  a  large  part  of  the  British  and  Irisli  quotas  were  left 
unused. 

Under  these  circumstances,  how  can  we  expect  potential  dissidents  to  risk 
their  lives  in  the  effort  to  escape  their  oppressive  rulers?  What  incentive  do 
we  offer  them  other  than  langi;ishing  as  unwelcome  refugees  and  displaced 
persons  in  the  insecurity  of  Germany  or  other  European  countries? 

But  our  problem  is  not  alone  to  win  the  sympathy  of  the  peoples  of  the  iron 
curtain  countries.  It  is  also  to  retain  tlie  good  will  and  siipport  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  free  nations  of  the  world.  We  must  join  with  other  nations  to  help 
alleviate  the  difficult  social  and  economic  situation  in  such  countries  as  Greece 
and  Italy  where  the  pressure  of  population  against  resources  has  created  a 
situation  of  great  seriousness,  calling  for  substantial  emigration  from  those 
countries  to  the  more  fortunate  countries  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  and  Aus- 
tralia. Yet,  how  can  we  under  the  restrictions  of  our  immigration  law  make  a 
contribution  to  the  solution  of  these  problems,  wlien  we  assign  to  Italy  the  tiny 
annual  quota  of  5,770  and  to  Greece  the  infinitesimal  quota  of  305? 

One  of  the  arginnents  used  in  defense  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  is  that  for 
the  first  time  it  establishes  minimum  annual  quotas  of  100  for  the  various  Asian 
countries  whose  natives  had  hitherto  been  flatly  excluded  from  immigration  to 
the  United  States.  True,  this  was  a  desirable  step,  but  it  was  accompanied  by  a 
provision  which  discriminates  by  conferring  an  inferior  status  on  any  person 
"attributable  by  as  much  as  one-half  of  Ins  ancestry"  to  races  indigenous  to  the 
Asia-Pacific  zones.  Such  persons,  no  matter  where  they  are  born,  are  made 
chargeable  to  the  quota  of  their  Asian  "ancestry." 

To  keep  Asia  from  falling  prey  to  the  lure  of  connnunism,  we  must  retain  tlie 
goodwill  of  the  colored  peoples  of  the  world.  What  reaction  can  we  expect  from 
These  peoples  to  a  law  which  attaches  an  unfair  stigma  to  Asiatic  ancestry  and 
which  also  reduces  drastically  tlie  entry  of  colored  immigrants  from  Jamaica 
and  other  British  colonies  in  the  West  Indies?  Under  previous  law,  these  could 
use  the  always  undersubscribed  British  quota  of  65,000.  Now  under  the  McCar- 
ran-Walter Act  they  are  limited  to  a  maximum  of  100  visas  annually. 

Such  policies  make  it  impossible  effectively  to  combat  the  Soviet  charges  that 
we  consider  non-whites,  wlio  comprise  two-thirds  of  the  world's  population  as  of 
inferior  and  second-rate  stock. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  115 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In  nppraisiiiir  iiroixjsnls  to  revisp  oiir  prcsont  iinniisi'ation  laws  it  is  necessary 
to  consider,  not  only  wliat  clianjies  would  best  servo  llie  interests  of  the  United 
States  as  a  whole,  but  also  how  far  those  chanfres  would  conform  to  the  attitudes 
of  that  part  of  the  American  public  whicii  is  seriously  concerned  about  innni- 
gration  problems. 

There  are  three  basic  features  of  our  inniiiy:ratiiiii  laws,  and  pul)lic  attitudes 
toward  these  three  features  have  varied  so  much  that  it  may  be  misleading  to 
speak  frenerally  of  lilM^ral  or  illiberal  attitudes  on  each  of  these  three  points. 

The  three  main  features  of  our  i)resent  immigration  laws  are  :  («)  the  principle 
that  per-sons  who  may  be  harmful  to  our  country,  such  as  criminals,  subversives, 
diseased,  are  absolutt'ly  excluded;  ih)  the  principle  of  limitation  of  the  number 
of  inunigrants  permitted  to  enter  the  United  States  in  any  year;  and  (c)  the 
system  of  racial  and  national  exclusions  and  prefei'ences  by  which  quotas  are 
assigned  to  some  lands  and  denied  to  others. 

As  for  the  first  of  these  principles,  the  rif,'ht  we  have  to  exclude  undesirables, 
we  think  that  it  has  the  solid  support  of  American  public  opinion,  and  that 
while  particular  {jrounds  for  exclusion  ma.v  need  to  be  modified  in  detail  from 
time  to  time,  in  the  light  of  changing  circumstances,  no  legislation  that  ignores 
or  weakens  this  principle  is  likely  to  receive  .serious  congressional  consideration. 
Americans  quite  properly  insist  that  immigrants  be  good  human  material. 

The  second  of  the.se  principles,  the  idea  of  a  numerical  limitation  upon  the 
total  volume  of  immigration  in  the  United  States,  was  an  outgrowth  of  the 
isolationist  an<I  knctw-notbing  thinking  of  the  earl.v  1920's.  We  wanted  to  wash 
our  hands  of  Europe  and  Europeans.  We  rejected  the  Treaty  of  Versailles,  the 
League  of  Nations,  and  the  World  Court ;  we  built  tariff  walls  against  European 
goods ;  and  we  told  Europeans  that  we  did  not  want  more  than  a  handful  of 
them  to  come  to  America  in  any  year. 

During  the  past  (piarter  of  a  century,  that  attitude  has  been  profoundly  modi- 
tied.  Not  only  have  opinions  changed  on  the  whole  problem  of  "isolationism," 
but  more  specifically  that  part  of  the  American  public  that  has  given  serious 
thought  to  immigration  i)rol)lems  has  begun  to  doubt  the  value  of  any  blanket 
numerical  limitation  upon  Euroijean  immigration.  The  time  is  close  <at  hand 
when  reconsideration  of  the  principle  of  total  limitations  will  be  in  order. 

The  third  principle  of  our  immigration  laws,  the  principle  of  racial  and  na- 
tional exclusions  and  preferences,  has  been  repudiated  by  every  decent  Amer- 
ican. The  principle  of  racial  preference  came  to  be  recognized  after  1033,  as 
Hitlerism.  It  is  diametrically  oppo.sed  to  our  Declaration  of  Independence 
which  proclaims  that  all  men  are  created  equal.  Even  the  McCarran-Walter 
Act  which  has  been  sharply  criticized  by  many  groups  throughout  the  country 
for  its  restrictive  and  backward-looking  features,  gives  grudging  acceptance  to 
the  public  wish  to  rid  our  immigration  policies  of  racism.  Indeed,  it  was  to 
a  large  extent  on  the  basis  of  the  pi-ovision  eliminating  the  bar  against  the  im- 
migration and  naturalization  of  Asiatics  that  Senator  McCarran  made  his 
spurious  apiH'al  for  support  of  the  bill. 

Even  the  economists,  conservationists,  and  birth-controllers  who  are  worried 
about  increases  in  our  population,  through  innnigration  or  otherwise,  do  not 
undertake  to  justify  our  crazy-quilt  of  racial  and  national  exclusions  and 
preferences.  Ethnologists  now  recognize  that  the  basis  of  our  present  quotas  in 
a  "bicdogical,  anthroiwlogical  and  ethnological  *  *  *  investigation  into  the 
birth  of  ancestors  of  those  resident  in  the  United  States  in  1920"  is  a  scientific 
absurdity.  Particularly  absurd  was  the  reliance  upon  English-sounding  names 
to  prove  the  English  ancestry  of  most  of  our  population. 

We  believe  that  the  national  origins  quota  .system  is  racist  and  undemocratic. 
Implicit  in  it  is  an  evaluation  along  racial  lines  of  the  comparative  worth  of 
individuals.  For  example,  it  says  that  a  person  of  Anglo-Saxon  derivation  is 
worth  at  least  13  times  as  much  to  the  United  States  as  a  person  of  Italian 
derivation.  It  seeks  to  maintain  (he  racial  composition  of  our  country  in  terms 
of  a  fixed  norm,  even  though  our  country  has  grown  great  as  the  oiK'U-arm 
recipient  of  millions  of  persons  from  outside  our  borders.  It  assumes  that  the 
racial  composition  of  a  nation's  population  should  be  made  rigid  and  that  it 
does  harm  to  a  nation  to  iK-rmit  its  iH)pu]ati(jn  to  undergo  the  normal  changes 
which  time  and  the  flow  of  people  bring  about.  This  contradicts  the  basic  princi- 
ple of  Americiui  democracy,  that  an  individual  is  to  be  judged  solely  on  his  own 
accomplishments  and  not  on  the  basis  of  the  racial  group  to  wliich  he  be- 
longs. 


116         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

For  these  reasons,  we  are  convinced  that  the  national  origins  quota  system 
must  be  done  away  with.  The  next  question  is,  What  system  shall  be  used 
in  its  stead?  It  is  possible  to  suggest  many  alternatives.  Undoubtedly  you 
probably  hear  many  advanced  in  the  course  of  your  hearings  and  delibera- 
tions. Each  will  have  advantages  as  well  as  disadvantages.  It  may  be  diflfi- 
cult,  even  impossible,  to  find  a  perfect  substitute  for  the  national  origins  quota 
system — one  acceptable  to  all  groups  and  having  no  serious  problems  of  ad- 
ministration. We  believe  the  goal  is  to  find  the  substitute  which  is  most  con- 
sistent with  our  democratic  principles,  most  helpful  to  our  domestic  economy 
and  which  contributes  most  to  our  national,  domestic  and  foreign  policy. 

One  obvious  substitute  is  the  first-come,  first-served  program.  This  has  many 
difliculties.  A  major  danger  is  that  much  or  all  of  the  number  of  visas  set  aside 
to  be  made  available  to  immigrants  may  be  taken  over  by  citizens  of  one  country. 
This  would  be  especially  lil^ely  to  be  true  if  one  country  abroad,  as  an  aspect  of 
its  foreign  policy,  undertook  to  "encourage"  its  citizens  to  emigrate  to  our  shores. 
Under  this  plan  all  quotas  would  be  completely  eliminated.  The  number  of  immi- 
grants to  be  admitted  would  be  determined  each  year.  Then  visas  would  be 
issued  in  the  order  of  filing  for  application  of  visas  in  Washington. 

Another  plan  is  to  follow  the  first-come,  first-served  policy  except  that  visas 
would  be  issued  only  in  response  to  applications  received  from  American  citizens 
for  the  admission  of  their  relatives  or  friends.  This  plan,  too,  would  be  open, 
though  less  so,  to  the  evil  just  mentioned.  In  addition,  it  would  be  unfair  in 
that  it  would  arbitrarily  bar  immigrants  who  can  find  no  sponsors  here,  and 
would  thereby  foreclose  the  kind  of  new  seed  immigration  which  many  demo- 
graphers feel  is  a  necessity  for  our  country.  Furthermore,  it  would  result  in 
the  exclusion  of  many  of  those  refugees  fleeing  from  persecution  abroad  who  have 
most  thoroughly  demonstrated  their  attachment  to  democracy  and  who,  by  most 
standards  of  justice,  are  entitled  to  admission  to  our  country. 

Still  another  system  would  be  to  set  a  maximum  figure  to  be  admitted  each 
year  and  to  divide  that  number  up  in  proportion  to  the  existing  unsatisfied  regis- 
tered demand  for  visas  by  qualified  immigrants  as  evidenced  through  applications 
filed  with  the  American  consuls  in  each  country. 

Each  of  the  foregoing  plans  has  serious  difficulties.  Some  are  open  to  the 
danger  that  a  few  highly  populous  countries  will  preempt  most  of  the  visas  avail- 
able. Each  would  result  in  a  terrific  administrative  burden  resulting  from  a  race 
by  would-be  immigrants  to  be  first  in  applying  at  the  consulates  in  their  countries. 

It  was  a  recognition  of  the  racism  and  unfairness  implicit  in  the  national 
origins  quota  system  that  led  organizations  such  as  ours  to  support  the  proposal 
contained  in  the  Humphrey-Lehman  immigration  bill,  to  pool  unused  quotas.  We 
felt  that  the  pooling  of  unused  quotas  would  make  additional  visas  available  to 
would-be  immigrants  badly  in  need  of  assistance.  We  were  concerned  at  the 
xinconscionable  waste  of  visas  resulting  from  failure  to  use  fully  the  large  English 
and  Irish  quotas.  At  the  same  time  we  supported  pooling  of  luiused  quotas 
because  that  necessarily  involved  some  breaking  down  of  the  structure  of  the 
national  origins  quota  system. 

Now  at  last  we  are  in  a  position  where  we  can  discuss  the  basic  policy  problem. 
We  have  considered  the  alternatives  to  the  national  origins  quota  system  men- 
tioned above  and  are  concerned  with  their  shortcomings.  We  have  reached  no 
definite  conclusion  but  as  of  now  we  are  tending  to  think  along  the  following 
lines :  Its  main  feature  is  that  it  would  have  flexibility  as  to  the  over-all  number 
of  quota  immigrants  to  be  admitted  each  year.  A  system  which  achieves  such 
flexibility  would  permit  expeditious  handling  of  emergency  arising  out  of  the  mass 
flight  of  refugees  from  behind  the  iron  curtain,  mentioned  by  President  Truman 
recently. 

Our  plan  would  provide  for  the  establishment  by  law  of  a  National  Immigra- 
tion Policy  Commission,  whose  members  would  be  partly  selected  from  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  United  States  Senate,  and  partly  appointed  by  the 
President.  This  Commission  would  be  charged  with  making  a  continuous  study 
of  demographic  trends  in  our  country,  and  of  the  amount  of  immigration  which 
our  country  needs  and  can  absorb.  This  Commission  then  would  set  the  maxi- 
mum number  of  immigrants  to  be  admitted  to  our  shores  in  each  calendar  year. 
In  so  doing  the  Commission  would  be  required  by  law  not  to  set  a  maximum 
number  lower  than  300,000 — two-tenths  of  1  percent  of  our  total  population — nor 
to  set  it  higher  than  a  number  flxed  by  law  as  the  highest  number  of  immigrants 
this  country  can  absorb  each  year  under  the  most  advantageous  circumstances. 
The  number  set  by  the  Commission  for  each  year  within  these  limits  would  be 
in  addition  to  those  who  come  from  the  Westei-n  Hemisphere,  who  are  not  subject 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIG  RATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         117 

■to  any  nimierical  ]iiiiit;tti<'n  under  existing  law.  This  exception  which  was  based 
•()n  the  good-neigiihor  policy,  is  still  highly  desirable  and  should  be  maintained. 
The  law  would  set  forth  the  factors  which  the  Commission  would  have  to  take 
into  consideration  in  .setting  the  aiuiual  ceilings  on  quota  immigrants.  I  would 
like  to  mention  tentatively  some  of  tliese  factors  without  making  the  listing  too 
•exhairetive : 

1.  The  demand  for  immigration  visas  in  each  country  by  qualified  bona  fide 
applicants  for  immigration  registered  at  our  consulates  in  that  country. 

2.  The  extent  of  our  economic  and  military  commitments  in  the  various 
•countries. 

3.  The  impact  of  a  particular  quota  on  the  implementation  of  our  foreign  policy. 
We  believe  that  a  plan  basrd  on  these  ideas  would  be  vastly  superior  to  the 

present  national  origins  system.  It  would  have  the  great  advantage  of  flexibility 
thus  enabling  us  to  adapt  our  inmiigration  policy  to  the  fast-changing  conditions 
-of  the  world,  and  it  would  make  the  true  interests  of  the  United  States  the 
determining  factor  in  our  immigration  policy,  rather  than  the  doctrine  of  racial 
sui>eriority,  which  is  the  basis  of  the  present  system. 

VISA  RKVIEW  liOARI) 

Let  me  now  deal  with  another  feature  of  our  immigration  law  which  we  be- 
lieve needs  revision.  I  am  referring  to  the  fact  that  the  present  law  leaves 
the  decision  as  to  whether  a  person  is  qualified  for  immigration  to  the  absolute 
discretion  of  the  United  States  consuls  abroad  without  any  possibility  of  api)eal. 
The  issuance  of  an  immigration  visa  may,  in  many  cases,  be  a  matter  of  life 
and  death  for  the  applicant.  Refusal  of  a  visa  may  condemn  the  applicant, 
at  best,  to  a  life  of  perpetual  homelessness  and,  at  worst,  to  capital  punishment  or 
life  imprisonment  behind  the  iron  curtain.  Therefore,  consuls,  for  whom,  in 
many  cases,  dealing  with  immigration  needs  is  just  an  incidental  .lob,  should  not 
have  an  absolute  and  unreviewable  power  to  grant  or  deny  immigration  visas. 

Even  though  no  alien  has  a  legal  right  to  enter  this  country,  nonetheless,  the 
law  in  force  provides  for  an  ordei-ly  procedure  to  determine  the  admissiblity  of 
an  alien  entering  our  country.  It  provides  that  he  may  appeal  from  the  de- 
cision of  the  Immigration  Service  officer  denying  him  admission  and  have  his 
•case  reviewed.  Under  existing  regulations,  a  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals  has 
been  set  up  to  deal  with  such  appeals.  There  is  no  reason  why  an  opportunity 
to  appeal  should  not  he  also  given  in  cases  where  the  decision  to  refuse  admis- 
sion is  made  by  the  American  consul  abroad.  It  is  contrary  to  the  basic  prin- 
ciples of  democracy  to  allow  any  subordinate  official  of  the  United  States  to  have 
unlimited  power  over  other  persons,  subject  to  no  review.  Certainly  every 
American  is  interested  in  preventing  American  officials  from  engaging  in  arbi- 
trary and  unjustifiable  action  against  visa  applicants.  Furthermore,  every  Ameri- 
•can  has  a  major  stake  in  the  proper  operation  of  our  inuuigration  laws  and  cari-y- 
Ing  out  of  our  immigration  policies.  Our  interest  as  Americans  requires  that  we 
strongly  support  the  establishment  of  a  visa  review  board  to  which  persons  denied 
visas  by  an  American  consul,  or  at  least  American  citizens  interested  in  their 
immigration,  may  appeal.  The  existence  of  such  a  visa  appeal  board  would  not 
only  be  a  safeguard  against  aibitrary  decisions  by  a  consul,  but  it  would  also 
insure  uniformity  in  the  application  of  the  immigration  laws  by  American  con- 
suls all  over  the  world. 

DEPORTATION 

I  turn  now  to  deportation.  Over  recent  decades  there  have  been  many  de- 
portations of  alien  residents  who.se  stay  in  the  United  States  was  believed  to  be 
against  the  public  interest.  We  believe  that  the  impact  of  deportation  upon 
a  resident  alien  and  his  family  has  received  far  too  little  consideration.  It 
can  hardly  be  denied  that  among  the  evils  that  may  befall  a  person,  deporta- 
tion is  one  of  the  most  disastrous.  It  is  not  accidental  that  in  medieval  times 
the  punishment  of  banishment  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  severe  punish- 
ments, second  only  to  the  sentence  of  death.  In  describing  the  effect  of  deporta- 
tion on  the  person  affected,  one  could  hardly  find  more  appropriate  words  than 
those  used  by  Mr.  Justice  Douglas  in  a  recent  case  when  he  said  : 

"Banishment  is  punishment  in  the  practical  sense.  It  may  deprive  a  man  and 
his  family  of  all  that  makes  life  worth  while.  Those  who  have  their  roots  here 
have  an  important  stake  in  this  country.  Their  plans  for  them.selves  and  their 
hopes  for  their  children  all  depend  on  their  right  to  stay.  If  they  are  upro<jted 
and  sent  to  lands  no  longer  known  to  them,  no  longer  hospitable,  they  become 
displaced,  homeless  people  condemned  to  bitterness  and  despair." 


118         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Certainly,  deportation  is  a  much  harder  punishment — to  use  the  word  in  the- 
nontechnical  sense — than,  let  us  say,  a  fine  of  $50  or  imprisonment  for  a  few 
days.  But  while  the  procedure  to  inflict  even  the  slightest  tine  or  the  shortest  term 
of  imprisonment  is  surrounded  by  an  elaborate  system  of  safeguards  to  insure 
justice  and  fair  treatment  of  the  accused,  no  similar  protection  is  granted  to  the 
person  threatened  with  an  order  of  deportation.  Furthermore,  deportation 
not  only  affects  the  person  directly  involved,  but  creates  in  most  cases,  most  try- 
ing conditions  of  hardship  for  his  wife  and  children  and  other  dependents. 

We  urge  that  deportation  be  recognized  as  a  drastic  punishment  which  may  be 
tantamount  to  imprisonment  or  death  and  which,  tlverefore,  should  be  used  with 
circumspection  and  with  due  regard  to  the  interest  of  all  individuals  involved. 
In  other  words,  we  urge  that  the  law  governing  deportation  be  humanized. 

We,  therefore,  recommend,  first,  that  in  any  future  law  only  those  situations 
should  be  declared  grounds  for  deportation  where  the  interest  of  the  United 
States  clearly  requires  deportation.  A  number  of  grounds  for  deportation  con- 
tained in  the  present  law  do  not  stand  this  test.  This  is  particularly  true  of 
some  of  the  grounds  for  deportation  newly  introduced  into  our  law  by  the 
McCarran-Walter  Act,  enacted  earlier  this  year.  For  instance,  a  person  can  now 
be  deported  who,  within  5  years  after  entering  this  country,  becomes  institution- 
alized because  of  mental  disease,  unless  the  alien  can  show  that  such  mental 
disease  did  not  exist  prior  to  his  immigration.  There  is  no  need  to  elaborate  on 
the  inhuman  character  of  this  provision. 

Secondly,  we  believe  that  the  penal  nature  of  deportation  requires  that  depor- 
tation proceedings  be  surroimded  by  all  the  constitutional  and  statutory  safe- 
guards available  to  those  involved  in  criminal  proceedings  in  the  traditional 
sense.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  United  States  Constitution  prohibits  ex  post  facto 
legislation.  This  prohibition  iinder  present  interpretation  of  the  law  does  not 
apply  to  deportation,  since  persons  can  be  deported  for  acts  which  were  not 
grounds  for  deportation  when  they  arrived  in  the  United  States. 

Anotlier  example :  Persons  accused  of  a  crime,  even  the  most  trivial  one,  can- 
not be  forced  to  be  witnesses  against  themselves  under  the  United  States  Consti- 
tution and  the  constitutions  of  the  States.  The  same  prohibition  does  not  apply 
to  deportation  proceedings.  Still  another  example :  In  contrast  to  the  various 
Federal  and  State  penal  laws  the  present  law  dealing  with  deportation  does  not 
provide  for  statutes  of  limitation  with  respect  to  a  number  of  grounds  of  depor- 
tation. Therefore,  a  technical  defect  in  the  immigration  procedure  of  an  alien 
makes  him  deportable  for  the  rest  of  his  life,  regardless  of  how  many  years  he 
was  a  peaceful,  law-abiding  citizen  of  this  country. 

Thirdly,  in  view  of  the  penal  nature  of  deportation,  the  Attorney  General  should 
be  given  the  broadest  possible  authority  to  suspend  deportation  in  meritorious 
cases.  We  are  very  unhappy  indeed,  that  the  discretion  in  this  respect  given  to 
the  Attorney  General  under  previous  immigration  acts  has  been  drastically  cut 
by  the  McCarran-Walter  Act.  We  believe  that  the  law  in  force  prior  to  the  enact- 
ment of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  should  be  restored. 

Let  me  point  out  finally  that  it  is  not  only  the  procedure  leading  to  an  order 
of  deportation  which  requires  overhauling.  The  same  is  true  of  the  provisions 
governing  the  actual  carrying  out  of  an  order  of  deportation  after  it  has  been 
issued.  The  present  law  requires  the  deportee  to  depart  from  the  United  States 
within  a  given  period  or  to  make  timely  application  for  travel  documents  to  the 
country  to  which  he  is  going  to  be  deported.  Nonfulfillment  of  this  requirement 
is  a  crime.  Thus,  the  present  law  placed  the  person  against  whom  an  order  of 
deportation  has  been  issued  in  a  cruel  dilemma ;  either  he  must  cooperate  in 
effecting  his  deportation  or  he  risks  imprisonment.  This  situation  reminds  me  of 
the  treatment  of  deportees  by  the  Nazis ;  they  were  required  to  aid  in  their 
deportation  so  as  to  create  the  impression  that  they  were  voluntary  exiles.  If 
a  person  has  been  declared  deportable,  it  should  be  up  to  the  government  and 
the  government  alone,  to  carry  out  the  deportation  and  there  should  be  no  com- 
pulsion on  the  deportee  to  assist  in  the  deportation. 

NATURALIZATION   AND   NATIONALITY 

As  far  back  as  1824  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  the  great  legal  scholar  who  laid 
the  foundation  for  the  role  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  said  in  the  case 
of  O shorn  v.  Bank  : 

"The  naturalized  citizen  becomes  a  member  of  society,  possessing  all  the  rights 
of  a  native  citizen,  and  standing  in  the  view  of  the  Constitution,  on  the  footing 
of  a  native.  The  Constitution  does  not  authorize  the  courts  to  enlarge  or  abridge 
these  rights." 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         119 

Following  the  policy  onunciated  by  Chief  Justice  IMarshnll,  Justices  Kutledge 
Jind  Murphy  dissentiuj;  in  the  case  of  Kuaucr  v.  United  States,  pointed  out  that 
under  the  Constitution  tiicre  are  not  two  classes  of  citizens  and  that  the  only 
difference  between  naturalized  and  other  citizens  is  that  the  former  are  ineligil)le 
for  the  Presidency.  They  said,  "unless  it  is  the  law  that  there  are  two  classes 
of  citizens,  one  superior,  the  other  inferior,  the  status  of  no  citizen  can  be 
annulled  for  causes  or  by  procedures  not  applicable  to  all  others."  They  stated 
that  the  power  to  naturalize  is  not  the  power  to  denaturalize,  saying: 

"The  act  of  admission  must  be  taken  as  final  for  any  cause  which  may  have 
<^xisted  at  that  time.  Otherwise,  there  cannot  but  be  (wo  classes  of  citiz;"ns,  one 
free  and  secui-e  except  for  acts  amountinir  to  forfeiture  within  our  tradition;  the 
other,  conditional,  timorous  and  insecure  becomes  blaidvcted  with  the  threat  that 
some  act  or  contact,  not  amounting  to  forfeiture  for  others  will  be  taken  retro- 
^•ictively  to  show  that  some  prescribed  condition  has  not  been  fulfilled  and  be 
so  adjudged." 

T'nder  our  laws  governing  citizenship  there  are  two  ways  in  which  one  may 
become  an  American  citizen.  The  lirst  is  by  virtue  of  birth  and  the  second  by 
obtaining  naturalization.  But  because  under  our  present  laws  naturalized  citi- 
zens are  subjected  to  many  disabilities  from  which  our  citizens  by  birth  are  free, 
we  do  in  fact  have  two  classes  of  citizenship.  The  very  existence  of  classes  or 
levels  of  citizenship  is  a  detriment  to  democracy. 

Examples  of  the  differences  between  citizens  by  birth  and  naturalized  citizens 
4ire  many.  If  a  naturalized  citizen  is  absent  from  the  country  for  more  than 
-5  years  he  automatically  loses  his  citizenship.  If  there  is  some  technical  defect 
in  his  naturalization  originating  from  misunderstanding  or  negligence,  a  natural- 
ized citizen  may  be  denaturalized.  Recent  statutes  spon.sored  by  Senator  Mc- 
•Carran  add  to  such  long-standing  discriminations  a  number  of  new  ones.  They 
provide  that  citizenship  may  be  lost  by  a  naturalized  citizen  if  he  becomes  a 
member  of  a  subversive  organization  within  5  years  after  naturalization. 

"To  lay  upon  the  citizen  the  punishment  of  exile  for  committing  murder,  or 
■even  treason,  is  a  penalty  thus  far  iinknown  to  our  law  and  at  most  but  doubt- 
fully within  Congress'  power.  United  States  Constitution,  Amend.  VIII.  Yet 
l)y  the  device  or  label  of  a  civil  suit,  carried  forward  with  none  of  the  safeguards 
of  criminal  procedure  i)rovided  by  the  Bill  of  Rights,  this  most  comprehensive 
and  basic  right  of  all,  so  it  has  been  held,  can  be  taken  away  and  in  its  wake  may 
follow  the  most  cruel  penalty  of  banishment." 

We,  therefore,  recommend  to  this  Commission  that  it  consider  the  desirability 
of  eliminating  existing  discriminations  against  naturalized  citizens  by  making 
American  citizenship,  once  it  is  acquired,  irrevocable.  The  only  exception  to  this 
general  rule  would  be  the  i-evocation  of  citizenship  acquired  through  the  deliber- 
ate fraud  of  the  naturalized  citizen.  This  exception  is  justifiable  because  a 
person  should  not  be  allowed  to  retain  benefits  he  has  gotten  through  his  fraud. 

Thus,  we  will  attain  that  essential  aspect  of  democracy,  equality  before  the 
law  of  all  citizens.  Thus  we  shall  answer  once  and  for  all  the  claims  of  totali- 
tarians  that  we  in  our  country  relegate  naturalized  citizens  to  the  status  of 
■second-class  citizens.  If  our  proposal  in  this  respect  proved  acceptable  the  result 
will  be  that  naturalized  citizens  can  participate  in  all  actions  of  the  body  politic 
and  can  engage  in  political  activity  in  this  country  on  the  same  basis  of  citizens 
by  birth.  This  will  serve  to  strengthen  the  dedication  of  new  citizens  of  our 
country  to  the  democratic  way  of  life. 

We  realize  that  we  have  made  proposals  to  this  Commission  which  call  for 
a  radical  reorientation  of  existing  law.  We  realize  that  our  proposa's  involve 
many  complex  problems  of  policy  and  may  well  give  rise  to  many  difficulties  in 
application.  But  we  are  also  aware  that  this  Commission  is  just  beginning  its 
hearings  and  investigations.  It  is  our  hope  that  the  suggestions  we  have  made 
will  give  rise  to  further  thought  and  discussion  and  may  perhaps  result  in  a  kind 
of  intellectual  give-and-take  which  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  development  and 
growth  of  the  democratic  way  of  life. 

Wc  ourselves  plan  to  give  further  thought  to  the  suggestions  we  have  made 
and  hope  later  in  this  Commission's  deliberations  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
submit  them  more  fully  worked  out,  with  a  full  discussion  of  the  new  problems 
raised  by  our  suggestions  and  how  the.se  problems  can  be  solved.  It  is  our  hope 
that  this  Commission's  hearings  will  serve  to  lead  off  a  Nation-wide  discussion 
of  how  our  immigration  and  naturalization  laws  and  policies  measure  up  against 
■our  democratic  principles  and  how  these  laws  and  policies  can  be  made  to  con- 
form more  closely  to  our  democratic  ideals.    Out  of  this  discussion  we  hope  will 


120         COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

come  a  democratic,  humane,  intelligent  and  farslghted  immigration  and  naturali- 
zation policy  which  will  aid  in  building  democracy,  not  only  in  our  country,  but 
throughout  the  world,  to  play  its  proper  part  in  the  elimination  of  want  and 
fear  everywhere. 

The  Chairman.  Is  Dr.  Empie  here? 

STATEMENT  OF  PAUL  C.  EMPIE,  EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR, 
NATIONAL  LUTHERAN  COUNCIL 

Dr.  Empie.  I  am  Dr.  Paul  C.  Empie,  executive  director,  National 
Lutheran  Council,  50  Madison  Avenue,  New  York  City.  I  am  here  as 
a  representative  of  that  organization. 

I  have  a  statement  -which  I  shoukl  like  to  read  to  the  Commission. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Connnission,  typical  I  guess  of 
our  organization,  I  am  restricting  myself  to  general  principles  rather 
than  to  details,  and  I  say  here  at  the  beginning  that  I  am  speaking  not 
officially  for  the  4  million  people  in  our  8  Lutheran  Church  bodies,  for 
they  themselves  have  not  acted  officially;  but  out  of  the  experience  of 
our  organization  in  helping  to  resettle  about  oH,0()0  refugees  and  dis- 
placed persons  in  this  country,  and  about  100,000  other  displaced  per- 
sons and  refugees  through  the  Lutheran  World  Federation  in  other 
parts  of  the  world. 

I  would  like  to  relate  my  remarks  to  three  personal  convictions  on 
this  subject:  First,  there  should  be  additional  emergency  legislation  to- 
provide  for  the  entrance  of  a  specified  number  of  refugees  into  the 
United  States. 

2.  Such  legislation  should  provide  for  a  Government  operation  tO' 
bring  refugees  who  can  qualify  from  countries  of  exit  to  their  point  of 
resettlement  in  the  United  States. 

3.  Such  a  Government  operation  should  afford  opportunities  for 
supplementary  services  to  be  rendered  by  voluntary  agencies  which  are 
able  and  willing  to  function  in  this  field. 

On  the  first  point  I  believe  that  there  should  be  additional  emer- 
gency legislation  in  behalf  of  refugees,  because  unfortunately  the  im- 
migi-ation  law  recently  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
does  not  seem  to  be  adequately  related  to  the  realities  of  this  point  of 
history.  Many  of  us  had  hoped  that  such  would  not  be  the  case.  We 
realize  that  the  present  "cold  war"  and  period  of  international  ideo- 
logical tension  will  probably  last  for  many  years  to  come.  Therefore 
it  would  be  ideal  for  our  Government  to  incorporate  provisions  into 
its  permanent  immigration  legislation  which  will  enable  the  United! 
States  to  provide  its  proper  and  fair  share  of  resettlement  opportunities 
for  the  tremendous  numbers  of  this  generation's  homeless  and  despair- 
ing families. 

However,  since  the  new  immigration  law  is  not  geared  to  current 
world  needs,  but  rather  is  related  to  historical  circumstances  of  many 
decades  past,  supplementary  legislation  is  obviously  required. 

We  recognize  that  so  vast  a  problem  as  that  of  the  refugees  cannot 
and  should  not  be  solved  by  the  United  States  alone.  It  is  an  inter- 
national problem  which  must  be  faced  cooperatively  by  freedom-loving 
nations  which  adhere  to  basic  moral  principles.  Many  refugees  must 
be  resettled  in  the  lands  into  which  they  were  forced  or  to  which  they 
fled  preferring  destitution  to  slavery.  Other  countries  in  the  world 
have  living  space  available  for  large  numbers  of  refugees,  and  in  fact. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND   NATURALIZATION         121 

need  the  contributions  to  their  national  lives  which  highly  skilled  and 
cultured  persons  from  Euro]:)e  can  render.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
United  States  also  needs  to  receive  a  proper  proportion  of  these  ref- 
ugees.    Among  several  reasons,  I  should  like  to  stress  two : 

First,  the  refusal  to  open  our  doors  would  be  a  staggering  blow  to 
the  strength  of  our  moral  leadership  in  the  current  ideological  world 
struggle.  America  in  the  past  generations  has  symbolized  in  all  places 
of  the  world  the  fact  that  freedom  and  tolerance  and  the  unity  of 
peoples  of  all  racial  backgrounds  are  obtainable.  Directly  or  indi- 
rectly we  have  inspired  people  to  fight  tyranny  and  to  struggle  for 
basic  human  rights  at  the  risk  of  their  lives.  We  have  been  quick  to 
condemn  in  others  their  perpetuation  of  racial  distinctions  and  tradi- 
tional prejudices.  We  are  prone  to  parade  before  the  world  the  high 
ideals  pursued  by  the  founders  of  our  Republic.  It  seems  clear,  there- 
fore, that  unless  we  pi-actice  what  we  preach  we  shall  lose  the  respect 
and  the  confidence  of  those  upon  whose  support  we  depend  in  the  strug- 
gle for  a  free  world.  Democracy  cannot  survive  apart  from  basic 
moral  foundations  guaranteeing  personal  dignity  and  human  rights 
which  an  irresponsible  majority  cannot  vote  away.  But  such  funda- 
mental principles  lose  much  of  their  meaning  if  they  are  applicable 
only  to  those  who  managed  to  get  past  the  Statue  of  Liberty  before 
the  doors  were  slammed  shut.  Those  who  are  current  victims  of  in- 
justice or  oppression  need  to  know  that  America  is  their  friend  not 
only  at  a  distance  and  not  only  on  the  basis  of  mutual  objectives  of 
security,  but  also  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  all  men  are  brothers  under 
God  and  that,  therefore,  according  to  our  highest  traditions,  we  shall 
give  them  equal  treatment  on  the  basis  of  their  needs.  I  repeat  that 
we  cannot  be  expected  to  assume  more  than  our  "fair  share"  of  this 
burden,  but  it  is  unthinkable  that  we  should  not  accept  at  least  that 
much ! 

Second,  I  am  convinced  that  well  qualified  and  carefully  screened 
refugees  have  something  to  offer  us  which  we  vitally  need.  It  is  tritei 
to  say  that  the  genius  of  America  is  a  combination  of  the  strength  and 
insights  of  immigrants  from  many  lands.  What  is  not  always  so 
clearly  recognized  is  the  fact  that  since  the  sharp  drop  in  the  number 
of  immigrants  coming  to  this  country  in  recent  years,  Americans  have 
been  more  apt  to  live  in  a  world  of  their  own  and  have  thus  deprived 
themselves  of  continuing  sources  of  dii'ect  information  about  how  those 
in  other  parts  of  the  woi-ld  feel  and  think.  At  no  time  of  our  history 
have  we  needed  these  insights  so  much  as  at  the  present  time.  I  am 
aware  of  the  fact  that  many  refugees  coming  to  this  country  spend 
much  of  their  time  inciting  antagonism  and  seeking  revenge  upon 
their  former  oppressors  in  an  unbalanced  way.  Further,  I  am  keenly 
aware  of  the  need  for  careful  screening  to  prevent  subversive  elements 
from  entering  our  population  through  the  front  door.  These  problems 
we  must  and  can  solve.  On  tlie  other  hand,  no  one  fully  understands 
the  dangers  of  communism  until  he  has  suffered  under  its  strangulating 
control.  In  addition,  differences  of  language  and  tradition  are  almost 
insuperable  until  bridges  be  foi-med  where  a  meeting  of  minds  can  take 
place.  The  success  of  the  United  Nations  and  the  attainment  of  world 
peace  depends  upon  this  constant  process  of  interpretation  and  sharing 
of  insights  and  experiences.  This  cannot  be  clone  alone  by  visitors  go- 
ing abroad  or  coming  to  our  shores  for  short  periods  of  time.   The  num- 


122         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

ber  of  refugees  suggested  to  enter  the  United  States  under  emergency 
legislation  is  relatively  small  compared  to  the  natural  increase  of  our 
population  from  year  to  year.  Yet,  I  am  convinced  that  such  immi- 
grants would  make  an  important  contribution  to  our  national  life  and 
international  understanding.  Since  the  quota  system  of  the  present 
immigration  law  does  not  provide  in  sufficient  number  for  all  of  the 
ethnic  groups  involved  at  this  juncture  of  history,  only  emergency 
legislation  can  fill  the  gap. 

I  should  like  to  make  clear  at  this  point  that  I  am  referring  only  to 
the  needs  of  refugees  whose  number  and  circumstances  create  a  con- 
dition which  breeds  desperation  and  becomes  dangerous  to  us  all.  It  is 
clearly  an  emergency.  We  are  equally  aware  of  the  serious  problem 
caused  by  the  pressures  of  surplus  populations  in  many  parts  of  the 
world.  Surplus  populations,  however,  are  not  created  by  cold  wars 
nor  are  they  emergency  matters  in  the  same  sense.  The  problem  has 
existed  for  generations  and  will  continue  for  generations  and  therefore 
should  be  considered  carefully  in  connection  with  our  permanent  immi- 
gration policies.  For  these  reasons  we  do  not  support  emergency  leg- 
islation in  regard  to  surplus  populations.  And,  should  such  emer- 
gency legislation  for  the  admission  of  such  refugees  be  enacted  we  be- 
lieve that  it  should  be  a  Government  financed  and  Government  admin- 
istered operation.  People  are  natural  assets.  They  create  wealth  and 
they  pay  taxes.  The  only  basis  upon  which  their  admission  is  proper 
is  that  thereby  the  interests  of  our  country  are  served.  On  this  basis, 
whatever  expense  is  involved  should  be  met  by  public  funds,  since  the 
contributions  these  people  will  make  in  the  future  will  be  to  our  total 
national  life  and  resources. 

The  recent  legislation  to  admit  displaced  persons  and  refugees  un- 
fortunately depended  upon  the  resources  of  voluntary  agencies  for  its 
effectiveness.     I  think  it  is  accurate  to  say  that  most  voluntary  agen- 
cies have  consumed  the  bulk  of  their  available  resources  and  reserves 
for  this  purpose  during  the  resettlement  operation  of  the  past  3  years, 
and  are  not  able  to  continue  on  this  basis  in  the  future.     Whether  or 
not  they  are  able,  we  believe  that  it  is  improper  to  ask  them  to  finance 
and  implement  any  program  which  might  be  authorized.     From  our 
American  point  of  view  it  does  not  seem  sound  that  only  those  immi- 
grants should  be  brought  to  the  United  States  who  have  organizations 
with  adequate  staff  and  funds  to  bring  them  here.     This  would  not 
give  equal  opportunity,  regardless  of  race  or  religion,  to  those  who 
seek  entry,  nor  would  it  provide  for  the  most  wholesome  method  of 
settling  refugees  in  the  United  States.     It  would  seem  to  turn  a  Gov- 
ernment operation  into  a  sectarian  program,  in  the  process  of  which 
the  scramble  for  places  and  the  solicitation  for  funds  produces  un- 
wholesome competition  and  tensions.     If  it  was  proper  uncler.previous 
legislation  for  Government  funds  to  provide  transportation  to  the  port 
of  entry,  it  is  equally  proper  for  the  Government  to  take  the  immigrant 
to  his  new  home  and  to  see  that  he  becomes  established  there.     To 
penalize  a  refugee  financially  because  he  settles  in  Texas  or  Seattle 
instead  of  in  New  York  makes  no  sense  at  all,  particularly  when  it 
has  been  our  general  policy  to  urge  resettlement  in  the  less  populated, 
rural  section  of  the  country. 

At  the  same  time  this  Government  financed  and  administered  pro- 
gram should   afford  opportunities  for  supplementary  services  by 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  123 

voluntary  oriranizations.  It  is  an  nndoniable  fact  that  the  process  of 
assimilation  into  American  life  is  a  difficult  one.  On  the  local  level,  a 
man's  closest  contacts  are  made  through  community  and  religious 
organizations.  Up  to  this  ])oint  an  impersonal  Government  agency 
can  function  adeiiuately  and  efficiently;  from  this  point  on  the  per- 
sonal element  enters  in.  Our  American  way  of  life  being  as  it  is,  it 
is  prefei-able  that  voluntary  agencies  rather  than  Government  agen- 
cies pick  u])  the  responsibility  and  carry  it  on  to  a  successful  conclusion. 
I  believe  tliat  voluntary  agencies  generally  regard  themselves  as  hav- 
ing an  obligation  at  this  point  and  are  willing  to  direct  large  amounts 
of  funds  and  the  skilled  attention  of  trained  workers  to  serve  new 
immigrants  in  this  way.  Many  of  them  are  also  equipped  to  render 
supplementary  services  in  the  camps  overseas  and  at  the  ports  of  entry. 
Such  a  working  relationship  between  a  government  and  voluntary 
agencies  is  wholesome  and  proper. 

In  conclusion,  permit  me  to  observe  again  that  I  believe  the  sug- 
gestions made  above  are  valid  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  self- 
interest  of  the  United  States  and  do  not  merely  represent  a  personal 
<)j)inion  based  solely  on  religious  convictions.  Ideas  and  ideals  are 
the  most  powerful  things  in  life.  Not  all  powerful  ideals  are  good. 
The  Xazis  and  Communists  have  demonstrated  that  some  powerful 
ideas  are  bad.  The  confidence  of  the  world  in  moral  leadei-sliip  of 
America  can  be  retained  only  if  that  moral  leadership  is  consistently 
good.  These  proposals  in  regard  to  emergency  legislation  for  refugees 
are  related  to  the  consistency  of  the  American  way  of  life  at  its 
best. 

Recently  I  asked  a  European  why  so  many  of  his  countrymen  were 
critical  of  the  United  States  which  obviously  had  clone  so  much  to 
help  Avar-torn  Europe  since  the  war,  while  they  had  relatively  little 
to  say  about  the  shortcomings  of  the  Russians.  His  reply  ran  like 
this:  "You  can't  criticize  the  Russians  for  not  being  moral  or  merci- 
ful, for  they  don't  pretend  to  be  either.  Our  contacts  Avith  the  Rus- 
sians have  been  distastefid  and  costly.  We  take  it  for  granted  that 
we  prefer  the  American  way  of  life.  But  we  expect  a  lot  of  the 
Americans,  because  they  do  profess  to  be  moral  and  merciful,  and 
they  stand  before  the  world,as  a  symbol  of  freedom  and  justice.  We 
criticize  you  so  much  because  we  are  desperately  eager  for  }Hm  to  live 
up  to  your  own  ideals  and  in  tha-t  At^y  to  inspire  the  rest  of  the  world 
to  believe  that  such  ideals  are  really  atatitmble  and  worth  fighting  for." 
It  seems  to  me  that  his  comment  has  a  dii'^etbearing  upon  this  sub- 
ject which  we  have  been  discussing  and  in  etFect>«pon  any  other  mat- 
ter in  which  our  great  country  faces  its  international  responsibilities. 

May  I  add  personally  that  my  ancestors  came  to  this  country  in 
1708  as  Huguenot  refugees  from  Europe.  We  owe  this  beloved  land 
a  debt  we  are  ever  seeking  to  repay.  1  trust  that  America  will  never 
lose  faith  in  herself,  in  her  strength,  and  in  her  traditions,  in  such  a 
way  tliat  she  shall  cease  to  be  the  haven  of  hope  and  the  new  Avorld 
of  opportunity  that  she  has  been  cloAvn  through  the  years  for  mil- 
lions of  other  families  like  my  own. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you.  Doctor. 

Mr.  RosioxFiELi).  Dr.  Empie,  woidd  you  care  to  expand  on  your 
early  observations  on  the  emergency  program  that  you  were  speaking 
of  and  the  regular  immigratioiv  law? 

25350—52 9 


124  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Dr.  Empie.  Yes,  if  I  understand  what  you  mean. 

We  were  hopeful  that  since  this  period  of  tension  and  cold  war  seems 
to  be  an  indefinite  one — I  have  said  repeatedly  I  don't  expect  to  see  a 
time  of  real  peace  as  long  as  I  live — that  it  need  not  be  handled  in  the 
future  emergency  in  a  piecemeal  fashion.  It  doesn't  make  much  sense. 
Therefore  we  hoped  that  adequate  provision  would  be  made  in  emer- 
gency legislation  brought  before  the  last  Congress  that  would  pro- 
vide "adequately  for  the  present  needs  of  refugee  groups  in  countries 
which  do  not  have  adequate  quotas  under  the  present  system.  We  were, 
like  many  others,  disappointed  in  that  hope.  And  since  that  hope  has 
been  disappointed  we  have  reverted  to  the  support  of  emergency  legis- 
lation. Last  year  we  were  not  enthusiastic  about  it,  hoping  that  the 
contrary  would  eventuate. 

Does  that  answer  your  question  ? 

Mr.  RosENPTELD.  What  would  be  the  characteristics  you  would  pro- 
pose if  your  objective  for  this  purpose  could  be  achieved  through 
long-range  regular  immigratiou  laws  ? 

Dr.  Empie.  Well,  unquestionably  the  present  basis  of  the  quotas 
with  national  and  racial  groups  should  be  amended.  The  one  which 
w^e  now  have  or  which  is  now  in  effect  we  believe  is  outdated,  and  as 
I  said  it  is  not  realistic  in  regard  of  the  present  point  of  history. 
There  would  have  to  be  larger  quotas  for  some  groups  and  smaller  for 
others.  I  think  that  is  the  chief  point.  We  have  always  said  also  that 
the  unused  quotas  certainly  ought  to  be  made  available  for  the  use  of 
other  groups  if  they  are  not  used  for  those  who  have  first  priority 
on  them. 

Commissioner  O'Grady.  Would  the  emergency  legislation  you  favor 
include  otherwise  qualified  displaced  persons  and  German  expellees 
for  whom  there  was  not  time  to  obtain  visas  under  the  expired  Dis- 
placed Persons  Act  ? 

Dr.  Empie.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'Gradt.  In  such  emergency  legislation,  would  you 
also  cover  escapees  from  behind  the  iron  curtain? 

Dr.  Empie.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you. 

STATEMENT  OF  EEV.  BERNARD  AMBROZIC.   EXECUTIVE  SECRE- 
TARY, LEAGUE  OF  CATHOLIC  SLOVENIAN  AMERICANS 

Reverend  Ambrozic.  I  am  Rev.  Bernard  Ambrozic,  executive  sec- 
retary of  the  League  of  Catholic  Slovenian  Americans,  238  East  Nine- 
teenth Street,  New  York. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  would  like  to  have  inserted 
in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  Your  statement  will  be 
received. 

(The  prepared  statement  of  Rev.  Bernard  Ambrozic,  executive 
secretary,  on  behalf  of  the  League  of  Catholic  Slovenian  Americans, 
follows:) 

Gentlemen,  the  problem  before  us,  the  immigration  and  naturalization  pattern 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  is  a  much  complicated  matter,  and  there  are 
many  aspects  to  it.  Before  we  respectfully  submit  our  recommendations,  let 
us  try  to  establish  certain  angles  from  which  to  view  this  problem. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  125 

Om-  ()i-f;:iiiiz:iti(iii  liMs  been,  siiicc  tlin  cikI  of  World  W;ir  II,  (Icoply  intorested 
ill  liiKlinj;  a  solution  to  the  luiniiiij;-  pi-olilcin  of  tliousaiids  of  rffiif^cos  and  es- 
capees from  their  native  i^lovenia,  Yugoslavia.  All  of  our  stati'iuonts  and  recom- 
mendations ar(>  based  on  7  years'  experience  here  in  Ameri<-a,  as  well  as  that  of  our 
agencies  all  over  the  world. 

I>urinu;  this  period  we  have  interviewed  thousands  of  refugees,  and  we  can  say 
tiiat  we  are  well  up  to  <lale  on  the  present  situation  concerning  their  lives  as 
refugees,  as  well  as  the  conditions  and  beliefs  of  the  people  still  in  Tito's  Yugo- 
slavia, who  are  under  Red  tyranny. 

In  this  particular  instance.  w(»  wish  to  consider  the  following  three  angles: 
First,  the  humanitarian  asi)e("t ;  second.  American  world-leadership  in  resisting 
comnmuism ;  third,  economic  and  population  aspects  in  America. 

/.  The  humanitarian  aspect 

Our  country  has  been  well  known  for  centuries  as  the  haven  of  freedom, 
the  land  of  opportunity,  the  cradle  of  liberty.  We  do  not  have  to  repeat  here 
the  many  things  that  have  been  said  time  and  time  again.  Today,  in  our  time, 
we  see  that  there  are  millions  of  people  in  many  lands  who  see  no  future  for 
themselves  and  their  children  unless  some  foreign  country  opens  up  its  doors 
to  them,  and  many  of  them,  quite  understandably,  cast  their  eyes  toward 
American  shores. 

li  is  true  that  a  few  Americans  will  be  found  who  are  not  moved  by  the  miseries 
suffered  by  the  pef)ple  in  certain  European  countries  and  elsewhere.  However, 
most  of  them  are  very  willing  to  help.  It  is  not  hard  to  collect  money,  clothing, 
food.  etc..  to  assist  the  needy  in  foreign  lands.  The  hearts  of  Americans  are  wide 
oi)en  to  Their  plight.  litit  comes  the  (piestion  :  "Shall  we  invite  them  to  come  to 
tliis  country?"  and  the  picture  cpiickiy  changes.  Instead  of  open  arms,  we  receive 
the  reply  too  often  heard  and  felt,  "No ;  keep  them  away  from  our  shores.  We 
shall  give  even  more  for  their  support,  if  need  be,  but  we  do  not  want  them 
here." 

This  attitude  presents  itself  all  too  evidently  in  all  our  dealings  with  the  poor 
and  needy.  We  say,  "Let  us  have  public  agencies  and  institutions  for  all  who  are 
in  some  way  socially  handicapped.  Let  us  pay  tho.se  who  will  care  for  them,  as 
long  as  they  are  kept  out  of  our  sight  and  out  of  our  personal  contact." 

This  point  of  view  is  precisely  what  hurts  our  humanitarian  (or  Christian,  if 
you  wish)  character.  It  is  easy  enough  to  give  from  our  abundance,  for  then  we 
have  no  real  and  personal  sacrifices  to  make. 

We  cannot  imagine  the  sufferings,  the  privation,  the  long  winter  nights  or  hot 
summer  days,  many  times  without  proper  food,  clothing,  or  lodging,  that  those 
must  experience  who  must  live  in  DP  camps. 

The  number  of  refugees  and  escapees  also  increases  tlie  number  of  unemployed 
in  the  coinitries  where  they  are  now  liarl)ored.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  chance 
in  those  countries  for  them  to  he  employed,  as  long  as  there  are  tinemployed 
citizens  in  those  countries. 

Why  not  help  them  by  admitting  them  to  our  shores  and  giving  them  an  oppor- 
tunity to  start  a  new  life  insead  of  only  extending  to  them  a  charitalile  hand, 
which,  while  most  welcome  and  gratefully  accepted,  and  of  course,  of  vital  im- 
jiortance.  is  most  depressing  to  them,  and  at  the  same  time  wasteful,  because 
these  peoples  are  eager  to  work  and  earn  their  live'ihood. 

Our  i)osition  of  complacency,  while  most  un-Christian  and  most  unhumani- 
lari.in.  is  becoming  so  jirevaleiit  in  our  society,  that  the  American  immigration 
policy  of  our  times  is  only  a  logical  sequence  emerging  from  it.  Any  foreigners 
in  our  midst  are  looked  upon  with  disdain  and  considered  simply  a  nuisance. 
We  say.  "Keep  them  away:  we  can  get  along  much  better  without  them." 

But  can  weV    We  shall  see  when  we  discuss  this  question  a  little  later  on. 

2.  American  irorUI  Icaderxliifi  in  rcHiHtiny  conuiniiii.sin 

Our  country  today  is  gener.-iUy  acknowledged  as  the  leader  of  the  free  world. 
As  such,  we  must  sot  an  example  in  every  field  of  luunan  endeavor  f(jr  a  better 
world.  Among  other  things,  we  must  liberalize  our  present  harriers  to  immi- 
gration. This  is  essentia!  if  we  are  to  contiTine  to  furnish  leadership,  also,  in 
this  (juestion,  so  vital  to  the  free  world. 

How  can  we  hop(>  that  the  world  will  take  us  seriously  when  we  keep  declaring 
that  we  are  ready  to  do  everything  in  our  power  to  stop  communism,  and  how 
can  we  claim  our  fiiendship  to  those  under  communism,  if  we  continue  to  care 
nothing  for  tho.se  who  hapi»ily  escape  the  tyranny  engulfing  all  behind  the  iron 
<urtainV 


126         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  ! 

It  is  hard  to  imagine  a  greater  disappointment  than  that  which  is  felt  by  a 
person  who,  at  the  risk  of  his  life,  crosses  the  iron  curtain  into  freedom,  only  to 
find  the  hearts  and  doors  of  free  countries  tightly  closed,  and  the  miserable  life 
in  crowded  and  unsanitary  displaced  persons  camps  the  only  aspect  of  the  future. 
Willing  to  work  and  fight  for  freedom — perhaps  to  die  in  the  attempt — under  the 
shining  leadership  of  America,  he  learns  that  America  has  no  use  for  him ;  that 
he  had  better  go  back  to  the  country  whence  he  came. 

America,  and  we  must  face  it,  sets  the  example  which  other  countries  consist- 
ently follow.  The  sorry  plight  of  escapees  such  as  this  sooner  or  later  becomes 
known  in  their  native  land,  and  naturally  diminishes  the  will  to  resist,  while  on 
the  other  liand,  it  helps  Communist  tyranny  and  gives  fuel  for  more  anti-Amer- 
ican propaganda,  which  people,  in  view  of  their  information  about  the  experiences 
of  escapees,  can  no  longer  entirely  disbelieve. 

The  admission  of  refugees  into  America  is  a  far  better  type  of  propaganda 
among  enslaved  peoples  than  broadcasts  or  the  dropping  of  leaflets.  Think  only 
of  the  difference  between  the  Nazi  massacre  of  refugees  and  deserters  from 
Soviet  Russia  diiring  World  War  II  and  the  welcome  of  refugees  by  America. 

The  psychological  effect  in  the  event  of  a  war  with  a  Communist  country  would 
be  tremendous.  The  people  would  know  that  there  is  nothing  to  fear  should 
they  escai^e  Red  tyranny,  although  communistic  propaganda  has  been  telling 
them  so  for  years.  Admittance  of  refugees  to  this  country  would  be  the  best 
proof  to  them  that  America  is  the  most  human  and  a  real  leader  against  com- 
jnunism  on  all  fronts. 

Who  are  we  to  judge  and  condemn  the  living  to  a  life  of  moral  and  spiritual, 
jes  and  even  corporal,  death  under  the  Communists? 

These  escapees  and  refugees  are  a  living  example  of  what  a  free  land  can 
mean  and  should  mean  to  all  of  us.  Just  ask  any  DP  and  listen  to  what  he  says 
about  conditions  in  his  native  land. 

The  way  to  fight  communism  is  to  build  up  our  forces  with  those  who  know  and 
have  lived  with  it.  We  have  a  weapon  we  cannot  afford  to  throw  away,  for  who 
is  so  strong  that  he  does  not  need  the  weapon  of  knowledge  of  his  enemies? 
AVe  can  learn  much  from  the  persecuted.  In  fact  much  more  and  with  a  greater 
reality  than  we  can  learn  from  those  in  high  places,  who  are  only  shown  the 
more  obvious  facades  of  communism  and  its  leaders. 

We  must  learn  to  recognize  a  good  weapon — but  even  more  important,  we  must 
use  it. 

All  this  has  been  mentioned  by  Monseigneur  O'Grady,  who  writes  as  follows : 
''The  United  States  has  assumed  a  world-wide  leadership  in  maintaining  the 
Christian  and  democratic  way  of  life.  It  is  therefore  interested  in  building  up 
the  economies  of  other  countries  and  strengthening  them  in  their  fight  against 
communism.  This  cannot  be  done  by  material  aid  alone.  No  amount  of  mate- 
rial aid  can  solve  the  problems  *  *  *  without  giving  them  an  opportunity 
of  settling  some  of  their  i^eople  in  other  countries,  but  we  cannot  ask  other 
countries  to  accept  *  *  *  immigrants  if  we  are  not  willing  to  do  our  fair 
share." 

3.  Economic  and  population  aspects  in  America 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  United  States  was  built  up  and  became  the 
most  prosperous  country  on  the  globe  by  the  labors  and  efforts  of  immigrants. 
Yes,  and  we  readily  admit  that  it  cannot  go  on  and  on  as  in  the  past,  say  just 
before  and  after  1900.  On  the  other  hand,  any  thinking  American  will  find  it 
hard  to  convince  the  world  that  there  is  no  other  way  out  than  to  limit  immigra- 
tion to  such  rigid  narrowness  as  it  has  been  done.  You  will  still  find  many  able 
economists  and  social  experts  who  feel  that  our  country  could  still  benefit  by  a 
considerable  flow  of  immigration  from  other  countries.  Why  not  listen  to  such 
men  instead  of  giving  all  the  attention  to  those  who,  in  their  egotistic  narrow- 
mindedness,  take  no  time  to  go  to  the  roots  of  the  matter  and  only  jump  to  weak 
conclusions  made  by  observing  certain  local  maladjustments  in  their  inmiediate 
neighborhood? 

Besides,  do  we  not  have  facts  right  here  before  our  eyes  and  in  our  own 
times?  Just  a  few  years  ago,  we  witnessed  the  wrangling  over  the  proposal 
to  admit  a  few  hundred  thousands  of  DP's  by  an  emergency  legislation.  The 
eehos  of  "Where  shall  these  people  find  shelter  and  where  shall  these  people  find 
employment?"  have  hardly  died  down,  and  lo,  here  we  are,  some  4  or  5  years 
later,  and  who  can  say  that  the  United  States  is  actually  wor.se  off  because  of 
their  presence?  The  simple  fact  is  that  these  people  on  the  whole  have  been 
absorbed  much  easier  than  we  had  ever  expected. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         127 

We  realize,  of  course,  that  there  are  still  those  who  say  our  present  housing 
sliortage  is  caused  by  tiie  presence  of  DP's,  but  let  them  so  seeking  an  apart- 
ment with  any  young  couple  today  (with  or  without  children),  and  they  will 
see  there  are  many  to  be  had,  but  owners  and  landlords  are  asking  exorbitant 
sums  for  them  and  therefore  the  average  person  cannot  afford  them.  This  ijrob- 
lem'  is  a  separate  one  of  apartment  owners  and  their  desire  to  make  a  lot  of 
money,  and  at  the  same  time,  have  no  children — or  the  possibility  of  children — 
in  their  apartments.     It  is  not  one  of  too  many  DP's  in  the  country. 

Many  of  these  DP's  are  actually  living  in  apartments  the  average  American 
would  not  even  dream  of  inhabiting.  They  are  neglected  and  in  dire  need  of 
repairs,  and  perliaps,  even  in  neighborhoods  that  are  not  the  best.  On  the 
other  hand,  some  landlords  prefer  these  DP's  because  they  know  they  will 
take  care  of  the  property  so  maltreated  by  others,  but  these  landlords  are  not 
so  great  in  number  tliat  we  could  say  "old"  Americans  are  deprived  of  apart- 
ments because  of  this  practice. 

Of  the  groups  admitted  by  our  organization,  more  than  80  percent  of  the  adults 
liave  been  skilled  in  mind  or  hand.  Do  you  know  that  within  recent  years, 
the  majority  of  the  DP's  accepted  for  admission  through  our  office  were  farmers, 
doctors,  lawyers,  engineers,  writers,  sculptors,  master  locksmiths,  and  metal- 
workers, promising  students,  and  skilled  artisans  of  the  various  types?  None 
have  had  to  apply  for  relief,  and  have  been  eager  to  taken  even  the  most  menial 
jobs  in  order  to  earn  their  livelihood  and  start  on  their  way  to  a  new  life  in 
a  world  away  from  camps.  None  have  become  public  charges  in  any  of  the 
States  to  which  they  were  admitted.  In  fact,  many  of  these  people,  by  reason 
of  their  own  ability  and  ambition  have  proved  themselves  worthy  of  our  trust 
and  have  obtained  scholarships  in  this  land  of  competition  and  have  gone  into 
nursing,  teaching,  or  other  professions,  and  many,  also,  have  been  absorbed  suc- 
cessfully by  major  industries.  Our  Armed  Forces  have  already  made  good  use 
of  the  services  and  knowledge  of  some  of  our  DP  boys,  and  a  few  are  beginning 
to  return  to  the  States.  Because  religion  is  not  tolerated  under  communism, 
there  are  those  who  have  now  been  able  to  complete  their  study  for  the  priest- 
hood, and  others  who  may  continue  their  good  work  from  outside  the  bars  of  a 
cell,  or  the  threat  of  death. 

These  people  who  have  been  permitted  to  come  here  are  rekindling  the  am- 
bition of  our  forefathers,  who  sought  and  worked  for  advancement  in  all  things. 
Those  who  had  nothing  left  after  lleeing  their  country,  find  joy  in  being  able 
to  work  for  what  they  need  and  desire.  Those  who  have  been  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  live  here  will  grow  deep  roots,  and  with  these  roots  of  love,  knowledge, 
and  loyalty,  will  grasp  tirmly  the  soil  of  a  free  America,  and  always  be  ready 
to  help  preserve  it. 

We  must  not  forget,  that  through  these  people,  the  arts  and  skills  of  the 
Old  World  are  brought  again  to  the  New  *  *  *  to  refresh  the  waning  knowl- 
edge of  some  almost  forgotten  crafts,  and  perhaps  revitalize  the  cultural  aims  of 
a  progressive  nation.  The  knowledge  of  the  Old  World,  mingled  with  the  dis- 
coveries and  material  wealth  of  the  New,  can  create  something  that  is  possible 
only  in  America. 

As  an  intelligent  Nation,  our  problem  should  not  be  how  to  keep  these  people 
out,  but  how  to  accommodate  the  vast  stores  of  knowledge  and  energy  and 
courage  that  is  theirs. 

Can  we  afford  to  ignore  the  offer  of  staunch  citizens  and  strong  men  and  boys 
for  our  industries  and  for  our  armies?  Can  we  afford  to  ignore  the  years  of  ex- 
perience ill  all  branches  of  labor — physical  and  mental — or  the  courage  to  fight 
and  start  again  shown  by  these  people? 

If  we  can  afford  to  ignore  all  these  things,  then  we  surely  must  have  reached 
the  pinnacle  of  hiunan  achievement,  for  we  need  no  longer  to  grow,  to  discover, 
to  fight,  either  in  the  scientific,  medical,  or  practical  way  of  life. 

We  often  hear  that  former  displaced  persons  are  able  to  work  their  way  up 
and  attain  the  best  jobs  in  our  factories,  and  are  able  to  use  their  money  more 
wisely  than  "old"  Americans,  and  buy  homes  which  no  one  else  will  buy.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  after  these  people  are  happily  adjusted,  other  hundreds  of 
thousands  could  come  in  and  do  just  as  well.  We  believe  there  is  room  enough 
on  American  soil  for  many  more  people. 

Considering  all  the  points  mentioned  heretofore,  we  would  suggest  that  the 
United  States  immigration  policy  and  legislation  should  become  more  elastic. 
The  existing  legislation  should  be  amended  to  meet  the  present  world  situation 
as  efficiently  as  possible.  We  therefore  respectfully  submit  the  following 
recommendations : 


128         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

A.    GENERAL    (OMNIBUS)    IMMIGRATION   LEGISLATION  RECOMMENDED 

1.  That  "aflSdavits  of  support"  given  by  Amei'ican  citizens  be  looked  upon  as 
tLe  deciding  factor  by  the  American  consul  rather  than  the  national  quota  of 
various  countries. 

The  reason  is  self-evident.  The  odious  accusation  of  discrimination  would  thus 
become  groundless.  The  question  is  not  what  kind  of  people  are  admitted  (with 
the  obvious  exception  of  "undesirables''  on  moral,  ideological,  or  physical 
grounds) ,  but  how  many  American  citizens  are  willing  to  accept  responsibility  for 
potential  new  Americans.  When,  say,  a  large  number  of  Americans  of  Italian 
extraction  are  willing  to  take  care  of  a  large  number  of  their  conationals  from 
Italy,  why  should  a  small  quota  number  prevent  them  from  being  admitted?  The 
same  applies  to  other  countries.  All  those  admitted  will  become  Americans,  with 
no  regard  to  their  descent. 

2.  That  if  the  national  quotas  cannot  be  abolished,  as  per  the  preceding  recom- 
mendation, they  at  least  be  reproportioned,  so  as  to  take  into  consideration  the 
overpopulation  of  individual  countries  and  the  actual  desires  of  those  people  to 
come  to  America.  It  is  well  known  that  some  countries  never  till  their  annual 
quota,  while  highly  desirable  ]>eople  of  other  nationalities  cannot  secure  a  quota 
visa  for  years. 

3.  That  those  yearly  quotas  which  are  not  taken  advantage  of  by  certain  coun- 
tries be  split  among  other  nationalities,  either  proportionately  according  to  their 
regular  quota  number,  or  according  to  their  needs  (overpopulation,  number  of 
applications,  etc.). 

4.  That  issuing  of  national  quota  visas  be  primarily  given  to  refugees  and 
escapees  who  are  in  the  western  part  of  the  world.  If  these  are  not  filled  by 
reason  of  lack  of  applications  by  these  refugees  or  for  other  reasons,  applications 
for  immigration  into  America  by  the  people  actually  living  in  their  native  coun- 
tries should  be  considered,  giving  priority  again  to  dependents  of  American 
citizens  and  residents,  reuniting  in  this  way,  families  broken  by  the  war  and  its 
consequences. 

B.    EMERGENCY  LEGISLATION  RECOMMENDED 

1.  That  for  refugees  and  escapees  and  similar  groups,  an  emergency  legislation 
be  enacted  without  delay.  A  fair  number,  say  10,000  or  20.000  a  year  for  some 
time  to  come,  should  be  invited  to  immigrate.  Naturally,  the  screening  should 
be  careful,  but  at  the  same  time,  strictly  objective. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  "sponsors''  will  be  found  in  abundance,  and  the 
fear  of  overpopulation  in  America  due  to  such  an  action  is  ridiculous.  Auxiliary 
agencies  will  be  glad  to  do  the  job,  and  the  Government  need  only  give  them 
authorization. 

C.    PROBLEM  OF  OVERPOPULATION  IN  EUROPE  AND  ELSEWHERE  RECOMMENDED 

1.  That  to  solve  the  problem  of  overpopulation  in  Europe  and  elsewhere,  the 
Celler  bill  of  last  spring,  worked  out  on  the  basis  of  the  President's  message,  be 
amended  in  such  a  way  that  the  number  of  refugees  and  escapees  be  inci-eased 
and  the  number  of  overpopulated  Germans,  Italians,  Greeks,  etc.,  lessened. 
There  is  little  help  to  Italy,  Germany,  Greece,  etc.,  if  you  take  out  their  nationals, 
natives,  and  leave  in  there  refugees,  complete  strangers,  to  cope  with.  The  ref- 
ugees contribute  to  the  overpopulation  twice  as  much  as  nationals,  and  ai-e  much 
harder  to  absorb.  As  long  as  we  cannot  take  out  both  groups,  refugees  and 
nationals,  why  not  pull  out  the  strangers  first,  and  then  try  to  do  something 
worth  while  also  for  the  other  group?  As  things  are  today,  we  surely  cannot 
expect  that  those  who  have  braved  the  iron  curtain  would  ever  be  repatriated. 
We  have  to  take  them  some  place. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  persons  admitted  according  to  this  recommendation 
could  very  easily  be  taken  care  of  by  individuals  and/or  communities  in  this 
country. 

A  different  question  would  arise  if  and  when  our  country  would  consider  this 
problem  on  a  large  scale  and  as  a  long-range  program.  Should  it  come  to  that, 
we  are  sure  the  Government  would  have  to  plan  out  some  kind  of  a  project  similar 
to  that  of  Australia,  of  which  we  read  recently.  In  our  opinion,  there  are  definite 
possibilities  in  America  for  such  a  large-scale  action. 

To  be  sijecific :  America  needs  farmers.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  first  dis- 
placed persons  bill,  many  farmers  were  admitted  to  this  country.  Yet,  the  DP's 
have  not  settled  on  farms ;  at  least,  not  to  a  oignificant  extent,  though  they  were 
farmers  and  loved  the  soil.    Why? 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION  129 

True,  it  so  happenod  that  factories  were  in  need  of  workers  just  while  this 
immigration  was  in  progress.  The  DP's,  already  settled  on  farms,  rushed  to 
the  cities  and  obtained  good  employment  in  factories.  But,  this  is  not  the  whole 
answer. 

The  DP's  know  and  can  tell  you  a  better  one:  "If  there  were  any  prospects 
for  us  to  become  owners  of  farms  at  any  foreseeable  time,  we  would  gladly  stay 
out  there  on  the  soil.  As  it  was,  in  most  cases,  our  employers  were  not  our 
sponsors,  but  exploiters,  or  would-be  exploiters,  and  the  law  was  more  or  less 
against  us." 

Let  the  (Government  throw  some  real  financial  power  behind  any  such  large- 
scale  future  program,  so  that  future  new  Americans  can  gradually  become  inde- 
pendent on  their  land,  paying  back  to  the  Government  on  easy  terms,  and  the 
result  will  be  quite  different.  Under  such  a  plan.  Government-sponsored  and 
financed  immigration  project,  not  thousands  or  hundreds  of  thousands,  Imt  lit- 
erally millions  could  l)e  admitted  from  overpopulated  countries  to  great  advan- 
tage of  both  the  Old  and  the  New  World. 

On  this  occasion,  gentlemen,  may  we  respectfully  state  that  the  attitude  of 
the  United  States  toward  the  refugees  from  Yugoslavia  at  the  present  time  is  a 
flagrant  example  of  discrimination.  Who  can  justify,  and  how?  the  fact  that 
refugees  from  Yugoslavia,  the  Slovenes,  Croats,  and  Serbs,  are  excluded  from 
the  benefits  of  the  '"Emergency  fund  for  the  President"?  In  view  of  such  a  dis- 
crimination, how  can  we  hope  to  prevent  their  exclusion  from  some  future  emer- 
gency  immigration  legislation? 

If  this  practice  continues,  we  will  have  to  believe  rumors  to  the  effect  that  the 
DP's  from  Yugoslavia  will  be  kept  in  Europe  pending  possible  future  forcible 
repatriation  in  exchange  for  some,  maybe  unimportant,  favors  from  Tito.  We 
hope  that  American  authorities  will  not  follow  the  British  example  of  1945,  when, 
by  trickery,  they  forcibly  repatriated  over  10,000  Slovenian  refugees,  who  were 
subsequently  massacred. 

Is  it  not  freely  admitted  all  over  the  world,  including  Yugoslavia  itself,  that 
the  unhappy  Tito-land  is  not  a  bit  less  communistic  than  the  U.  S.  S.  R.  and 
its  satellites?  Why  then  look  askance  at  the  brave  persons  who  fled  the  com- 
munistic Yugo.slavia  of  Tito? 

Th>  above  statements  and  recommendations  are  respectfully  submitted  to  the 
President's  Commission  on  Innnigration  and  Naturalization  in  the  name  of  the 
League  of  Catholic  Slovenian-Americans,  a  national  organization  with  its  head- 
quarters in  the  city  of  New  York. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  witness  is  Mr,  Peter  C.  Giambalvo. 

STATEMENT  OF  PETEE  C.  GIAMBALVO,  NATIONAL  CHAIRMAN  OF 
THE  PUBLIC  RELATIONS  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  INDEPENDENT 
ORDER  SONS  OF  ITALY 

Mr.  Giambalvo.  I  am  Peter  C.  Giambalvo,  national  chairman  of  the 
public  relations  committee  of  tlie  Independent  Order  of  the  Sons  of 
Italy,  1^25  Lafayette  Street,  New  York  City.  I  speak  here  on  behalf 
of  the  Independent  Order  Sons  of  Italy,  of  which  I  have  been  supreme 
national  mastei-  for  over  10  years.  I  am  also  appearing  individually  as 
a  practicing  immigration  attorney. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  will  explain  fully  in  detail  what 
I  wanted  to  say. 

The  CiiAiRMAx.  Your  statement  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  statement  of  Peter  C.  Giambalvo  individually  and  as  national 
chairman  of  public  relations  connnittee  of  the  Independent  Order  Sons 
of  Italy  follows:) 

Mr.  Chairman  and  esteemed  members  of  the  I'resident's  Commission  on  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalizalidii,  I  cdiisider  it  a  marked  honor  and  privilege  to  accept 
your  invitation  and  to  speak  here  tiiis  afternoon  in  a  cause  which  is  dear  and  near 
to  my  heart  and  of  so  much  importance  to  our  Nation.  I  do  not  wish,  therefore, 
to  have  this  occasion  come  to  pass  witliout  complimenting  our  President  for  his 
foresight  and  courage  in  the  t'ormation  of  this  most  important  Connni.ssion,  and  to 


130         COMMISSION    ON   IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

thank  you  for  the  sincei'e  efforts  in  the  gathering  of  evidence  and  opinions  in 
order  to  formulate  such  recommendations  so  that  the  Congress  of  tlae  United 
States  may  enact  such  immigration  laws  which  would  put  and  keep  the  United 
States  in  the  forefront  of  all  free  nations  of  the  world,  as  a  beacon  which  will 
illuminate  the  way  of  all  peoples  seeking  freedom,  democracy,  and  peace. 

We  are  a  nation  of  immigrants.  Some  may  take  pride  in  the  fact  that  they  are 
descendants  of  ancestors  who  came  to  the  United  States  several  generations  ago. 
For  that  reason  they  feel  that  America  belongs  to  them  and  that  immigrants  who 
came  to  the  United  States  generations  after,  are  not  as  good  Americans  as  the 
Pilgrims  of  Plymouth  Rock  and  their  descendants.  Because  they  came  first 
and  solidly  established  themselves  in  this  grand  land  of  ours,  they  feel  that  they 
have  the  exclusive  right  to  dictate  to  others  who  followed ;  that  they  are  masters 
and  the  others  the  servants ;  or  to  put  it  mildly,  that  they  have  the  exclusive 
right  to  decide  who  may  come  to  the  United  States,  what  people  and  race  can  be 
admitted,  and  the  type  of  rights  and  citizenship  which  these  people  may  expect 
to  enjoy  in  the  United  States. 

My  father  was  not  a  member  of  the  crew  of  the  Santa  Maria,  the  Nma,  or  the 
Pinta,  the  first  three  little  schooners  which  Christopher  Columbus  brought  to 
the  American  Continent  on  October  12,  1492.  My  father  and/or  my  ancestors  did 
not  come  with  the  first  or  second  group  of  Pilgrims  in  1620  or  1621.  I  came  liere  in 
the  early  part  of  this  century.  I  did  not  come  from  England  or  from  northern 
Europe.  I  came  from  sunny  Italy.  I  assure  you  that  I  do  not  consider  myself, 
and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  am  not  less  loyal  and  patriotic  an  American  than  any- 
one who  is  the  descendant  of  people  who  preceded  my  landing  in  the  United  States 
by  centuries.  My  life,  with  regard  to  my  attachment  and  devotion  to  America,  is 
an  open  book  and  my  contribution  to  America  in  the  nearly  40  years  I  have  lived 
liere  is  testimony  and  proof  of  my  Americanism.  I  can  say  the  same  thing  for  the 
many  scores  of  thousands  of  people  who  came  to  the  United  States  from  Italy, 
members  of  the  Independent  Order  Sons  of  Italy.  I  have  no  hesitancy  in  assert- 
ing the  same  thing  for  the  several  million  Americans  of  Italian  extraction  living, 
working,  and  hoping  in  the  United  States. 

The  contribution  of  immigrants  of  Italian  extraction  to  the  development  and 
betterment  of  America  is  known  to  tlie  entire  world.  Both  in  peace  and  war  the 
Italian  inunigrants  liave  been  in  tlie  forefront  in  the  American  life.  I  believe  it 
was  Mr.  Butler,  when  he  was  president  of  Columbia  University,  who  said :  "If 
from  the  book  of  world  civilization  we  subtract  the  pages  of  the  contribution 
of  Italians  to  the  world  there  will  be  very  little  left."  Without  being  accused 
of  exaggerated  national  pride,  I  would  include  in  the  statement  of  President 
Butler,  Greece,  for  Greece  too  has  enriched  civilization  together  with  Italy. 

Because  we  are,  as  stated  before,  a  nation  of  immigrants,  immigration  is  and 
should  be  a  basic  policy  of  our  Nation,  just  as  important  as  our  domestic  and 
foreign  policy.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  immigration  is  so  interwoven  with  every 
phase  of  our  life  that  it  would  be  a  grave  error  to  relegate  it  to  a  position  of 
little  importance  or  as  a  matter  of  secondary  importance.  America  has  been 
defined  as  a  melting  iiot,  where  the  elements  of  all  races  and  peoples  add  to  this 
melting  pot  and  create  the  American  character  and  individual.  People  from 
Germany,  from  the  Scandinavian  countries,  England,  Holland,  Italy,  Greece, 
and  other  parts  of  the  world  come  to  America,  become  friends,  brothers,  and  work 
and  live,  hope  and  die  together  as  one  people,  the  American  people. 

It  is  axiomatic,  therefore,  that  all  the  people  who  have  made  this  great  and 
challenging  American  people  should  be  treated  alike  regardless  of  whether  a 
person  comes  from  Finland  or  from  the  fartliest  south  corner  of  Europe.  He 
should  enjoy  the  same  rights,  privileges,  and  treatment,  as  long  as  he  embraces 
our  philosophy  of  life,  obeys  and  respects  our  laws,  and  becomes  a  vigilant 
guardian  of  our  traditions  and  heritage. 

We  are  a  free  people,  we  are  children  of  the  same  Creator  and,  as  such,  should 
not  be  sulijected  to  any  discrimination  or  enjoy  paternal  favoritism. 

We  ai-e  engaged  in  a  death  struggle  against  "isms"  which  are  not  Americanism. 
Nations  on  this  side  of  the  iron  curtain  have  united  with  us  in  the  common 
struggle  against  the  common  enemy,  that  enemy  which  is  "hell  bent''  to  destroy 
our  way  of  Christian  and  civilized  life.  These  nations  of  Europe  are  doing 
everything  within  their  power  to  assist  us  in  this  fight.  They  are  friendly 
nations.  We  are  throwing  billions  of  dollars,  the  sweat  and  the  blood  of  our 
American  people,  into  the  fields  of  Euroi>e,  in  order  that  we  may  win  this  crusade 
against  communism.  One  need  not  be  a  genius  to  know  that  communism  thrives 
on  misery  and  the  dissatisfaction  of  people.  To  what  avail  will  the  American 
billions  be  if  we  fail  to  help  those  people  of  Europe  in  their  political  and  economic 
struggle. 


COMMISSIOX    ON    IMlvnGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         131 

Nations  of  Europe  are  full  of  people  who  escaped  the  claws  of  the  Russian 
bear,  tyranny  and  oppression.  These  people  are  unsettled.  They  live  from  day 
to  day  with  no  home,  no  place  of  employment,  and  very  little  food  to  eat.  Other 
nations  of  Europe  are  burdened  with  a  tremendous  amount  of  overpopulation 
and  expellees.  Their  economy  has  run  to  the  lowest  ebb  because  of  the  surplus 
population,  expellees,  and  refufiees.  The  American  dollar  alone  will  not  cure  the 
illness  because  they  lack  the  space  to  move  about  or  the  resources  and  the  indus- 
tries which  would  keep  them  occupied,  earning,  happy,  the  most  effective  antidote 
against  communism. 

The  solution  of  this  problem  is  to  be  found  in  immigration.  Relieve  Europe 
of  many  thousands  of  people,  bring  them  to  our  farms  and  factories.  We  can 
absorb  a  good  deal  of  able-bodied  farmers,  professional  men,  mechanics,  without 
harming  our  economy.  It  will  be  more  effective  and  more  far-reaching  than  the 
sending  of  millicms  upon  millions  of  American  dollars  to  Europe.  We  under- 
stand that  America  alone  cannot  be  expected  to  be  the  harbor  or  the  haven  of  all 
displaced  persons,  expellees  and  overpopulation  of  Europe.  It  is  an  international 
problem  which  must  be  solved  in  an  international  set-up.  I  am  certain,  however, 
that  America  has  taken  the  leadership  in  the  battle  for  the  restoration  of  peace 
and  democracy  in  tlie  world.  The  entire  universe  looks  up  to  America  and  will 
follow  America  in  bringing  about  the  settlement  of  these  world  problems. 
America  is  the  hope  of  the  world  and  we  should  not  disillusion  the  world  and 
our  free  people  by  ignoring  the  needs  of  these  people  and  take  the  steps  to 
alleviate,  solve,  and/or  cure. 

It  is  about  a  month  since  I  returned  from  my  fourth  trip  to  Europe  within  the 
last  2  years.  I  have  studied  conditions  in  Europe  and  have  felt  the  pulse  of 
European  i>eople.  We  must  not  disillusion  them.  Loss  of  hope  is  loss  of  will 
to  live,  to  plan,  to  work,  to  fight,  and  to  breathe.  We  must  not  allow  such  hope 
to  be  lost.     We  must  not  allow  the  source  of  hope  in  America  to  be  only  a  mirage. 

It  is  my  sincerest  and  mature  belief  that  a  radical  rewriting  and  liberalization 
of  the  immigi-ation  laws  is  most  important,  as  well  as  most  urgent.  I  fully 
agree  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  with  the  expressions  contained 
in  his  veto  message  of  June  25,  1952,  against  the  approval  of  the  now  famous 
McCarran-Walter  immigration  law. 

The  McCar ran- Walter  law  has  created  two  types  of  citizenship  and  has  sanc- 
tioned and  perpetuated  the  highly  deliberate  and  discriminatory  quota  system. 
The  McCarran  law  has  not  liberalized  tlie  immigration  laws  but  has  made  them 
more  stringent  and  heartless  and  has  created  some  form  of  ijolice  state  which  is 
abhorrent  to  every  red-blooded  American. 

Native-born  American  citizens  who  are  dual  nationals,  would  be  subjected  to 
laws  of  citizenship  on  grounds  not  applicable  to  other  native-born  American 
citizens.  This  distinction  is  a  slap  at  most  of  Americans  whose  fathers  were  of 
alien  birth. 

A  child  would  be  subjected  to  additional- risk  of  laws  of  citizenship,  naturalized 
citizens  would  be  subjected  to  the  risk  of  denaturalization  by  any  procedure  that 
can  be  found  to  be  permitted  under  any  State  law  or  practice  pertaining  to  minor- 
civil  lawsuits.  Judicial  review  of  administrative  denials  of  citizenship  are 
severely  limited  and  imi)eded  in  many  cases  and  completely  eliminated  in  others. 
I  believe  these  provisions  raise  serious  constitutional  questions. 

I  fully  concur  with  the  President's  statement  on  his  veto  message  contained 
at  page  6  thereof,  where  he  states: 

"That  the  provisions  (McCarran  law)  are  worse  than  the  infamous  Alien  Act 
of  1798,  passed  at  a  time  of  national  fear  and  distrust  of  foreigners  which  gave 
to  the  President  power  to  deport  any  alien  deemed  'dangerous  to  the  people 
and  safety  of  the  United  States.'  Alien  residents  were  thoroughly  frightened  and 
citizens  much  disturbed  by  that  threat  to  liberty." 

The  McCarran  law  has  done  even  more  than  that.  It  has  created  an  insur- 
mountable barrier  between  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  the  friendly  peo- 
ple of  Europe.  It  has  created  resentment  and  mistrust  and  has  given  to  the 
Commimists  the  best  weapon  to  be  used  against  us  and  to  deride  and  ridicule 
us  and  our  sincerity  to  help  solve  the  problems  of  Europe  and  the  world. 

I  deem  it  helpful  and  beneficial  to  America  if  the  present  immigration  laws 
with  relation  to  tlie  cpiota  system  be  abolished  and  that  the  McCarran-Walter  law, 
adopted  by  Congress,  to  go  into  effect  December  24,  1952.  be  also  abolished  and  an 
entire  new  codification  of  immigration  laws  be  rewritten  and  made  the  law 
of  our  land.    Consequently,  I  propose: 

1.  That  such  quota  be  based  on  the  racial  or  nationality  groups  who  were  in 
the  United  States  in  1930.    A  quota  based  on  the  year  1930  would  do  away  with 


132  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

the  stigma  of  discrimination  in  favor  of  tlie  people  from  norttiern  Europe-  and 
against  tlie  people  from  southern  Europe.  This  would  eliminate  a  good  deal 
of  criticism  and  would  permit  people  from  Italy,  Greece,  Hungary,  France,  and 
the  lowlands  to  be  admitted  to  the  United  States  in  a  greater  number  than  now 
permitted  and  thus,  also  solve,  to  some  extent,  the  surplus  population  of  countries 
of  southern  Europe. 

2.  Preferential  privileges  should  be  given  to  members  of  families  of  immigrants 
living  in  the  United  States.  This  would  cause  the  reunion  of  families  of 
naturalized  citizens  or  lawful-resident  aliens  in  the  United  States,  engendering 
happiness  and  well-being  among  those  families  and  the  considprable  i-eduction  of 
American  capital  which  the  naturalized  American  citizens  and  lawful  resident 
aliens  are  continuously  sending  to  Europe  to  support  and  maintain  their  families 
there.  In  addition  thereto,  such  a  law  would  be  a  serious  and  drastic  deterrent  to 
people  who  desire  to  enter  the  United  States  at  any  cost  and  because  of  the 
restrictive  sanctions  of  our  immigration  laws  cannot  do  so  except  by  entering 
illegally.  The  lilieralized  entry  of  people  from  Europe  will  decrease  the  clandes- 
tine entry  with  the  proportionate  decrease  of  our  expenditures  needed  to  main- 
tain, administer,  and  enforce  our  immigration  laws  at  the  cost  of  hundreds  of 
millions  of  dollars  per  year. 

3.  Along  those  lines,  I  would  embody  in  our  immigration  laws,  or  perhaps  by 
a  special  act,  an  amnesty  for  all  those  aliens — this  may  sound  radical — in  the 
United  States  who  entered  without  inspection  or  as  deserting  seamen  and  who 
have  been  in  the  United  States  3  years  or  more,  and  who  can  establish  that 
they  have  been  persons  of  good  moral  character  for  a  period  of  5  years  or  more ; 
who  have  been  lawfully  and  gainfully  employed,  not  affected  by  mental  or 
physical  hideous  diseases  and  whose  political  ideals  and  philosophies  are  not 
contrary  to  the  interest  of  America.  I  would  give  them  a  specified  pericd  of 
time  within  which  they  may  submit  to  the  immigration  process  and  afford  all 
those  submitting  and  qualifying,  the  opportunity  to  adjust  their  status  for  perma- 
nent residence  in  the  United  States  and,  eventually,  citizenship. 

A  measure  of  this  kind  would  save  the  American  Government  and  taxpayers  of 
the  Nation  millions  and  millions  of  dollars  needed  in  order  to  conduct  this  con- 
tinuous man-hunt  and  subject  them  to  our  deportation  process. 

4.  I  would  establish  that  any  alien  with  5  years'  continuous  residence  in  tlie 
United  States,  upon  proof  of  good  moral  character,  be  granted  voluntary  departure 
and  preexamination,  whether  or  not  he  is  married  to  an  American  citizen  or  a 
lawful  resident  alien,  and  whether  or  not  such  alien  will  be  able  to  obtain 
the  prompt  issuance  of  a  consular  visa  under  the  national  quota  which  he  would 
come  under,  as  is  now  the  case.  I  think  that  is  an  imposition  tliat  should  not 
be  allowed  to  continue. 

5.  Any  alien  in  the  United  States  who  obtained  his  admission  as  a  deserting 
seaman  or  as  a  stowaway,  if  he  did  not  submit  for  deportation  and/or  immi- 
gration process,  as  mentioned  in  No.  3,  should  then  become  amenable  to  deporta- 
tion process  and  his  case  processed  according  to  the  present  immigration  laws 
and  granted  voluntary  departure  or  deportation,  as  the  facts  and  circumstances 
in  the  case  might  warrant. 

6.  The  new  law  should  provide  that  suspension  of  deportation  should  be  granted 
to  any  alien  illegally  in  the  United  States,  who  has  become  the  spouse  of  an 
American  citizen  or  a  lawful  resident  alien,  upon  proof  of  good  moral  character 
for  a  period  of  5  years  or  longer.  Suspension  of  deportation  should  also  be 
granted  to  unmarried  aliens  with  7  years'  continuous  residence  in  the  United 
States  or  more,  and  upon  showing  good  moral  character  for  5  years  or  more 
preceding  his  application  for  suspension  of  deportation. 

7.  The  new  immigration  law  should  provide  a  set  of  rules — and  this  is  very 
important — and  regulations  to  be  followed  by  the  administrative  section  of  the 
immigrant  set-up  under  a  Commissioner  of  Immigration.  A  minimum  require- 
ment in  order  to  qualify  for  favorable  relief  should  be  set  forth  in  such  regula- 
tions and  upon  the  alien's  meeting  such  minimum  requirement,  it  should  not  be 
left  to  the  discretion  of  the  immigration  inspector  to  grant  or  deny  the  relief 
the  alien  applied  for. 

8.  A  decision  of  a  hearing  officer  or  hearing  inspector  should  be  reviewable  by 
the  Office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Inuuigration.  The  decision  of  the  Office  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Immigration  should  be  made  reviewable  by  the  Board  of  Ira- 
migration  Appeals  and  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals  should 
be  made  reviewable  by  the  United  States  courts. 

9.  Aliens  illegally  in  the  United  States,  upon  their  apprehension,  should  be 
entitled  to  be  released  upon  iwsting  of  an  immigration  delivery  bond  of  $500  and 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         133 

not  more  than  !i51,CK)0,  uiiIpss  tlio  approliended  alien  has  committed  and  lieen 
coMvifted  of  a  crime  involvinfj  moral  turpitmle,  or  is  wanted  by  any  State  author- 
ity for  crimes  allegedly  committed  by  him,  or  has  professed  antl/or  professes 
political  ideas  which  we  condenni  as  against  our  democratic  way  of  life  and 
dangerous  to  the  interest  and  welfare  of  the  T'nited  States.  It  is  very  dangerous 
and  works  unnecessary  and  inexplai liable  hardship,  to  leave  to  the  discretion  of 
the  Immigration  Service  whether  or  not  any  alien  should  be  detained  without 
the  benefit  of  bail,  in  many  cases,  for  many  months,  and  at  the  expense  of  the 
Government  of  the  T'nited  States  and,  consequently,  of  the  taxpayers  of  the 
United  States. 

10.  There  shall  not  be  two  types  and/or  categories  of  citizenship.  A  natural- 
ized citizen  shall  have  the  same  rights  and  the  same  privileges  and  the  same 
duties  and  obligations  that  a  natural-born  citizen  enjoys  in  the  United  States, 
wliether  he  is  an  Anierican  born  of  tlie  first.  sec(md,  or  third  generation.  No 
citizen  of  the  I''nited  States  should  be  deported  from  the  United  States  until  and 
unless  it  has  been  proven  that  he  lias  committed  such  a  crime  hideous  to  the 
American  standard  or  morals,  or  has  committed  a  crime  against  the  interest  of  the 
State  and  Nation.  In  any  event,  the  citizenship  of  .such  individual  shall  not  b;^ 
lost  automatically,  but  he  should  be  subjected  to  a  denaturalization  proceeding, 
as  in  the  jjresent  immigration  laws. 

11.  Pending  the  approbati(»n  of  the  present  laws  and  tlie  laws  which  go  into 
effect  December  24,  1952,  and  the  sound,  sane,  calm,  and  unhysterical  considera- 
tion of  our  next  Congress  of  a  new  Immigration  Act  to  be  created  and  written, 
and  the  establishment  of  a  new  and  more  liberal  quota  system,  I  recommend 
that  three  special  acts  be  passed  by  Congress  : 

(1)  The  adoption  of  11.  R.  7376.  known  as  the  Special  Migration  Act  of  1952; 

(2)  That  the  unfilled  qu<»ta  of  the  years  during  World  War  II  be  filled  and 
used  by  the  nationals  of  those  coiuitries  which  could  not  avail  themselves  of 
such  quota  because  of  the  war  years  ;  and 

(3)  That  the  unused  quota  nunibers  of  those  nations  subject  to  quota  regula- 
tions be  apportioned  and  used  by  those  nationals  whose  quota  number  was  filled 
and  became  oversitbscribed.  To  illustrate :  If  the  English  quota  amounting  to 
about  50,000  per  year  was  only  used  to  tlie  extent  of  30,000  for  any  year,  that  the 
26,000  unused  and  remaining  be  divided  among  the  other  nations  whose  quota 
was  filled  and  who  have  other  applicants  waiting  for  quota  numbers  and  visas 
to  come  to  the  United  States. 

I  believe  that  the  consideration  and  the  adoption  of  what  I  have  above  pre- 
sented and  suggested  will  be  a  great  boost  and  morale  builder  for  our  free  people 
of  Europe  engaged,  as  we  are,  in  a  struggle  for  survival.  It  will  benetit  America 
and  will  encounter  approbation  and  blessings  from  all  the  liberty-loving  people 
of  the  world.  It  will  save  many  American  taxpayer  dollars  and  will  unite  many 
families  now  broken  up  and  hopelessly  divided  because  of  our  ill-timed  and 
ill-advised  laws. 

We  fought  a  tremendous  destructive  war  for  a  principle ;  we  wanted  Hitler 
and  all  the  Hitlerites  to  know  that  all  people  are  equal,  they  are  all  children  of 
the  same  God,  regardless  of  whether  their  skin  is  red,  yellow,  black,  or  white. 
We  fought  a  war  in  order  to  prove  that  there  is  no  superrace  in  the  world  and 
that  Germans  are  no  better  or  worse  than  Americans  or  British  or  Italians. 
The  ^IcCarran  law  seems  to  do  and  encourage  what  Hitler  stood  for,  a  superrace 
or  the  Aryan  race.  America  has  been  discovered,  built,  and  civilized  by  ix'ople 
with  blond  hair  and  blue  eyes,  as  well  as  people  with  black  hair  and  brown 
eyes.  The  creators  and  builders  of  America,  regardless  of  race,  color,  or  creed 
should  be  treated  alike. 

This  is  my  message  and  the  message  of  the  Independent  Order  Sons  of  Italy. 
It  is  the  message,  I  dare  say,  of  all  true  Americans  and  democratic  people. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Ill  one  of  the  recommendations  contained  in  yonr 
statement  you  propose  that  the  quota  be  based  on  the  year  1930  instead 
of  1920.     What  effect  would  tliat  liave  on  the  Italian  quota  ? 

Mr.  Gi.\MH.\LV(».  The  effect  would  be  that  perhaps  instead  of  the 
present  Italian  (juota  of  5,803,  it  would  be  doubled  that  amount  or 
more,  because  in  those  days  there  was  a  great  influx  of  Italians  to  the 
United  States. 

The  Chairman.  We  appreciate  your  coming  before  us. 

The  next  witness  is  Peter  Miiikunas. 


134         COMMISSION    ON   IMMIGRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT  OF  PETEE  MINKUNAS,  EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,  UNITED 
LITHUANIAN  RELIEF  FUND  OF  AMERICA,  INC. 

Mr.  MiNKUNAS.  My  name  is  Peter  Minkimas  and  I  am  executive 
director  of  the  United  Lithnanian  Relief  Fund  of  America,  Inc.,  919 
Glenmore  Avenue,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  I  am  testifying  in  behalf  of  that 
organization. 

I  wish  to  read  a  statement  in  behalf  of  my  organization. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

Mr.  MiNKUNAS.  I  wish  to  express  my  thanks  for  the  privilege  of 
appearing  before  this  Commission  to  express  the  views  of  the  United 
Lithuanian  Relief  Fund  regarding  the  present  immigration  policy  and 
law  of  the  United  States. 

Our  organization  deeply  appreciates  the  establishment  of  this  Spe- 
cial Commission  by  the  President  to  study  and  evaluate  the  immigra- 
tion and  naturalization  policies  of  the  United  States,  because  we  are 
convinced  that  the  good  or  bad  aspects  of  our  immigration  law^s  will 
not  only  affect  our  lives  here,  but  also  our  relationship  with  other  na- 
tions, which  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  since  the  United  States  has 
an  obligation  of  high  moral  leadership  in  the  practice  of  mutual  char- 
ity among  nations  in  today's  world. 

I  will  limit  my  testimony  to  the  present  quota  system,  and  its  adverse 
effects  on  Lithuanian  emigration  to  the  United  States,  which  is  of 
constant  concern  to  the  Americans  of  Lithuanian  descent. 

According  to  the  immigration  law  of  192J:  Lithuania's  yearly  quota 
was  established  as  386.  It  appears  that  the  newly  enacted  Public  Law 
414,  section  201,  does  not  increase  this  number.  The  Lithuanian  dis- 
placed persons,  who  arrived  in  the  United  States  in  accordance  with 
Public  Law  774  and  the  amended  law,  have  mortgaged  50  percent  of 
this  annual  quota  up  until  the  year  2087,  which  means  that  for  more 
than  a  century  only  about  190  Lithuanians  throughout  the  world  will 
be  able  to  emigrate  to  the  United  States  each  year.  Because  of  Lith- 
uania's present  tragic  situation,  thousands  of  Lithuanians,  who  are 
forced  to  leave  their  country,  have  no  hope  of  emigrating  to  the  United 
States,  where  they  have  close  relatives,  who  emigrated  and  resettled 
here  earlier. 

Let  us  take  a  look  at  the  past.  According  to  official  statistics,  the 
1940  census  shows  that  there  were  394,811  Lithuanians  in  the  United 
States,  which  is  one-sixth  of  the  total  population  of  Lithania.  In  the 
eighteenth  century,  wdien  Lithuania  was  divided  between  Russia  and 
Germany,  the  Lithuanians  found  the  czarist  regime  unbearable  and 
fled  from  its  persecution.  As  a  consequence  mass  emigration  to  the 
United  States  began.  This  mass  emigration  was  especially  great 
between  1898  and  1914.  During  this  brief  16-year  period  292,294 
Lithuanians  emigrated  to  the  United  States,  according  to  official 
statistics. 

The  immigration  law  of  1924  and  the  present  Public  Law  414  in 
establishing  quotas  for  certain  areas  takes  as  a  basis  the  census  of  1920. 

It  is  our  opinion  that  the  latest  census  figures  should  be  the  basis  in 
establishing  fair  quotas,  because,  insofar  as  the  Lithuanians  are  con- 
cerned, the  census  of  1920  is  not  accurate,  since  many  Lithuanians  emi- 
grated as  Russian  or  Polish  immigrants  prior  to  World  War  I,  and 
were  designated  as  such  in  the  census.     According  to  the  1920  census 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         135 

tliere  were  about  ^aOjHK)  Litlnianians.  Tlie  1040  census  sliows  that 
there  were  oU4,Sl  1  Lithuauiaus,  whicli  is  about  (k")  [)er('ent  increase  over 
the  1920  fig-ure,  aUhou^di  only  about  7,000  Lithuanians  emigrated  be- 
tween 1920  and  1940.  Tliis  sliows  that  the  earlier  arrivals  began  to 
understand  the  question  of  ancestry  better  and  registered  properly, 
which  explains  the  \ast  dilt'erence  in  statistics.  Therefore,  should  the 
fornnda  of  Public  Law  414,  section  201,  remain,  it  seems  highly  reason- 
able to  recommend  that  the  latest  available  census  be  designated  for 
compiling  quotas  for  the  various  areas,  rather  than  that  of  1920. 

It  is  no  secret  that  the  present  law  supplies  the  greatest  opportunity 
for  emigration  to  persons  of  British  and  Irish  descent.  However, 
from  1920  the  experience  has  been  that  they  do  not  presently  have  the 
same  interest  in  emigrating  in  numbers  equal  to  earlier  emigration, 
and  in  the  numbers  allowed  by  our  immigration  laws.  Therefore,  they 
do  not  fill  their  allowable  quota  and  each  year  almost  one-half  of  their 
quota  is  not  filled. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  thousands  of  persons  of  other  nationali- 
ties who  wish  to  emigrate  to  the  Ignited  States,  and  who  would  con- 
tril)ute  as  much  to  the  Avelfare  of  our  country  as  those  from  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  but  who  have  no  hope  of  reaching  the  United 
States  because  they  were  born  in  countries  which  have  especially  small 
quotas.  This  is  particularly  true  of  those  countries  which  are  behind 
the  iron  curtain,  and  from  whicli,  because  of  the  perpetration  of  geno- 
cide, the  people  are  forced  to  look  for  a  haven  elsewhere.  Lithuanians 
have  contributed  no  less  than  other  nations  to  the  American  way  of  life. 
Our  immigration  law,  section  201,  should  be  more  flexible  and  should 
reflect  present  circumstances,  and  if  we  feel  that  the  United  States  can 
readily  accept  150,000  emigrants  each  year  the  law  should  be  recon- 
structed to  permit  that  full  number  to  be  used.  I  am  speaking  about 
the  Lithunanians,  but  this  applies  also  to  other  European  nations, 
which  are  on  the  other  side  of  the  iron  curtain,  and  whose  quotas  are 
small. 

It  is  true  that  after  World  War  II,  through  the  generosity  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  special  Presidential  order,  and  especially 
through  Public  LaAV  774  and  its  amendment,  about  30,000  Lithuanians 
arrived  in  the  United  States.  They  were  resettled  most  satisfactorily 
and  have  readily  become  adjusted  and  integrated  into  our  way  of  life, 
and  it  does  not  appear  that  they  have  burdened  the  American  public 
in  any  way. 

Today,  "there  are  about  10,000  Lithuanian  refugees  in  Europe  and 
this  number  is  increasing,  because  from  time  to  time  new  Lithuanians 
escape  from  behind  the  iron  curtain  to  find  haven  in  the  free  world. 
Since,  as  I  have  mentioned,  about  one-sixth  of  Lithuania's  total  popu- 
lation is  settled  in  the  United  States ;  it  is  only  natural  that  they  turn 
to  this  country,  because  their  loved  ones,  relatives,  and  friends  would 
help  them  to  resettle.  But,  because  of  the  unusually  small  quota  allo- 
cated by  the  present  law,  very  few  of  them  will  be  fortunate  enough  to 
come  to  the  United  States. 

Therefore,  we  believe  that  our  country's  present  national-origins 
formula  is  unfair  and  actually  outmoded  from  the  scientific  and  his- 
torical viewpoint,  and  we  woidd  like  to  see  it  replaced  by  something 
more  scientific. 

In  the  event  that  the  formula  of  the  law  determiuinir  quotas  shonhl 
remain  as  it  is,  it  would  be  advisable  to  provide  a  so-called  ''pooling  of 


136         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

quotas"  provision.  And,  taking  into  consideration  the  present  tragic 
plight  of  refugees  of  certain  countries,  the  least  we  could  do  is  to  apply 
these  visa  numbers  to  applicants  from  countries  wliere  the  number  of 
visas  available  are  small. 

Americans  of  Lithuanian  descent  are  placing  a  lot  of  faith  and  hope 
in  this  Commission's  preparatory  work,  and  believe  that  the  new  Con- 
gress will  take  note  of  recommended  changes  in  our  immigration  hnv 
and  will  amend  it  accordingly. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Dominic  J.  Piscitneeti  may  testify  next. 

STATEMENT  OF  DOMINIC  J.  PISCITNEETI,  WESTBURY, 

LONG  ISLAND,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Piscitneeti.  My  name  is  Dominic  J.  Piscitneeti,  458  Oxford 
Street,  Westbury,  Long  Island. 

I  am  in  the  plumbing  and  heating  business  and  would  like  to  say 
something  as  an  individual. 

Mr,  Chairman,  I  have  no  prepared  statement,  but  I  happen  to  be  the 
son  of  an  immigrant.  I  was  born  in  Westbury,  Long  Island,  in  a 
family  of  six  boys  and  three  girls.  We  have  lived  all  our  lives  in 
Westbury.    I  have  raised  a  family  and  have  two  daughters. 

When  this  bill  was  passed  I  read  the  headlines  of  our  local  paper 
and  saw  in  there  that  President  Truman  had  vetoed  the  immigrant  bill, 
and  that  he  had  said  in  his  veto  message  that  the  idea  behind  the  bill 
was  that  Americans  with  English  or  Irish  names  made  better  citizens 
than  those  with  Italian  and  Greek  names,  and  so  fortli. 

Well,  that  really  liurt  me  because  I  happen  to  be  the  son  of  an 
Italian  immigrant.  I  am  proud  of  it  and  proud  that  my  father  came 
lo  America  and  I  am  proud  of  what  America  has  done  for  me.  I 
served  in  the  service  in  World  War  II  in  the  Construction  Battalion 
of  the  Seabees.  I  had  two  children  at  the  time  and  I  volunteered  for 
the  service  I  wanted  to  do  for  this  country.  To  think  that  we  have 
men  elected  in  Washington  who  will  pass  remarks  of  that  sort  in  set- 
ting up  a  quota,  I  don't  think  it  is  fair. 

I  do  know  from  going  to  school  that  England  came  here  and  burned 
down  our  Capitol  and  at  the  same  time  they  are  here  giving  them  the 
biggest  part  of  the  quota  to  come  over  here  and  maybe  burn  the  other 
one  down. 

I  think  that  is  very  discriminatory.  I  think  tlie  quota  for  coming 
to  this  country  should  not  be  done  on  a  national  basis.  If  they  feel 
they  want  immigrants  to  come  to  this  country,  then  everyone  should 
be  treated  equally.  There  is  no  reason  that  anybody  from  England 
should  be  better  than  anybody  from  Italy  or  anybody  from  Germany 
or  Ireland  or  any  other  part  of  the  world,  I  feel. 

Also,  I  don't  think  it  is  fair  that  once  you  become  a  citizen  the  same 
as  I  am  riglit  liere  now  and  I  do  commit  a  crime  here  that  I  should  not 
be  punished  in  the  country  in  which  I  commit  tlie  crime  and  put  where 
I  belong.  I  don't  feel  I  sliould  be  thrown  back  into  the  country  where 
my  parents  come  from.  If  I  am  not  ht  to  be  here,  then  I  wouldn't 
be  fit  to  be  there  because  I  am  just  going  to  cause  a  disturbance  there. 
The  way  we  are  workiiig  now  we  are  trying  to  unite  and  make  the 
world  a  better  place  to  live.     It  doesn't  help  to  take  the  criminals  out 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         137 

of  America  and  send  tlieiii  back  tliere.  If  they  commit  a  crime  in 
tliis  country  they  shoidd  be  punished  and  kept  here. 

I  wouhl  also  like  to  state  for  the  record — and  I  am  a  Republican — 
that  I  aoree  wholeheartedly  with  President  Truman's  veto  message. 
I  really  think  our  representatives  rushed  the  bill  through,  for  some 
reason  or  other  that  I  don't  know  of.  I  think  the  President  did  a 
wonderful  job  on  his  veto  message  and  I  think  that  he  really  has  the 
country  as  a  whole  at  heart. 

The  C'liAimrAx.  Thank  you  ver}-  much. 

Dr.  Isabel  Allen  will  be  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  ISABEL  ALLEN,  STURGIS,  MICH. 

Dr.  Allex.  My  name  is  Isabel  Allen ;  I  am  a  doctor  of  philosophj'' 
ill  languages,  and  I  live  in  Sturgis,  Mich.  I  am  testifying  just  as  a 
private  individual. 

First  I  want  to  mention  the  aim  of  our  immigration.  It  seems  to 
me  the  present  })roblem  is  to  prevent  the  infiltration  of  communism 
into  our  country.  Secondly,  we  wish  to  prevent  situations  which 
favor  joining  Comnnmist  organizations  and  workers  and  the  acquisi- 
tion of  sympathies  with  Connnunist  philosophy.  Third,  we  wish  to 
protect  our  own  minority  groups  from  increased  competition  in  hous- 
ing and  jobs,  which  are  already  too  limited.  Next,  I  think  we  should 
favor  nonquota  immigration  of  refugees  from  iron  curtain  countries. 
There  is  nothing  that  can  help  our  anti-Connnunist  cause  better  than 
to  give  those  people  now  under  the  iron  curtain  hope.  There  is  noth- 
ing that  spurs  activity  like  hope. 

Next,  we  should  favor  the  entrance  of  rigorously  screened  qualified 
])ersons  of  skills  or  professions  where  there  are  shortages.  I  noticed 
that  these  Polish  refugees,  with  whom  I  have  been  working,  have  un- 
usual mathematical  skills  and  some  of  them  have  now  finished  their 
college  training  in  engineering  and  have  gone  out  and  are  working  for 
tlieir  Ph.D.  degrees  in  engineering. 

I  have  noticed  in  the  immigration  law  of  1924  that  there  was  a  non- 
quota arrangement  for  all  covuitries  that  are  independent  in  South 
America :  that  is,  those  which  do  not  owe  allegiance  to  a  foreign  power. 
That  screens  out  very  few.  Only  the  Guianas  and  British  Honduras 
and  the  Island  of  (nuideloupe.  That  means  practically  unlimited 
immigi-ation  from  South  and  Central  America.  These  people  are 
mostly  dark  skinned,  Negro  or  dark  skinned.  They  come  to  New  York 
!ind  Detroit  and  mostly  large  cities  and  settle  in  the  slums.  Because 
they  come  preeminently  from  unskilled  labor.  You  see  their  education 
is  entirely  different  from  ours.  I  have  traveled  a  good  deal  in  South 
American  countries.  They  don't  have  compulsory  schooling.  They 
have  no  enforced  education.  There  are  no  ])roba<ion  officers  to  round 
up  the  ])eople  who  don't  want  to  go  to  school.  They  don't  have  free 
books  and  some  of  those  })eople  can't  afford  books.  In  South  America 
as  a  i-ule  they  don't  go  as  far  in  school  as  we  do.  They  go  as  far  as  the 
sixth  grade  at  the  most.  You  can  fell  the  difference  in  their  qualifica- 
tions for  teachers  in  education.  After  the  sixth  grade  they  go  to  teacher 
training  schools. 

So,  when  those  dark-skinned  people  come  here  they  are  com])eting 
with  unskilled  lal)or  at  the  level  in  which  there  is  the  inost  competition. 
Either  they  can't  get  jobs  and  go  on  relief  or  they  displace  other  dark- 


138         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION 

skinned  workers  avIio  then  can't  get  jobs  and  go  on  relief,  making  an 
added  burden  on  our  taxpayers. 

I  have  also  discovered  something  else  about  our  immigration  policies, 
and  it  may  be  news  to  some  of  the  people  in  this  room.  It  was  a  great 
shock  to  me.  The  American  consuls  in  various  foreign  countrievS,  par- 
ticularly in  the  Caribbean  area — the  Caribbean  and  Haiti — are  giving 
tourist  visas  to  the  inhabitants  of  these  countries  without  any  screen- 
ing wliatsoever,  without  any  money  to  finance  them  after  they  get 
here,  no  questions  asked  about  their  money  and  a  one-way  ticket. 
Then,  after  the  people  get  here  on  their  one-way  tickets  with  no  funds, 
they  are  free  to  use  our  hospitals  and  our  other  facilities. 

Furthermore,  if  they  can  get  the  money  to  go  back  or  perhaps  even 
to  go  to  Canada  with  the  signature  from  almost  anybody  with  whom 
they  have  permanent  employment,  then  they  are  granted  permanent 
visas.  I  had  never  heard  of  such  a  thing.  I  was  amazed  to  think  that 
in  this  way  all  our  immigration  qualifications  are  being  bypassed.  I 
think  that  is  something  that  should  be  halted  immediately. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you. 

Dr.  George  S.  Coimts  is  scheduled  as  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  S.  COUNTS,  VICE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE 
LIBERAL  PARTY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE  AND  PROFESSOR  OF 
TEACHERS  COLLEGE,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Dr.  Counts.  I  am  Dr.  George  S.  Counts,  vice  cliairman  of  the 
Liberal  Party  and  I  am  a  professor  at  Teachers  College,  Columbia 
University. 

I  am  testifying  here  on  behalf  of  the  Liberal  Party  of  Xew  York 
State.     I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  should  like  to  read. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

Dr.  Counts.  My  name  is  George  S.  Counts  and  I  speak  on  behalf 
of  the  Liberal  Party  of  New  York  State. 

I  shoukl  like  first  of  all,  to  compliment  the  members  of  this  Com- 
mission on  their  decision  to  hold  the  series  of  hearings  in  various  parts 
of  the  country  in  an  effort  to  asceitain  the  wishes  and  will  of  the 
American  people.  Permit  me  also  to  express  my  deep  thanks  to  the 
Commission  for  this  time  which  you  have  afforded  tlie  Liberal  Party 
to  present  its  views  on  the  subjects  of  immigration  and  naturalization. 

It  is  shameful  that  the  Eighty-second  Congress  saw  fit  to  adopt  the 
McCarran-Walter  bills  as  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Act  of 
1952  (Public  Law  414).  The  Liberal  Party  opposed  the  McCarran- 
Walter  measures  and  we  suggest  it  would  serve  the  interests  of  our 
country  best  if  Public  Law^  414,  which  resulted  therefrom  could  be 
repealed  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  I  know  how  crowded  your 
schedule  has  been  today  so  I  shall  not  address  myself  to  the  innumer- 
able deficiencies  and  inequities  of  Public  Law  414.  Instead,  I  offer 
for  the  record  of  the  commission  a  copy  of  the  testimony  of  the  Liberal 
Party  which  was  given  at  the  joint  Senate  and  House  committee  hear- 
ings on  the  McCarran-Walter  bills  in  March  1951.  This  statement 
sets  forth  our  specific  objections  to  the  restrictive  and  discriminatory 
provisions  of  the  McCarran-Walter  proposals.  These  objections  were 
not  met  by  Public  Law  414  and  they  comprise  the  basis  for  our  urging 
its  repeal. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  139 

Because  it  is  basic  to  all  else  in  the  area  of  iiiimiiii-atioii,  I  sliall  use 
my  time  at  this  hearing'  to  speak  of  the  roots  of  our  inmii<;iation  hnv, 
namely:  the  present  American  philosophy  and  attitude  toward  immi- 
grants and  immigration  which  pervades  and  colors  our  innnigi-ation 
policy  and  law. 

Since  1875,  our  innnigration  laws  have  been  more  and  more  restric- 
tive in  character  until  we  enacted  the  worst  of  the  lot  up  to  that  time — 
the  admittedly  unjust  and  undemocratic  Immigration  Act  of  1024  with 
its  racist  and  discriminatory  national  origins  quota  system  as  a 
formula  for  the  admission  of  immigrants.  Moreover,  the  evils  of  the 
1924  law  have  been  retained  and  expanded  in  the  Immigration  and 
Naturalization  Act  of  1952.  These  laws,  with  the  exception  of  the 
grudgingly  adopted  Displaced  Persons  Act,  the  repeal  in  1943  of  the 
Chinese  exclusion  acts  and  those  which  provide  j:or  qualifications  of 
health  and  morals — have  all  been  premised  upon  an  antialien  philos- 
ophy— an  attitude  of  fear  and  suspicion  of  the  foreigner  and  the  im- 
migVant.  Despite  the  gigantic  contributions  made  to  our  Nation  by 
inmiigi-ants  and  their  descendants,  the  clear  emphasis  of  our  immi- 
gration policy  has  been,  how  can  w^e  keep  these  unwanted  foreigners 
from  invading  our  country  like  hordes  of  locusts,  rather  than,  how 
can  we  best  integrate  these  potential  new  Americans  whom  we  need 
to  freshen  the  national  blood  stream  and  to  strengthen  our  economy 
Avith  their  skills  and  talents.  To  make  matters  worse,  this  xenophobic 
approach  to  immigration  seems  to  have  become  so  completely  accepted 
in  Federal  legislative  circles  as  to  appear  to  be  sacrosanct.  It  is  high 
time  this  irrational  acceptance  of  a  bad  policy  be  publicly  challenged. 
The  Liberal  Party  believes  that  an  evil  does  not  become  good  with  the 
passage  of  time  nor  does  a  wrong  right  itself  merely  by  virtue  of  its 
public  acceptance.  We  recognize  that  our  policy  of  antagonism  and 
distrust  of  immigrants,  while  it  was  unjustified  and  bad  for  the  situa- 
tion in  1924,  resulted  from  the  reactionary  political  climate  of  that 
day.  The  early  tw^enties  w^as  the  time  of  a  post  World  War  I  iso- 
lationism and  the  period  w4ien  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  was  at  the  height 
of  its  power  and  was  poisoning  the  public  mind  with  its  spe wings  of 
bigotry  and  group  prejudice. 

To  have  reaffirmed  this  undemocratic  philosophy  in  1952,  as  was 
done  in  our  opinion  by  the  passage  of  Public  Law  414,  compounds 
the  error  since  it  goes  directly  counter  to  all  we  have  since  learned 
about  the  theories  of  "race"  and  "blood,"  counter  to  our  foreign 
policy,  counter  to  the  manpower  needs  of  our  country,  and  counter 
to  our  international  position  of  prestige  as  the  leading  democracy  of 
the  world.  The  early  fifties  is  a  time  when,  except  in  the  minds  of  a 
few  antideluvians,  w^e  have  long  renounced  isolationism  as  a  way  of 
international  life.  Of  course,  we  hope  that's  true.  Racial  and  re- 
ligious bigots  and  demagogs  are  no  longer  acceptable  to  our  society. 
Of  course,  we  hope  that's  true.  Today  we  are  in  a  state  of  defense 
mobilization  against  the  threat  of  Communist  inqierialism  with  Ameri- 
can youth  battling  in  the  Communist-inspired  Korean  w\ar  as  evidence 
of  the  grave  seriousness  of  that  threat.  In  other  aspects  of  our  foreign 
])olicy  we  have  recognized  that  if  we  are  to  ward  off  this  real  danger 
of  totalitarian  world  (h)iiiinati()n  we  must  win  every  possible  ally  to 
the  democratic  cause  in  Asia,  in  the  Middle  East  and  in  Europe. 

25356 — 52 10 


140  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

In  this  sensitive  and  complex  international  situation,  the  anti- 
foreigner  immigration  policy  of  the  United  States  which  is  made  mani- 
fest in  our  immigration  law,  is  far  more  serious  than  the  limited  num- 
bers of  immigrants  we  admit  under  that  shameful  policy.  It  is  doubt- 
ful that  the  Asian,  East  European,  and  Middle  Eastern  peoples  can 
hear  our  protestations  of  friendship  for  the  noise  we  make  in  our 
immigration  debates  in  wiiich  these  same  people  are  tagged  as  racially 
inferior  and  unworthy  of  equal  treatment  Avith  those  wdiom  we  have 
unscientifically  honored  as  "Anglo-Saxon"'  and  "Nordic." 

As  we  of  the  Liberal  Party  see  it — aside  from  considerations  of 
liumanity,  justice,  and  mercy,  which  alone  should  be  sufficient,  but 
apparently  are  not,  motives  of  national  self-interest  dictate  a  com- 
plete overhauling  of  our  immigration  policy,  even  if  the  numbers  we 
can  admit  must  be  limited  by  our  capacity  to  absorb,  a  limitation  which 
reasonable  people  throughout  the  world  will  understand  as  they  under- 
stand the  limitations  for  reasons  of  health  and  morals.  Such  a  mod- 
ernization of  our  attitude  toward  immigration  would  promptly  bring- 
about  the  elimination  of  all  the  objectionable  features  of  our  present 
immigration  policy  with  comparable  changes  in  our  immigration  law. 

We  should  approach  the  subject  of  immigration  in  a  spirit  of  warmth 
and  trust  of  the  newcomers.  American  interests  woulcl  best  be  served 
if  we  cast  aside  completely  the  insulting  national  origins  quota  system 
with  its  unjustifiable  chasms  between  the  unneeded  large  quotas  for 
western  European  countries  on  the  one  hand  and  the  offensively  small 
quotas  for  the  countries  of  eastern  and  southern  Europe,  Asia,  and 
the  Middle  East,  which  so  sorely  need  the  fullest  extent  of  relief  which 
can  be  afforded  through  emigation. 

Similarly,  the  discriminations  in  our  present  law  against  colored 
colonials  of  the  West  Indies  and  those  who  are  wholly  or  by  one-half 
ancestry  from  the  "Asia-Pacific  triangle"  also  would  be  abolished. 

Under  such  a  fresh  and  wholesome  approach  to  immigration, 
permanent-resident  aliens  and  naturalized  citizens — except  for  cases 
of  fraud  or  illegal  entry — would  no  longer  be  subjected  to  the  archaic 
and  anachronistic  penalty  of  deportation  which  also  should  be  eradi- 
cated from  our  immigration  laws.  Naturalized  citizens  and  resident 
aliens  are,  as  they  should  be,  subject  to  the  same  penalties  for  criminal 
offenses  as  native-born  citizens.  When  they  become  mentally  ill  they 
are  institutionalized,  as  they  should  be,  in  the  same  way  that  native 
Americans  are  treated  when  such  misfortune  strikes  them.  Natural- 
ized citizens  and  law-abiding  resident  aliens  should  be  assured  the 
rights  of  fair  play,  due  process  of  laAv,  and  civil  rights  no  less  favor- 
able than  those  of  native  and  natural-born  citizens. 

Such  a  friendly  philosophy  regarding  immigration  would  neces- 
sarily bring  about  provision  for  adequate  review  and  appeal  ])ro- 
cedures  in  visa  and  immigration  cases,  so  sadly  lacking  in  our  present 
immigration  law. 

Such  a  proimmigration  ]:)olicy  or  friendly  immigration  policy  would 
also  have  a  great  constructive  impact  upon  the  pressing  problems  of 
the  many  in  Europe  who  still  find  themselves  dislocated  as  a  result  of 
World  War  II;  the  courageous  who  manage  at  great  risk  to  esca]:»e 
from  those  countries  which  are  in  the  grip  of  the  Communist  terror 
and  the  many  millions  of  the  world's  surj^lus  populations.  I  myself 
have  talked  to  many  of  those  peoples  and  know  something  about  the 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         141 

liartlships  and  siifferin<>s  through  which  they  have  <i:one.  Of  course 
"\ve  weren't  responsible  for  those  but  we  might  have  alleviated  them 
somewhat. 

Without  the  odious  national  origins  quota  system  we  would  find 
that  within  the  total  allowable  ceilings  there  would  be  room  for  a 
solution  to  the  socially  explosive  situations  which  are  now  so  easily 
exploited  by  world-wide  connnunism.  In  a  decent  and  humane  basic 
immigration  law,  drawn  in  keeping  with  the  new  philosophy,  })ro- 
vision  would  be  made,  in  the  cases  of  the  dislocatees  and  escapees,  for 
the  admission  of  our  fair  share  through  special  legislation,  along  the 
lines  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  A  humane  American  inmiigration 
])olicy  would  also  greatly  influence  the  United  Nations  and  other 
international  channels  through  which  the  world-wnde  problem  of  sur- 
plus populations  must  be  resolved.  But,  even  as  regards  this  uni- 
versal problem,  which  does  not  lend  itself  to  solution  through  immi- 
gration or  other  unilateral  action  by  the  United  States,  at  least  token 
relief  could  be  given  through  our  immigration  laws  to  a  few  countries 
sucli  as  Italy,  Greece,  and  the  Netherlands  where  the  surplus  popula- 
tions [)roblem  is  particularly  pressing  and  thus  providing  a  fertile 
climate  for  the  cancerous  growth  of  communism.  I  think  that  token 
recognition  would  have  great  moral  value. 

The  Liberal  Party  believes  that  only  complete  revision  of  present 
innnigration  policy  and  laws  will  make  it  possible  for  the  United 
States  to  maintain  its  destined  role  as  a  leader  among  the  free  and 
truly  peace-loving  nations  of  the  world  and  I  am  confident  that  most 
Americans  share  our  views.  The  Liberal  Party  sincerely  trusts  that 
in  its  report,  this  Connnission  will  recommend  such  a  new  official  ap- 
proach to  American  immigration  policy  with  such  new  legislation  as 
will  bring  our  immigration  and  naturalization  practices  into  line 
with  our  international  responsibilites,  our  domestc  man-power  needs, 
and  our  democratic  professions. 

I  should  now  like  to  insert  in  the  record  a  copy  of  the  statement  by 
Jules  Cohen,  cocliairman  of  the  national  legislative  committee  of  the 
Liberal  Party,  submitted  by  the  Liberal  Party  at  the  hearings  of  the 
joint  congressional  connnittee  in  Washington  on  the  McCarran-Walter 
ibills  on  March  21,  1951. 

The  CiiAiR]\iAN.  It  will  go  into  the  record. 

( The  statement  referred  to  is  as  follows :) 

Staikmknt  on  Behalf  of  the  Ltbp:jiat.  Party  of  New  York  State  on  Proposed 
Immigration  Legislation,  Stbmitted  at  He^vijings  of  Joint  Congressional 
Committee,  Washington,  March  21,  1951 

(By  Jules  Cohen,  cocliairnmii,   national  legislative  committee.  Liberal  Party) 

Each  year,  the  Liberal  Party  develops  a  national  legislative  program  and  such 
a  r'l'oKiiiin  has  been  written  for  the  year  1951.  The  Liberal  Party  approaches 
all  national  legislation  in  19.")1  with  the  conviction  that  our  country  is  in  an 
emergency  situation  and  that  the  United  States  is  confronted  with  "a  struggle 
for  survival  and  for  llie  jireservat ion  of  our  democratic  ideals  and  forms.  We, 
of  the  Liberal  Party,  believe  it  would  be  the  height  of  folly  and  danger  to  regard 
the  Communist  aggression  in  Korea  as  a  self-contained  phenomenon.  To  us. 
and  we  urge  this  position  upon  all  Americans,  the  Comnmnist  aggrc'ssion  in 
Korea  must  be  undei-stood  as  a  symptom  of  and  testimony  to  the  total  Soviet 
program  of  expansionism  toward  world  donuiuitiou.  The  immediate  emergency 
in  Korea,  therefore,  is  only  part  of  a  far-llung  sustained  and  continuing  emer- 
gency which  will  i)revail  so  long  as  the  Soviet  policy  of  aggrandizement  prevents 
the  world  from  achieving  peace. 


142  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

For  a  peace-loving  nation  lilie  ours,  with  its  long  tradition  of  good  will  and 
assistance  toward  the  peoples  of  the  world,  a  nation  which  spearheaded  the  drive 
for  universal  peace  by  its  unprecedentedly  rapid  demobilization  after  World 
War  II;  by  taking  the  lead  in  the  United  Nations  and  by  the  Marshall  program 
of  assisting  nations  to  become  self-sustaining — for  such  a  nation,  it  is  not  a 
casual  matter  to  find  it  necessary  to  rearm  for  its  own  defense  and  the  defense  of 
the  free  world.  Because  we,  of  the  Lil)eral  Party,  believe  that  only  complete 
readiness  to  oppose  force  with  force  can  deter  aggressors  from  carrying  out 
their  nefarious  designs,  we  have  called  for  complete  preparedness  which  should 
not  be  confined  to  material  strength  alone  but  which  must  include  spiritual 
strength  as  well. 

The  Nation's  defense  and  mobilization  needs  must  receive  first  priority  under 
all  circumstances.  At  the  same  time,  however,  they  must  not  be  permitted  to 
serve  as  a  pretext  for  reactionary  assault  upon  the  social  progress  and  the 
democratic  values  of  our  country.  We  believe  that  while  continued  progres.s 
in  meeting  the  social  requirements  of  the  American  people  may  be  slowed  by 
the  emergency,  such  services  must  not  be  too  greatly  curtailed  and  in  many 
instances  can  even  be  advanced. 

Tlie  Liberal  Party  approaches  the  subject  of  immigration,  keeping  in  mind 
the  great  tradition  of  America  as  a  haven  for  the  oppressed.  We  believe  that 
to  a  great  extent,  the  United  States  has  become  a  great  nntion  through  the  con- 
tribution of  its  immigrants.  For  these  reasons  we  favor  liberalization  of  the 
general  immigration  law,  in  order  to  provide  for  the  admission  of  additional 
immigrants  from  among  the  free,  the  democratic,  and  the  friendly  nations  of  the 
world.  The  pressing  need  of  our  country  for  manpower  in  the  present  emergency 
is  a  further  reason  for  such  liberalization,  in  addition  to  the  broad  humanitarian 
grounds.  We  believe  that  the  underlying  philosophy  and  rationale  of  our  im- 
migration law  should  ))e  that  of  welcoming  newcomers  to  our  shores  and  that 
provisions  of  an  exciusionist  nature  should  be  kept  to  the  minimum  necessary 
for  national  security. 

P>ecau.se  of  these  convictions  we  oppose  the  enactment  of  S.  716  and  II.  R. 
2379  and  urge  their  complete  rejection.  Wliile  there  are  some  differences  between 
the  two  bills  and  in  some  respects  the  House  bill  is  somewliat  less  objectionable 
than  the  Senate  version,  both  measures,  in  our  considered  judgment,  are  in  effect 
exclusion  acts  and  not  immigration  bills.  In  general,  our  objection  to  this  pro- 
posed legislation  is  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  restrictive  and  discriminatory  ;  many 
of  its  provisions  are  written  in  vague  language,  which  we  are  sure  would  not  be 
upheld  by  our  courts,  while  still  other  provisions  violate  the  civil  liberties  of 
naturalized  Americans  and  aliens  and  place  them  in  a  kind  of  second-class  status. 
These  bills  add  up  to  antialien  legislation.  They  are  the  kind  of  anti-immigra- 
tion laws  which  should  not  be  placed  on  American  statute  books  at  a  time  when 
we  are  preaching  democracy  to  the  rest  of  the  world  and  trying  to  wean  individ- 
uals away  from  their  totalitarian  masters  and  toward  democracy.  It  nmst  be 
most  discouraging  to  genuine  democrats  in  countries  behind  the  ircm  ciu-tain, 
who  may  wish  to  escape,  to  learn  that  if  they  should  decide  to  take  upon  them- 
selves the  great  risks  involved,  it  would  be  useless  since  they  could  not  enter 
the  United  States. 

This  legislation  contains  within  itself  the  best  arguments  against  its  adoption. 
For  example,  tlie  provision  that  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  and  Naturaliza- 
tion and  the  Administrator  of  the  Bureau  of  Passports,  Visas,  Security  and 
Consular  Affairs,  shall  be  native-born  citizens  of  the  United  States  is  one  of  the 
provisions  to  which  we  object  as  being  antialien.  This  is  a  gratuitous  slap  at 
our  naturalized  citizens  which  would  cause  irreparable  harm  to  the  prestige 
status  of  the  United  States  as  the  leading  democracy.  There  is  no  reason  except 
fear  for  making  this  kind  of  distinction  in  American  law  between  our  native- 
born  and  naturalized  citizens. 

We  find  section  lOG  objectionable  because  it  does  away  with  court  review  of 
determinations  of  fact.  We  can  see  no  valid  reason  for  changing  the  present 
applicability  of  the  Administrative  Procedures  Act  to  immigration  and  naturaliza- 
tion cases.  Tiie  right  to  a  review  by  the  courts  of  possilile  administrative 
mistakes  or  abuses  is  too  fundamental  an  American  principle  to  be  lightly  cast 
aside. 

The  section  of  this  proposed  legislation  which  provides  for  the  "Asia-Pacific 
triangle,"  unfortunately  does  not  completely  eliminate  racial  discrimination. 
It  is  regrettable  that  those  responsible  for  this  legislation,  who  on  the  one  hand, 
made  an  important  contribution  to  harmony  among  the  races  by  making  people 
of  all  races  eligible  for  immigration,  saw  fit  to  destroy  this  great  gain  by  retain- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMlvnCRATION   AND    NATURALIZATION         143 

inir  the  racist  principle  implicit  in  tlie  provision  that  an  alien  horn  outside  the 
"Asia-Pacific  trianjile"  who  is  "attrihutalile  hy  as  much  as  one-half  ancestry  to  a 
])eop!e  or  peoples  indigenous  to  the  trianu'le"  is  chargeable  to  the  quota  of  his 
ancestry  or  if  no  such  quota  exists,  to  the  (piota  of  TOO  estahlishe<l  hy  the  hill. 

Also  heeanse  it  is  racist,  we  ol^ect  to  the  provision  that  "immitxrants  horn  in 
a  colony  or  other  depeiKlcnt  area  for  which  no  sei)arate  quota  has  been  estab- 
lished" shall  he  chargeable  to  the  quota  of  the  governing  country  up  to  the  limit 
of  100  a  ,year.  Such  a  provision  will  not  win  friends  or  influence  people  among 
the  natives  of  colonies  and  dei)en(lent  areas  situated  in  the  Western  Hemisiihere, 
to  whom  this  provision  mainly  applies,  ^^'e  believe  strongly  that  it  is  in  the 
best  interests  of  the  United  States  to  accord  nonquota  status  to  such  Western 
Hemisphere  colonials  as  is  accorded  to  the  natives  of  all  other  countries  in  the 
Western  Hemisphere. 

Except  in  the  interests  of  preserving  family  units  we  are  opposed  to  any  special 
system  of  preferences  within  the  quota  of  a  given  nationality  group  as  pro- 
vided for  in  this  legislation.  Its  net  effect  is  further  drastically  to  reduce 
existing  quotas.  In  addition,  such  a  system  of  selection  is  repugnant  to  the 
American  tradition  of  equality  and  fair  play. 

That  certain  classes  of  aliens  must  be  excluded  in  the  best  interests  of  the 
United  States  goes  without  saying.  But  to  Include  among  such  excludable 
classes  people  "whose  admissions  are  tantamount  to  a  confession  of  gviilt"  of 
crimes  involving  moral  turpitude  provides  a  ground  for  exclusion  which  is  so 
Aague  as  to  have  no  real  substance  or  meaning. 

The  exclusionist  nature  of  the  legislation  under  consideration  is  most  strikingly 
borne  out  by  section  212  (a)  14  which,  with  certain  exceptions,  provides  for 
the  exclusion  of  aliens  "if  unemplo.ved  persons  can  be  found  in  this  country  to 
perform  such  skilled  or  unskilled  labor."  This  section  alone  might  make  it  im- 
possible for  any  immigrants  to  be  admitted  at  any  time.  We  can  conceive  of 
no  circumstances  under  which  there  are  not  some  few  Americans  unemployed 
in  certain  fields  and  to  say  that  no  aliens  should  be  admitted  unless  every  single 
citizen  is  employed  goes  to  such  lengths  as  to  reinforce  strongly  our  view  that 
these  are  exclusionist  and  not  proimmigration  laws. 

We  are  disturbed  by  such  fine  nuances  as  that  contained  in  section  212  (a)  19 
which  would  exclude  an  immigrant  who  "seeks  to  procure,  or  has  sought  to  pro- 
cure a  visa  by  fraud  or  by  willful  misrepresentation  of  a  material  fact."  Where 
it  is  proved  that  an  alien  has  obtained  a  visa  by  fraud  or  willful  misrepresenta- 
tion of  a  material  fact,  we  certainly  agree  he  should  be  excluded.  But  to  in- 
clude in  this  category  those  who  sought  to  procure  a  visa  by  such  means  ignores 
completely  the  tremendous  pressures  upon  many  dislocated  people  who  may 
have  made  minor  misrepresentations  in  their  strong  desire  to  escape  from  the 
shadows  of  a  miserable  existence  into  the  sunlight  of  America. 

It  is  decidedly  not  in  keeping  with  the  American  ti-adition  of  preserving 
the  civil  liberties  of  all  people,  to  attempt  to  enact  legislation,  as  in  this 
case,  which  would  exclude  "aliens  who  the  consular  office  or  the  Attorney 
General  knows  or  has  reason  to  believe  would,  after  entry,  be  likely"  to  en- 
gage in  spying,  creating  public  disorders,  or  in  other  subversive  activities. 
The  security  of  the  United  States  can  be  adequately  protected  without  resort 
to  such  vague  criteria  as  "reason  to  believe"  or  "likely  to  engage." 

The  Liberal  Party  supports  the  Intent  of  section  212  (a)  28,  the  substance 
of  which  is  to  exclude  aliens  because  of  their  past  or  present  affiliation 
with,  membership  in,  or  activity  in  connection  with  certain  enumerated  classes 
of  subversive  organizations,  but  to  exempt  from  such  exclusion,  those  who  were 
involuntary  members  of  such  groups.  In  addition,  we  approve  of  exempting 
those  aliens  who  have  been  actively  opposed  to  the  principles  and  the  ideology 
of  the  group  involved.  This  gives  proper  recognition  to  the  principle  of  redemp- 
tion of  those  who  committed  political  errors  in  the  past.  As  a  practical  mat- 
ter, it  would  make  available  to  the  United  States  persons  who,  by  virtue  of 
their  past  experience,  are  in  a  position  to  aid  our  country  considerably  in  its 
fight  against  the  totalitarian  menace. 

It  is  extremely  unfortunate  that  the  approach  contained  in  the  section  .iust 
referred  to  was  not  applied  to  the  entire  bill.  We  cannot  possibly  support 
legislation  which  provides,  as  this  does  in  section  235  (c),  that  aliens  who  are 
excluded  under  those  provisions  relating  to  the  various  subversive  categories, 
are  entirely  at  the  discretion  of  the  Attorney  General.  Under  this  section, 
the  Attorney  General  may  deny  any  further  inquiry  or  may  order  the  alien 
to  be  excluded  or  to  be  deported  if  he  is  satisfied  that  the  alien  is  excludable 
on  the  basis  of  information  of  a  confidential  nature,  the  disclosure  of  which 


144  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

would  be  prejudicial  to  the  public  interest,  safety,  or  security.  Such  wide 
latitude  to  exclude  an  alien  "without  any  inquiry  or  further  inquiry"  is,  we 
contend,  contrary  to  our  democratic  practices  and  procedures. 

Section  241  (a)  (1)  which  provides  for  the  deportation  of  any  alien  who 
"at  the  time  of  entry  was  within  one  or  more  of  the  classes  of  aliens  ex- 
cludable by  law"  without  providing  for  some  statutory  period  of  limitation  is  to 
keep  a  person  in  fear  forever  of  an  offense  committed  long  before  and  which 
mi.ij:ht  have  been  of  a  minor  nature.     This  is  both  legally  and  morally  unjust. 

Another  particularly  objectionable  section  is  that  which  allows  the  deporta- 
tion of  any  alien  when  "the  Attorney  General  in  his  discretion  concludes  that 
the  alien  is  an  undesirable  resident  of  the  United  States,"  if  the  alien  is  con- 
victed of  any  criminal  offense,  even  a  minor  one,  and  despite  the  length  of 
residence  in  the  United  States.  Such  far-reaching  discretion  and  utter  dis- 
regard for  the  ordinary  decencies  of  recognizing  degrees  of  crimes  and  ex- 
tenuating circumstances  are  completely  contrary  to  the  democratic  concept  on 
which  American  law  is  based. 

The  worthy  objectives  of  section  212  (a)  28  above  referred  to  appear  to 
be  quickly  forgotten  in  section  241  (a)  6,  which  permits  deporting  an  alien 
for  membership  in  a  subversive  organization  or  for  certain  types  of  political 
activity  at  any  time  after  entry.  It  is  interesting  that  an  exception  is  made 
where  the  membership  or  political  activity  was  stopped  before  entry  into 
the  United  States.  We  cannot  go  along  with  the  concept  of  this  provision,  since 
it  clearly  implies  that  former  Communists  or  other  totalitarians  can  never 
recant.  We  believe  that  an  alien  resident  of  our  country  who  at  one  time  may 
have  committed  a  political  error  should  be  judged  on  the  basis  of  his  present 
beliefs  and  practices  so  long  as  he  has  clearly  repudiated  his.  earlier  mistakes. 

We  object  strenuously  also  to  section  241  (4)  (b).  which  provides  for  the 
deportation  of  an  alien  who  "admits  committing  within  H  years  after  entry, 
acts  which  constitute  the  essential  elements  of  a  crime  involving  moral  tur- 
pitude, or  whose  admission  is  tantamount  to  a  confession  of  guilt  of  such 
a  crime."  Here  is  the  curious  situation  of  deporting  an  alien  for  committing 
an  offense  for  which  he  could  not  have  been  deported  at  the  time  the  crime 
was  committed.  This  is  an  innovation  which  should  not  be  written  into  Amer- 
ican law. 

Still  other  provisions  of  this  proposed  legislation  are  bad  in  that  they  are 
written  in  vague  and  broad  terms  or  invade  the  right  of  privacy.  For  example, 
the  provision  that  the  Attorney  General  can  declare  an  alien  deportable  if  he  is 
satisfied  that  the  alien  "has  failed  or  refused  to  fulfill  his  or  her  marital  agree- 
ment made  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  his  or  her  entry  as  an  immigrant."  What 
criteria  might  be  used  to  make  such  a  determination  is  nowhere  clarified.  Or 
the  provision  which  makes  certain  classes  of  aliens  deportable  even  if  the  alien 
had  entered  the  countiT  before  the  enactment  of  this  legislation  or  that  the  acts, 
utterances  or  other  evidence  by  which  he  is  adjudged  to  belong  to  such  a  class,  may 
have  taken  place  before  the  law  was  adopted.  This  clearly  is  an  ex  post  facto 
law,  the  enactment  of  which  is  prohibited  by  our  constitution.  In  addition  to 
being  unconstitutional,  such  legislation  is  un-American  and  should  not  be  adopted. 

There  are  additional  objections  which  the  Liberal  Party  has  to  the  various 
sections  of  the  legislation  under  consideration  which  deal  with  the  suspensi<m  of 
deportation,  but  in  the  interests  of  time,  we  will  forego  a  discussion  of  these 
items  which  are  minor  only  by  comparison.  However,  section  287  (a)  1  is  worth 
special  mention.  This  is  the  section  which  would  permit  any  officer  or  employee 
of  the  immigration  and  naturalization  service,  without  warrant,  "to  interrogate 
any  alien  or  person  believed  to  be  an  alien  as  to  his  right  to  be  in  the  United 
States."  We  believe  it  would  be  shameful  to  give  immigration  ofiicers  and  em- 
ployees the  right  to  barge  into  the  homes  of  aliens  at  any  time  and  place  aliens  in 
the  position  where  they  would  never  be  secure  in  their  homes.  This  again  is  not 
in  keeping  with  the  American  tradition  of  respect  for  an  individual's  privacy  as 
well  as  his  person  and  disregards  completely  the  civil  rights  of  the  alien. 

The  Liberal  Party  believes  that  there  is  a  real  need  to  revise  the  general  immi- 
gration law  of  our  country,  but  only  if  such  revision  of  the  law  will  be  in  the 
direction  of  liberalizing  existing  legislation:  removing  all  remaining  forms  of 
discrimination  and  continuing  to  add  to  our  national  strength  through  the  con- 
tinued infusion  of  new  blood  via  immigrants  who  will  in  the  future  make  as 
sizable  a  contribution  to  the  welfare  of  our  country  as  immigrants  have  made  in 
the  past.  The  Liberal  Party  of  New  York  urges  the  enactment  of  amendments 
to  the  present  immigration  law  or  the  enactment  of  an  omnibus  immigration 
bill  which  will: 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION  145 

1.  Make  unnision  for  uliliziiii:  iiimsed  itortioiis  <tf  quotas.  The  fa<'ts  arc  that 
in  no  single  .year  lias  the  full  total  of  1.">4.(Mt(i  inuniKi'ants  Iuhmi  adniittt'd  to  the 
United  States.  At  the  same  time,  the  record  is  equally  clear  that,  in  countries 
which  have  small  quotas,  there  are  many  more  applicants  for  admission  to  the 
liiitcd  States  than  can  ever  hope  to  c(une  in  under  the  present  law.  In  this  con- 
nection, we  should  keep  in  mind  the  effect  of  the  inortga^inK  of  quota  jtrovisions 
of  the  Displaced  I'ersons  Act.  We  support  the  principle  of  forniinii  a  connnou 
pool  of  the  luiused  portions  of  quotas  and  making  this  pool  avallahle  to  other 
qualified  immigrants  without  regard  to  national  origin  so  thiit  up  to  the  number 
of  ir)4,000.  the  maximum  allowed  for,  those  who  wish  to  enter  the  United  States 
ns  immigrants  and  who  otherwise  (pialify  may  he  able  to  do  so. 

2.  We  urge  that  any  inniiigration  law  sbouhl  be  drawn  with  due  regard  f<u" 
the  civil  liberties  of  aliens  who  should  never  be  relegated  to  a  kind  of  second-class 
citizenship,  but  who  should  enjoy  the  same  privileges,  as  well  as  responsibilities, 
as  those  which  are  enjoye(l  by  American  citizens. 

3.  We  urge  legislation  which  will  provide  for  maximum  review  by  the  courts 
of  judicial  as  well  as  administrative  rulings.  The  retentitin  of  proper  safeguards 
and  adequate  oppctrtunities  for  judicial  review  we  consider  to  be  fundamental. 

4.  Sucli  legislation  as  may  be  enacted  should  not  be  ex  post  facto  in  nature  and 
must  include  ade<piate  i)rovision  for  statutes  of  limitation  wliich  can  be  of  lengtli 
sufficient  to  insure  that  no  one  shall  quickly  escape  ptmishment  for  his  crimes, 
but  at  the  same  time  insuring  that  one  need  not  live  in  eternal  fear  of  some 
offense,  minor  though  it  may  have  been,  which  was  committed  in  the  distant  past. 

r>.  We  are  opposed  to  the  principle  of  selective  immigration  in  the  general 
inunigration  law,  and  we  believe  that  the  Nation's  manpower  needs  can  be  ade- 
quately provided  for  in  connection  with  the  pooling  of  the  unused  quotas  as 
hereinabove  suggested. 

6.  Finally,  we  would  suggest  that  the  use  of  the  1920  census  as  the  basis  upon 
which  to  determine  quotas  should  be  discarded  and  a  later  census  period  used. 
The  1920  census  is  no  longer  a  realistic  basis  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  take  into 
accoimt  the  tremendous  movements  of  poi)ulations  in  the  intervening  period  of 
30  years.  We  urge  and  support  a  change  to  the  most  recent  census  i>eriod 
available. 

We  submit  that  in  this  twentieth  century,  psychological  M-arfare  is  of  eipial,  if 
not  greater,  importance  with  military  w;irfare.  Having  assured  our  internal  se- 
curity against  espionage,  sabotage,  and  subversion,  we  nnist  thereafter  maintain 
the  open-door  psychology  and  look  toward  immigrant  Americans  with  warmth, 
cordiality  and  without  fear,  antagonism,  or  suspicion.  Such  an  approach  to  the 
question  of  immigration  will  deny  to  the  Communist  totalitarians  the  comfoi-t  and 
propaganda  ammunition  which  they  pounce  upon  and  exploit  to  the  fullest  when 
we  adopt  or  even  consider  the  adoption  of  exclusionist,  restrictive,  and  discrimina- 
tory legislation.  We  have  grown  strong  through  the  open-door  policy  and  can 
grow  stronger  yet  by  reviving  this  immigration  philosophy  which  has  been  dor- 
mant since  1924.  We  shall  defeat  the  totalitarianism  of  comnuuiism  as  we 
defeated  the  totalitarian  evils  of  nazism  and  fascism.  Our  task  in  this  regard 
will  be  made  easier  so  long  as  we  remain  unafraid  and  are  without  suspicion 
of  the  loyalties  of  our  new  as  well  as  old  Americans.  We  are  convinced  that,  in 
connection  with  immigration  as  with  all  other  aspects  of  our  national  life, 
proper  security  measures  can  be  adopted  without  resort  to  repressive  me.isures 
or  actions  through  which  we  may  defeat  ourselves  by  losing  or  by  giving  up  the 
very  democratic  concepts  and  ideals  we  hold  so  dear  and  which  we  are  fighting 
so  hard  to  preserve. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Dr.  Counts,  as  an  educator  would  you  care  to  com- 
ment upon  your  own  judgment  as  to  tlie  assimilability  of  groups  within 
tlie  ethnic  composition  of  our  country  ? 

Dr.  Counts.  Yes;  I  would  be  glad  to  comment  on  that,  and  I  want 
to  say  I  have  given  in  my  life  quite  a  little  attention  to  the  migration 
to  this  country  from  colonial  times,  and  I  know  sometliing  about  the 
various  elements  that  have  come  over  and  something  of  the  difficulties 
of  adjustment. 

Of  course,  to  the  extent  that  the  cultures  are  different,  the  problem 
is  more  difficult,  in  my  opinion ;  but  I  do  not  believe  that  there  are  any 
insurmoimtable  difficulties  there.     That  is,  it  is  an  educational  problem, 


146         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION   AND   NATURALIZATION 

and  we  have  faced,  in  the  public  schools  of  this  country — I  think  not 
all  together  intelligently  through  all  these  years — this  problem  of 
assimilation  and  integration  of  these  new  elements  into  our  society. 
But  as  I  look  back  over  the  history  of  immigration,  I  find  that  a  new 
immigration  gi^oup,  no  matter  where  it  comes  from,  is  likely  to 
encounter  great  hostility. 

Take  when  the  Scotch-Irish  came  over.  They  are  really  Scotch  from 
the  north  of  Ireland  as  you  know,  and  way  back  in  the  early  eighteenth 
century,  why  they  were  greeted  by  those  already  here  with  a  great  deal 
of  hostility,  and  so  it  has  been  with  other  groups  as  they  have  come 
later. 

Of  course,  most  immigrant  groups — that  isn't  all  together  true  to- 
day— but  most  of  the  immigration  to  this  country  has  been  composed 
of  the  poor,  and  often  the  very  poor,  as  well  as  people  who  have  suf- 
fered political  and  religious  discriminations  of  various  kinds,  and  that 
continues  down  to  this  time.  There  are  many  Americans  today  who 
think  that  when  their  ancestors  came  over  in  the  eightenth  century  or 
the  seventeenth  century  that  they  were  very  different  from  those  that 
come  over  today.     I  don't  think  the  record  bears  that  out. 

As  I  was  just  telling  my  friends  on  the  way  down,  according  to  the 
studies  that  have  been  made  the  migration  to  this  country  during  the 
colonial  period  was  composed  overwhelmingly  of  bond  servants;  that 
is,  people  who  couldn't  pay  their  passage.  And  so  it  has  always  been, 
for  the  most  part,  in  the  migration  to  this  country. 

Of  course,  at  this  time  because  of  the  upheavals  on  the  other  side 
of  the  world,  and  the  totalitarian  menace  a  few  years  ago,  it  was  a 
menace  of  fascism  in  its  various  forms,  and  now  it  is  a  menace  of  com- 
iimnism,  why  under  these  conditions,  of  course,  many,  many  people 
from  those  countries  that  represent  a  high  level  of  education  in  those 
countries  have  come  over  and  are  coming  over.  Of  course  that  always 
happened,  as  we  all  Iniow,  at  other  times  when  some  particular  element 
was  persecuted  on  the  other  side,  or  in  the  case  of  a  revolution,  that  is, 
a  good  many  of  the  cavaliers,  there  weren't  a  great  many  who  came 
over,  but  a  great  many  people  in  all  parts  of  the  country  like  to  think 
they  are  descended  from  the  cavaliers;  that  is,  during  Cromwell's 
time.  A  few  such  people  came  over  then,  and  during  the  French 
Revolution  and  the  Russian  Revolution  of  1917  and  thereafter. 

But  coming  back  to  your  question,  there  is  a  problem  of  course. 
There  is  a  problem  of  assimilation,  of  adjustment,  and  that  is  an 
educational  problem.  By  the  way,  I  wish  that  you  might  make  some 
recommendations  to  stress  the  importance  of  recognizing  this  maybe 
more  intelligently  than  we  have  heretofore  in  our  public  education 
program.  On  the  whole  I  think  the  public  school  has  done  a  pretty 
good  job,  but  I  think  that  ofttimes  the  teachers  in  the  community 
haven't  been  too  friendly  in  the  introduction  of  the  children  in  the 
community  through  the  school. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  you  meet  this  educational  problem  that 
you  mentioned? 

Dr.  Counts.  Regarding  the  educational  problem  involved,  I  know 
that  what  is  possible  in  the  schools  depends  upon  the  sentiment  of 
the  community  and  what  the  community  wants,  and,  therefore,  if  you 
are  going  to  make  changes  or  change  your  schools  you  have  to  begin 
with  the  adults  in  the  community;  that  is,  it  is  a  problem  of  adult 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         147 

education.  Of  course  there  has  developed  since  the  enactment  of 
tlie  national  ori<2;ins  quota  system  in  1924:  in  tliis  country  quite  a  flour- 
isliing  adult  education  movement,  and  it  would  appear  to  me  that  this 
is  the  kind  of  a  question  that  this  movement  might  really  concern  it- 
self with  much  more  than  it  has.  I  don't  like  to  let  these  important 
issues  be  decided  altogether  in  terms  of  partisan  politics.  If  we 
could  build  a  base  through  a  program  of  adult  education,  touching 
these  questions,  I  think  that  that  would  be.  Probably  that  is  the  only 
Avay  that  you  can  go  about  it. 

Commissioner  O'Gradt.  Has  your  university  done  anything  re- 
garding this  educational  problem  you  have  been  discussing? 

Dr.  Counts.  We  are  doing  one  thing  at  Columbia  that's  rather  in- 
teresting, it  seems  to  me,  along  this  line.  We  have  wdiat  we  call  a 
civic  education  project.  It  has  been  running  now  for  about  3  or  -1 
years.  That  is  designed  to  improve  the  teaching  of  citizenship  in 
the  schools  of  the  country,  and  we  have  established  connections  now,  I 
think,  with,  oh,  100  cities,  communities,  over  the  country,  and  of  course 
this  question  of  the  relations  of  the  different  peoples  it  composes,  that 
is  an  important  aspect  of  this  program  of  civic  education. 

Certainly,  there  is  an  educational  problem  here.  Of  course,  I  like 
to  think  of  other  agencies  too  as  bearing  very  heavy  educational 
responsibilities. 

Now  the  church  is  certainly  one  of  the  great  educational  institiltions 
of  the  country.  I  think  a  labor  union  is  a  very  important  educational 
agency,  or  a  farmers'  cooperative,  or  a  farmers'  organization,  and  it  is, 
I  think,  of  these  associations  and  organizations  that  Alexis  de  Tocque- 
ville  remarked  way  back  in  1865,  there  is  a  very  characteristic  feature 
of  American  life,  that  these  educational  institutions  are  very  important 
institutions  and  should  be  so  regarded.  Not  that  anybody  should  take 
them  over,  but  the  educational  value  of  their  activities  should  be  recog- 
nized and  regarded,  I  think,  by  the  people  working  in  them  more  so 
than  is  customary  or  is  traditional. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Dr.  Counts.  I  want  to  thank  you  people  for  allowing  the  Liberal 
Party  to  be  represented  here. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  will  stand  adjourned  until  9 :  30 
a.  m.  tomorrow  morning. 

(Whereupon,  at  6 :  50  p.  m.,  ihe  Commission  recessed  until  9 :  30 
a.  m.,  Wednesday,  October  1, 1952.) 


HEARINGS  BEFORE  THE 

PRESIDENT'S  COMMISSION  ON  IMMIGRATION 

AND  NATURALIZATION 


WEDNESDAY,   OCTOBER   1,    1952 

third  session 

New  York  City,  N.  Y. 

The  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization 
met  at  9 :  30  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  recess,  in  room  1506,  Admiralty  Court, 
Federal  Courthouse  Building,  Foley  Square,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  Hon. 
Philip  B.  Perlman  (chairman)  presiding. 

Present :  Chairman  Philip  B.  Perlman  and  the  following  Commis- 
sioners; Mr.  Earl  G.  Harrison,  Vice  Chairman;  Msgr.  John  O'Grady, 
Dr.  Clarence  E.  Pickett,  Mr.  Thomas  G.  Finucane,  Mr.  Adrain  S. 
Fisher. 

Also  present:  Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield,  executive  director. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  will  come  to  order. 

Our  first  witness  this  morning  will  be  Congressman  Emanuel  Celler, 
chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Congressman  Celler,  the  Commission  will  be  pleased  to  hear  from  you. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  EMANUEL  CELLER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK  AND  CHAIRMAN  OF 
THE  HOUSE  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE 

Representative  Celler.  I  am  Emanuel  Celler,  Representative  from 
the  Fifteenth  Congressional  District  of  the  State  of  New  York  in 
the  United  States  House  of  Representatives.  I  am  also  chairman  of 
the  House  Judiciary  Committee. ' 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  should  like  to  read  to  the 
Commission. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

(There  follows  the  in-epared  statement  read  by  Representative 
Celler:) 

October  1,  1952. 

In  the  complexities  and  stresses  of  the  problems  around  us,  there 
are  far  too  many  who  choose  to  ignore  the  area  of  immigration  and 
fail  to  see  its  significance  and  its  relationship  to  the  overriding  searcli 
for  peace  and  stability.  President  Truman's  appointment  of  this 
Commission  is  an  act  of  statesmanship  which  must  be  applauded. 
More,  much  more  than  most  people  realize,  our  immigration  and 
naturalization  policies  affect  profoundly  both  domestic  and  foreign 
affairs. 

149 


150  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Reviewing  our  immigration  and  naturalization  structure  over  the 
past  years,  it  is  apparent  that  our  contradictions  are  showing.  As 
we  grow  stronger,  we  grow  less  hospitable.  And  as  we  extend  our 
social  and  political  democracy,  we  show  less  and  less  faith  in  the 
incorruptibility  of  our  democratic  ideals.  We  have  done  this  through 
laws  which  differentiate  between  the  native-born  citizen  and  the 
naturalized  citizen — a  distinction  which  has  no  place  in  a  casteless 
society.  Some  of  our  immigration  and  naturalization  laws,  w^ith 
reference  to  deportation  and  exclusion  of  aliens,  sanction  arbitrary 
Government  action  without  regard  to  due  process  of  law.  Passports, 
visas,  reentry  permits,  and  all  the  paper  paraphernalia  are,  in  in- 
stances, withheld  with  no  recourse  for  the  individual  to  seek  remedy 
through  review  by  judicial  action. 

High  immigration  barriers,  like  high  trade  barriers,  defeat  those 
who  erect  them.  It  is  no  secret  that  peoples  across  the  oceans  wonder 
how  fit  we  can  be  for  world  leadership  when  more  and  more  we  pass 
immigration  laws  based  on  fear,  and  based,  moreover,  on  the  principle 
that  some  groups  of  people,  because  of  their  origin,  are  more  desirable 
than  others.  The  peoples  across  the  oceans  likewise  wonder  that, 
with  the  money  we  spend  abroad  lauding  freedom  of  movement,  indi- 
vidual liberty,  and  urging  people  behind  iron-curtain  countries  to 
embrace  such  liberty,  and  when  they  do  with  great  courage  and  moral 
conviction  so  renounce  and  leave  the  iron-curtain  countries,  we  bar 
their  entry  into  the  United  States.  Our  immigration  laws  have 
pierced  sharply  the  sensibilities  of  the  Asiatic  peoples,  and  then  we, 
ourselves,  wonder  wdiy  their  resistance  is  so  great  to  our  proffers  of 
friendship. 

Over  18,000  have  left  the  iron-curtain  countries  and  have  crowded 
into,  of  all  countries,  those  already  suffering  from  surplus  populations. 
We  find  in  this  problem  surplus  populations  and  escapees  woven  to- 
gether. And  if  we  follow  that  thought  we  find  that  surplus  popula- 
tions are  related  to  the  liational-origins  theory  imbedded  in  our  own 
immigration  laws. 

For  example,  there  appeared  in  public  print — and  I  am  speaking  in 
contradictions  to  the  reasons  I  made  before — a  statement  by  Dr.  G.  J. 
van  Heuven  Goedhart,  United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for  Refu- 
gees. The  heading  in  the  New  York  Times  said :  "United  States  aid 
plan  irks  U.  N.  refugee  chief;  $4,300,000  for  help  to  those  fleeing 
iron  curtain  held  to  'raise  false  hopes.'  "  The  special  dispatch  is  from 
Geneva,  dated  September  18 : 

Dr.  G.  J.  van  Heuven  Goedhart,  United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for  Refu- 
gees, criticized  today  the  United  States  Government's  program  for  aiding  persons 
newly  escaped  from  Communist  countries  as  likely  to  "raise  false  hopes"  among 
refugees. 

This  program,  known  as  the  Presidential  escapee  program,  has  $4,300,000 
behind  it,  drawn  from  Mutual  Security  Administration  funds.  According  to  Dr. 
van  Heuven  Goedhart,  the  United  States  agency  in  Frankfurt,  Germany,  that 
directs  the  program  has  informed  the  High  Commissioner  that  only  20,000  refu- 
gees were  likely  to  be  eligible  for  help  under  the  United  States  program. 

There  are  more  than  200,000  refugees  under  the  High  Commissioner's  mandate. 
He  has  been  unable  to  raise  as  much  as  $1,000,000  from  governments  to  provide 
emergency  aid  to  refugees.    The  United  States  has  not  contributed  to  this  fund. 

Today  Dr.  van  Heuven  Goedhart,  while  expressing  gratitude  for  all  the  United 
States  has  done  in  the  past  to  aid  distressed  persons  throughout  the  world,  said 
that  tie  current  United  States  program  was  causing  refugees  unnecessary  trouble 
by  asking  them  to  go  through  an  elaborate  new  registration  process.    The  worst 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  151 

of  this,  lie  said,  was  that  while,  according  to  United  States  estimates,  only  20,000 
could  be  helped,  many  times  this  number  were  asked  to  register,  and  this  raised 
false  hopes. 

And  picture  to  yourself  the  anguish  and  heart-rendering  scenes  that 
must  occur  when  we  beckon  to  tliese  people  to  come  from  behind  the 
iron  curtain,  and  at  great  peril  they  do  so,  and  then  they  are  rebuffed 
in  this  manner. 

I  spoke  of  overpopulated  countries  to  which  many  of  these  refugees 
are  repairing.  I  have  a  dispatch  under  the  signature  of  Hugh  Gibson, 
Director  of  the  Provisional  Intergovernmental  Committee  for  the 
the  Movement  of  Migrants  from  Europe.  He  says,  among  other 
things : 

Italy  is  the  country  with  the  largest  surplus  population  to  resettle — some  3,000,- 
000  of  the  estimated  5,000,000  European  total.  Mr.  Gibson  described  the  situation 
there  as  '"highly  explosive,"  and  said  that  a  movement  of  people  from  Italy  would 
greatly  relieve  tension  and  political  unrest.  Greece  is  another  country  with  a 
surplus-population  problem,  he  said,  since  it  maintained  an  open-door  policy  to 
migrants  during  the  war  and  found  its  own  migrants  driven  back  into  Greece 
after  the  war. 

For  decades  our  immigration  laws  stated  bluntly  that  we  have  room 
for  you,  dependent  primarily  upon  where  you  were  born.  Of  the  total 
annual  quota  of  154,000  to  be  admitted  under  the  law,  65,700  are  al- 
lotted to  Great  Britain,  27,900  to  Germany,  and  17,800  to  Ireland. 
Now,  this  is  an  old  story  to  some  of  you.  You  have  heard  it  over  and 
over  again,  but  it  cannot  be  repeated  too  often.  It  is  like  a  bar  of  steel. 
You  have  got  to  rub  it  and  rub  it,  and  rub  it  and  continue  until  you 
make  a  needle  out  of  it.  We  have  got  to  keep  rubbing  because  the  dis- 
proportion of  these  quotas  as  allotted  to  various  nations  is,  to  my  mind, 
just  an  abomination. 

Every  other  country  having  a  quota  is  accorded  a  quota  allotment 
of  less  than  7,000.  As  I  have  said  time  and  again  before  congressional 
committees — my  own  Judiciary  Committee  and  other  various  com- 
mittees— this  startling  discrimination  against  central,  eastern,  and 
southern  Europe  points  out  the  gap  between  what  we  say  and  what 
we  do.  Because  of  this  rigid  quota,  based  on  not  what  you  are  but 
where  you  Avere  born — the  accident  of  birth — during  the  27  years  the 
present  quota  law  has  been  in  effect,  oidy  44  percent  of  the  possible 
quota  of  innnigrants  have  actually  been  admitted. 

I  don't  want  to  burden  you,  but  I  do  want  to  give  you  a  few  sta- 
tistics. I  want  to  point  out  that  the  English  quota  for  19  years,  from 
1930  to  1948,  inclusive,  w^as  65,721  a  year.  You  multiply  that  by  19 
and  you  get  a  permissive  quota  number  of  1,248,000.  In  those  years  in- 
stead of  using  1,248,000,  what  did  England  use?  It  used  in  all  those 
years  only  151,000  quota  numbers,  leaving  a  balance  of  1,097,000  quota 
numbers  which  just  went  to  waste,  down  the  drain. 

Look  at  Ireland's  quota  of  17,853.  When  you  multiply  that  by  19 
you  get  339,207.  In  all  those  years  only  43,000  Irishmen  came  into 
this  country,  which  meant  a  waste  of  296,000  quota  numbers  in  Ireland 
alone. 

For  the  overpopulated  countries,  such  as  Italy  and  Greece,  there  has 
been  an  accumulated  backlog  which,  in  Italy,  for  example,  gave  the 
pretext  to  Mussolini  upon  which,  through  aggressive  action,  he  seized 
Ethiopia.  Social  unrest,  because  of  lack  of  economic  opportunities 
arising  out  of  surplus  population,  has  led  in. the  past — and  can  lead  in 


152  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

the  future — to  political  consequences  of  tragic  significance  in  the 
future — to  political  consequences  of  tragic  significance  to  world  peace. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  trace  the  part  the  United  States  has  played  in  the 
creation  of  the  immigration  problem — a  part  which  has  in  a  measure 
contributed  to  world  tension.  We  have  recognized  our  self-serving 
interests  in  economic  foreign  aid  planning,  but  we  have  not  recognized 
how  our  self-interests  demand  that  we  use  a  consistent  attitude  appli- 
cable to  immigration. 

From  the  very  beginning  of  our  country,  we  have  underestimated 
the  absorbtive  capacity  of  the  United  States,  failing  to  note  that  our 
periods  of  greatest  prosperity  took  place  in  the  periods  of  largest 
immigration. 

It  is  intei'esting  to  note  that  figures  and  statistics  show  that  those 
States  of  our  Union  which  have  the  largest  and  the  greatest  amounts  of 
aliens  are  the  wealthiest  of  our  States.  When  I  say  "wealthy"  I  don't 
mean  economically  only;  I  mean  culturally  and  spiritually  as  well. 

Our  culture  is  rich  and  varied  because  of  this  immigration,  and  the 
strength  of  our  country  lies  in  the  skills  and  the  intermingling  of  the 
racial  strains  which  have  given  us  vigor  and  incentive.  The  adoption 
of  the  national  origins  theory  in  our  immigration  laws  has  robbed  us 
of  our  tradition  as  a  country  of  refuge  for  those  of  religious  and 
political  persecution.  It  has  alienated  peoples  and  robbed  us  of  their 
friendship.  It  has  led  to  problems  of  surplus  population  in  the  less- 
favored  quota  countries  and  has  left  us  open  to  charges  of  betraying 
the  democratic  faith.  It  has  placed  individual  worth  beneath  the  acci- 
dent of  nativity. 

As  you  know,  this  national  origin  theory  is  practically  parallel  to 
Hitler's  theory  of  racial  superiority :  the  Herrenvolk  versus  the  Slav 
race.  We  say  to  the  peoples  of  northern  and  western  Europe,  "You 
are  the  master  race :  you  are  the  Herrenvolk  race ;  we  w^ant  you  to  come 
in ;  we  beckon  you ;  w^e  give  you  every  opportunity  to  come  in.*'  In  the 
other  breath  we  say  to  the  people  of  central,  eastern,  and  southern 
Europe,  ''You  are  the  Slavic  race ;  we  don't  want  you ;  you  are  rifl- 
raft's."    That  is  contrary  to  all  we  hold  sacred  and  dear  in  this  country. 

You  take  the  list  of  casualties  that  comes  out  of  Korea.  You  don't 
only  see  those  names  which  are  similar  to  those  in  the  social  register. 
You  don't  see  just  those  names  w-hich  are  similar  to  those  lists  of  the 
daughters  and  sons  of  the  American  Revolutionary  War.  You  find  all 
manner  and  kind  of  names.  You  find  names  of  boys  who  came,  or 
whose  fathers  and  mothers  or  forebears,  came  from  southern  and  east- 
ern Europe.  The  bombs  and  bullets  know  no  racial  discrimination. 
No,  the  bombs  and  bullets  know  no  racial  discrimination. 

I  was  in  the  House  in  1922  and  in  1924,  and  the  monsignor  will  bear 
me  out  in  this  regard,  that  w^hen  the  national  origins  quota  system  was 
adopted  it  was  deliberately  adopted  to  proscribe  not  only  southern  and 
eastern  Europeans,  but  also  Catholics  and  Jew^s.  That  is  the  unvar- 
nished truth.  I  heard  it  stated  time  and  time  again  on  the  floor  of  the 
House,  and  I  have  been  battling  ever  since  to  wipe  out  that  abomina- 
tion. I  called  it  that  before  and  I  call  it  that  now  with  gi*eater  em- 
phasis. 

I  hope  that  you  gentlemen  in  your  recommendations  will  solidly 
and  unanimously  condemn  this  outrage  called  the  national  origins 
theory. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  153 

Go  out  to  the  baseball  diamond  today  and  witness  the  American 
pastime.  AVhat  names  do  you  find?  You  will  find  the  names  of  Carl 
Furillo,  Phil  Kizzutto,  Yo^i  Berra,  and  Andy  Pafko.  And  what  do 
Ave  do  with  the  race  whence  comes  Joe  Black  and  Roy  Campanella 
and  Jackie  Robinson,  carrying  out  that  idea  of  racial  superiority? 
AVe  say,  as  we  did  in  the  McCarran-Walter  bill,  "You  are  ])eople  who 
happen  to  be  of  birth  in  the  Island  of  Martinique  or  the  Islands  of 
Guadeloupe."' 

We  say  to  those  people  who  come  from  Jamaica  and  the  Carribean, 
"We  don't  want  you,  we  have  no  room  for  you.  We  will  take  your 
baseball  players,  we  will  let  them  engage  in  our  national  pastime,  we 
even  make  lieroes  out  of  them  in  the  World  Series.  The  rest  of  you 
just  have  to  stay  behind  because  we  set  up  a  quota  in  that  ISIcCarran- 
Walter  bill  of  100  within  another  quota."  As  to  Jamaica,  we  say 
that  100  of  the  British  quota  shall  go  to  these  people,  and  we  say  to 
those  in  the  Island  of  Martinique  or  Guadeloupe  that  100  of  the  French 
quota  shall  go  to  them.  A  new  idea,  a  quota  within  a  quota.  Not 
being  satisfied  with  a  quota,  we  have  to  have  a  quota  within  a  quota. 
And  we  say  to  those  from  Curacao  that  only  100  can  come  in  under 
the  Dutch  quota. 

AVell,  what  happens  to  those  boys  whom  we  laud  and  praise  ?  What 
must  they  sa}^  ?  "We  are  heroes  today  on  the  baseball  diamond  in  this 
great  national  pastime.  We  are  increasing  the  receipts  to  the  mag- 
nets who  own  these  baseball  parks,  but  our  cousins  and  our  brothers 
have  to  stay  behind." 

Last  year,  in  accordance  with  President  Truman's  message,  I  in- 
troduced a  bill,  H.  R.  7376,  to  authorize  the  issuance  of  300,000  special 
nonquota  immigration  visas  to  refugees  of  iron  curtain  countries,  to 
persons  of  German  ethnic  origin,  and  to  natives  of  Italy,  Greece,  and 
the  Netherlands  (countries  dangerously  overpopulated). 

Many  of  you  have  been  to  Greece  and  Italy.  I  have  been  there  and 
I  have  seen  the  havoc  caused  by  overpopulation  in  Italy.  In  the 
United  States  you  have  but  to  read  any  newspaper  anywhere  in  the 
country  and  you  Avill  see  the  desperate  plight  in  which  people  operat- 
ing factories  are.  They  are  going  around  in  circles  trying  to  get  help. 
You  have  only  to  go  to  the  rural  areas  and  you  can  see  how  desperately 
the  farmers  are  in  need  of  farm  labor.  And  here  we  have  tremendous 
numbers  of  people  willing  and  anxious  to  come  in  to  fill  those  jobs, 
but  they  cannot  come. 

I  am  convinced  that  the  enactment  of  such  legislation  would : 

1.  Encourage  other  countries  to  do  their  fair  share ; 

2.  Ease  in  a  measure  the  economic  tensions  in  overpopulated  coun- 
tries and  so  supplement  the  work  of  the  Mutual  Security  Adminis- 
tration ; 

3.  Strengthen  the  feeling  of  friendship  of  those  countries  toward 
the  United  States ; 

4.  Prove  to  those  people  within  the  iron  curtain  countries  who  do  get 
out  that  we  meant  what  we  said ; 

5.  Serve  the  United  States  domestically  by  helping  to  meet  the 
growing  labor  sliortage  within  the  I"^nited  States; 

6.  Reaffirm  the  humanilai'ianism  of  the  United  States. 

Unfortunately,  the  Eighty-second  Congress  did  not  act.  If  re- 
elected I  shall  reintroduce  similar  legislation  in  the  Eighty-third 
Congress. 


154  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Finally,  I  look  forward  to  the  recommendations  of  this  Commission. 
I  am  sure  that  you  ^vill  recommend  the  restoration  of  United  States 
liberalism  in  the  area  of  immigration  and  naturalization. 

Finally,  I  want  to  thank  you  for  your  consideration  and  attention 
this  morning. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  Congressman  Celler.  In  view  of  your 
criticism  of  the  national  origins  quota  system,  what  would  you  suggest 
in  its  place  ? 

Representative  Celler.  Well,  we  have  to  creep  before  we  walk. 
Unfortunately,  in  the  Congress  you  will  find  that  water  never  rises 
above  its  source  and  usually  the  views  of  the  Congressmen  usually 
don't  rise  above  those  of  their  constituents.  There  has  to  be  some  edu- 
cation. We  have  got  to  keep  rubbing  even  more  whereby  we  can  rip 
out  of  our  fabric  the  national  origins  theory  in  toto. 

I  would  suggest,  therefore,  that  you  recommend  that  it  should  be 
ripped  out  but  you  may  feel,  from  a  realistic  standpoint,  it  cannot  be 
done  at  once.  Then  I  make  this  suggestion :  I  mention  these  unused 
quotas  as  a  result  of  the  disinclination  of  the  Irish  and  the  British  to 
come  to  this  country  and,  in  many  periods,  the  Germans.  I  would  take 
these  unused  quotas  and  I  would  distribute  these  unused  quotas  to 
countries  whose  quotas  are  under  7,000  and  do  it  proportionately^ 
You  take  the  proportion  they  have  under  the  national  origins  theory 
and,  using  that  percentage  or  proportion,  divide  that  proportion  into 
the  unused  quotas  and  then  distribute  them  among  those  countries 
whose  quotas  are  pitifully  small.  That  will  give  some  ultimate  relief. 
It  would  increase  the  quota  numbers  from  Italy  and  the  quota  numbers 
from  Greece  and  Poland. 

That  may  not  be  a  greatly  marked  advance,  but  it  would  be  some- 
thing. I  would  rest  with  merely  making  that  recommendation.  I 
would  say,  if  I  were  a  member  of  your  Commission,  strike  the  whole 
blooming,  blood}^  business  out  of  your  statutes,  but  from  a  pragmatic 
standpoint  this  may  be  one  of  the  steps  toward  it. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  nuich. 

Mr.  Easby,  will  you  testify? 

STATEMENT  OF  DUDLEY  TATE  EASBY,  JK.,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
METROPOLITAN  MUSEUM  OF  ART,  NEW  YORK 

Mr.  Easby.  I  am  Dudley  Tate  Easby,  Jr.,  secretary  of  the  Metro- 
politan Museum  of  Art,  New  York  City.  I  am  appearing  here  as  an 
individual  and  also  I  am  representing  a  group  of  foundations,  museums 
and  cultural  organizations  which  from  time  to  time  desire  to  invite 
distinguished  foreigners  to  come  to  the  United  States. 

It  is  a  very  narrow  problem  that  I  would  like  to  speak  to  the  Com- 
mission about,  and  that  is  the  situation  where  a  leader  in  a  country 
or  a  future  leader  is  invited  to  come  to  the  United  States  by  a  univer- 
sity or  by  a  museum  or  by  a  learned  society  or  even  by  a  professional 
society,  such  as  the  American  Medical  Association  or  the  American 
Bar  Association.  The  invitation  is  issued  and  the  foreigner  goes 
around  to  the  American  consul  in  the  local  country  and  is  turned 
down. 

Tliere  are  not  many  of  these  cases,  but  the  number  of  cases,  I  don't 
think,  are  important  because  the  real  ini]:)ortance  is  in  the  publicity, 


COMMISSION    OX    IMMKiKATIOX    AND    NATURALIZATION  155 

the  notoriety  aiul  enibanassnieiit  that  comes  out  of  tliese.  The  Gug- 
o-en]ieiiii  Foiiiulatioii  is  tlie  oiil}'  organization  1  know  of  that  has  made 
any  atteriipt  to  meet  this  problem.  There  the  secretary-general 
worked  out  ;in  informal  ari'angement  with  tlie  State  Department  back 
in  liKJO  and  it  is  carried  on  up-to-date  witli  varying  success.  They 
submit  in  advance  to  the  I)e[)artment  a  list  of  the  fellows  to  whom 
I  hey  wish  to  make  awards  in  foreign  countries.  The  Department 
I  hen  seiuls  those  out  by  cable  to  the  embassies  and  in  time  an  informal 
ch'arance  comes  through,  and  in  practically  1)0  percent  or  more  of 
I  lie  instances  that  works  out.  But  it  is  in  those  cases  where  a  man 
is  cleared  and  then  invited,  and  then  he  goes  to  the  consulate  for  a 
visa  and  is  turned  down  that  the  conflicts  of  administration  turn  up. 

Xow  there  is  one  case  in  Brazil  of  a  young  boy  who  has  been  invited 
nj)  here  after  having  received  an  informal  clearance.  He  was  turned 
down  cold  on  a  visa  and  he  went  out  and  connnitted  suicide.  That 
])rol»abl3'  did  more  harm  to  the  United  States  locally  in  Rio  de  Janiero 
than,  anything  we  might  have  done  for  years  trying  to  alienate  those 
people. 

"What  I  want  to  recommend  to  the  Commission  to  consider  is :  Isn't 
there  some  way  in  your  recommendations  to  the  Executive  for  a 
regular,  established  administrative  procedure  to  be  set  up,  such  as 
you  have  in  the  Bureau  of  Internal  Kevenue?  Any  taxpayer,  before 
iie  enters  into  a  transaction,  can  go  to  the  Intei'iial  Revenue  and  get 
a  j)reliminary  ruling  and  a  ruling  that  will  stick.  It  will  stick,  of 
course,  subject  to  something  derogatory  discovered  later  or  if  there 
has  not  been  a  full  disclosure.  But  I  would  hope  that  in  some  way 
betAveen  the  De})artment  of  Justice  and  the  considar  service  of  the 
State  Department  that  a  real  jjrocednre  could  be  set  up  where  you 
submitted  things  in  a  certain  form  and  got  an  answer  and  you  knew 
Avhere  you  stood. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  example  you  gave,  why  did  the  consul  dis- 
ai)])rove  the  visa  application? 

Mr.  Easby.  He  turns  many  down  for  perfectly  valid  reasons,  but 
those  reasons  were  not  discovered  by  the  persons  in  the  embassy  who 
gave  the  informal  preclearance. 

Now,  I  want  to  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  Department  of 
State  has  said  all  along  that  these  informal  clearances  that  they  give 
are  not  binding.  It  is  a  courtesy  they  will  render  to  a  cultural  organ- 
ization to  try  to  find  out  about  a  man.  In  the  cases  where  the  visa  has 
been  refused,  if  there  had  been  a  careful  examination  or  investiga- 
tion befoi'chand,  the  organization  which  had  issued  the  invitation  I 
think  would  have  been  advised  not  to  invite  the  individual.  That  is 
where  the  breakdown  is. 

Connnissioner  O'Grady.  Why  is  there  this  seeming  conflict  between 
the  consulate  and  the  embassy  you  have  described? 

Mr.  Easby.  In  my  own  experience  I  have  gotten  into  a  few  of  these 
cases  and  have  found  the  consul  isn't  aware  of  the  in(|uirv  because  of 
the  routing  of  the  inquiry  through  the  embassies  and  the  Department. 
It  will  come  back  from  the  embassy  not  signed  by  the  Ambassador, 
but  by  the  first  or  second  secretary.  The  consul  probably  doesn't  know 
that  until  the  man  comes  in  with  the  visa  application.  That  is  not 
always  true. 


25356—52 11 


156  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Commissioner  Fisher.  Mr.  Easby,  in  terms  of  considering  a  recom- 
mendation which  leads  to  some  form  of  formal  ]5reclearance  which, 
I  take  it,  is  Avhat  you  have  in  mind,  I  would  be  interested  to  see  what 
sort  of  limitations  you  would  put  on  that  if  you  had  a  formal  pre- 
clearance  procedure  in  any  situation  where  a  person  was  thinking  of 
coming  on  a  nonimmigrant  basis  into  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Easby.  Incidentally,  the  cases  I  am  discussing  are  all  non- 
immigi'ant  cases,  nothing  permanent. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  here  for  short  periods  ? 

Mr.  Easby.  Yes,  as  a  guest  of  either  an  institution  or  often  the  Gov- 
ernment itself,  in  which  case  the  Department  will  bring  them  in. 

The  Chairman.  But  sometimes  it  is  merely  to  deliver  a  lecture  ^ 

Mr.  Easby,  Yes,  or  maybe  it  is  a  visiting  professor  with  a  university. 

The  Chairman.  Such  as  an  exchange  professor  for  a  year? 

Mr.  Easby.  Yes. 

Commissioner  Fisher.  Pursuing  that:  Should  this  sort  of  pro- 
cedure be  applied  witli  any  nonimmigrant  or  shordd  there  be  some 
requirement  of  sponsorship  by  this  cultural  society? 

Mr.  Easby.  I  don't  think  the  embarrassment  arises  excejit  where  the 
invitation  is  issued  from  a  cidtural  organizatiou.  1  don't  think  the 
question  of  preclearance  is  important  for  all  noninnnigrant  visas 
because  a  lot  of  those  people  are  coming  in  just  as  tourists  or  tem- 
porary visitors  on  their  ovrn.  I  don't  think,  though,  that  you  could 
deny  this  right  of  preclearance  to  an  individual  and  say  you  are  only 
going  to  give  it  to  organizations. 

Commissioner  Fisher.  Do  you  consider  it  justifiable  to  set  up  a 
special  procedure  to  take  care  of  celebrities  in  fact  ? 

Mr.  Easby.  That  is  true,  but  it  goes  be3'ond  celebrities.  The  Cug- 
genheim  Foundation,  from  whom  I  am  going  to  leave  a  memorandum, 
is  primarily  interested  in  scholars  and  scholars  on  their  way  up,  those 
who  haven't  actually  arrived,  so  to  speak.  AYhat  I  meant  when  I 
referred  earlier  to  the  future  leaders  of  the  country. 

The  Chairman.  In  some  instances,  are  those  invited  to  come  over 
here  already  of  woiid-Avide  significance  in  their  particular  field? 

Mr.  Easby.  Yes,  they  are  the  ones  who  receive  the  notoriety  and  ill 
will  in  general,  whereas  if  there  were  this  preclearance  and  it  would 
work,  then  no  invitation  would  be  issued  in  the  first  place. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  this  embarrassment  occurs  frequently 
enough  to  warrant  some  attention  being  paid  to  it  by  this  Commission 
and  by  Congress  ? 

Mr.  Easby.  I  think  so.  The  problem  doesn't  begin  to  compare  with 
some  problems  the  Commission  has  before  it.  It  is  a  small  number, 
but  the  fact  that  the  individuals  are  future  leaders  or  are  leaders  in 
their  countries  is  where  the  bad  will  arises  from,  and  why  there  is  so 
much  publicity  given  it.  It  makes  a  mortal  enemy  for  the  United 
States  out  of  a  man  who  has  been  invited  and  then  is  told  he  is  not 
good  enough  to  come  in. 

Frequently  he  will  have  a  number  of  friends  in  this  country  and  he 
is  well  known  to  his  colleagues,  professional  men  and  men  in  learned 
societies. 

The  Chairman.  In  such  cases,  is  not  the  consul's  rejection  generally 
based  on  information  derogatory  to  the  individual,  such  as  alleged 
subversive  activities  ? 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         157 

Mr.  Easby.  It  is  soiiu'tliiiio-  that  we  have  to  face.  I  know  T.atin 
America  better  than  I  know  the  rest  of  the  world.  Stiulents  down 
there  are  notoriously  conscions  of  politics  and  always  in  their  student 
days  they  are  mixed  up  in  the  i)olitical  movements  and  parades  and 
]-iots  and  skulls  ai-e  cracked.  If  any  one  of  these  riots  is  with  a  par- 
ticular <i-roiip  wherein  one  man  is  a  local  Communist,  that  oets  in  his 
dossier  ^und  I  don't  believe  that  our  consulates  will  o-o  behind  the 
dossier  and  the  local  police  department.  Whether  they  should  or  not 
is  not  somethin<!:  for  me  to  say.  But  it  is  common  practice  there,  as 
it  is  elsewhere,  to  accuse  someone  of  bein<>-  a  Communist  when  really 
it  is  a  way  of  savin^-,  "I  don't  care  for  the  guy." 

I  don't  want  "to  leave  the  Commission  Avith  the  impression  that  I  am 
quarrelino-  or  that  anyone  I  am  speaking  for  is  quarreling  with  the 
law.  I  would  like,  if  possible,  to  see  some  administrative  procedure 
set  up  so  it  could  be  seen  whether  under  the  law  it  would  be  contrary 
to  the  national  interest  to  invite  him. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Havc  any  of  the  groups  you  represent  expressed 
any  opinion  as  to  the  merits  of  the  law  or  its  provisions  in  relation  to 
these  individuals  ? 

Mr.  Easby.  This  is  something  I  prefer  to  speak  on  for  myself  and 
not  for  anyone  else.  I  think  that  the  best  way  to  take  your  foreigner 
who  is  hostile  to  the  United  States,  particularly  if  he  is  a  young  man 
and  at  the  impressionable  stage  where  he  can  still  learn,  and  make  a 
friend  out  of  him  is  to  bring  him  here  and  let  him  see  it.  I  know  that 
from  personal  experience  in  several  instances. 

During  the  war  there  was  a  3'oung  Argentine  who  had  naval  ex- 
Ifcrience.  He  had  a  German  name  and  he  had  all  that  background  of 
hostility,  jilus  the  hostility  of  the  Argentine  Navy  at  that  time.  After 
he  was  here  for  6  months  and  had  gone  out  on  a  couple  of  cruises  in 
I'liited  States  naval  vessels  he  was  an  enthusiast.  He  was  a  surgeon 
and  stationed  at  the  Naval  Medical  Hospital  there  in  Washington,  and 
you  never  have  heard  such  a  chamber-of -commerce  booster.  That 
man's  attitude  toward  this  country  was  changed  by  being  able  to  come 
here  and  be  with  us  and  see  us  and  learn  wdiat  makes  this  country  big. 

I  do  think,  th(jugh,  that  this  is  getting  beyond  what  I  wanted  to  say. 

Commissioner  Harrison.  Does  your  suggestion  go  at  all  to  the  ab- 
sence of  any  appeal  or  review  procedure  in  the  situation  you  described, 
or  it  is  only  a  matter  of  preclearance? 

Mr.  Easby.  No ;  it  is  onl}^  a  matter  of  preclearance,  Mr.  Harrison. 

Commissioner  Finucane.  Is  it  your  view  that  once  this  preclearance 
is  granted  it  should  be  binding  on  the  consul,  w^ith  no  subsequent 
review  ? 

Mr.  Easby.  If  it  is  not  binding  we  are  right  where  we  are  today.. 
The  invitation  is  issued  on  the  basis  of  preclearance  and  the  award  is 
announced  publicly,  and  that  denial  of  visa  is  announced  more 
publicly. 

Commissioner  Finucane.  For  example,  if  the  man  would  be  nor- 
mally rejected,  do  you  think  the  visa  should  nevertheless  be  issued? 

Mr.  Easry.  I  don't  know.  You  arc  getting  me  into  a  corner  there.. 
I  think  if  for  any  reason  a  diligent  investigation  shows  that  a  man 
for  some  reason — well,  let's  say  the  man  comes  in  and  answers  a  ques- 
tion and  says  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  Communist  Partj^  even  though 
he  does  have  his  preclearance. 


158  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Commissioner  Finucane.  Isn't  that  really  the  trouble  with  these 
cases,  that  on  a  preclearance  the  man  looks  to  be  wholly  admissible  and 
then  upon  investigation  by  the  consul  something  comes  up  indicating 
he  is  not  ? 

Mr.  Easbt.  That  is  it.  There  has  been  no  preclearance.  There  isn't 
what  I  would  say  an  adequate  preclearance.  I  realize  this  is  asking  a 
great  deal  of  the  embassies,  moie  than  they  now  assume  to  do  and  it 
might  even  require  additional  personnel.  However,  I  can't  see  how  it 
A\ould,  because  there  aren't  enough  of  these  cases  in  a  year  to  amount 
to  anything. 

Commissioner  Fisher.  Mr.  Easby,  I  take  it  for  the  preclearance  to 
have  the  effect  you  want,  wouldn't  there  have  to  be  the  same  inquiry  by 
some  consular  officers  ? 

Mr.  Easbt.  There  would  have  to  be  the  same  inquiry  and  I  am  not 
at  all  sure  that  the  officer  might  not  have  to  call  the  individual  con- 
cerned and  say  that  we  have  had  an  inquiry  from  the  United  States 
about  you  and  there  is  a  possibility  that  you  may  be  invited  to  go  up 
there.  If  that  is  the  case,  we  want  to  get  this  cleared  up  now.  I  think 
jou  might  have  to  do  that,  Mr.  Fisher. 

Commissioner  Fisher.  Would  that  have  any  adverse  effect  on  the 
process  ? 

Mr.  Easby.  I  don't  think  so.  He  might  know  who  it  was,  I  don't 
know.  You  can't  be  sure  in  a  learned  profession,  because  there  is  a 
certain  amount  of  gossip,  such  as  so  and  so  is  under  consideration  for 
a  visiting  professorship  in  California.  I  don't  think  it  would  be  too 
bad  because  they  would  not  have  announced  the  appointment. 

Thank  you  very  much  for  the  opportunity  to  testify.  1  have  the 
prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Henry  Allen  Moe,  secretary-general  of  the 
Guggenheim  Foundation.  Mr.  IVIoe  was  unable  to  testify  today  and  he 
would  like  to  have  his  statement  inserted  in  the  record. 

The  CHAiR:\rAN.  We  will  insert  it  at  this  point  into  the  record. 

(There  follows  the  statement  of  Henry  Allen  Moe,  secretary-general 
of  the  Guggenheim  Foundation:) 

The  .Tobn  Simon  CJugsenheim  Memorial  Foundation  was  established  by  the 
late  United  States  Senator  Simon  Guggenheim  and  his  wife,  under  a  special 
charter  granted  by  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  1925,  "to  promote 
the  advancement  and  diffusion  of  knowledge  and  understanding  and  the  appreci- 
ation of  beauty,  by  aiding  without  distinction  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  creed, 
scholars,  scientists,  and  artists  of  either  sex  in  the  prosecution  of  their  labors 

lie         4:         4:  >) 

For  the  first  5  years  of  the  foundation's  existence,  all  of  its  grants  were  made  to 
citizens  or  permanent  residents  of  the  United  States. 

In  1930,  Senator  Guggenheim  wrote  the  trustees  of  the  foundation  that,  "pro- 
ceeding in  tlie  conviction  that  we  have  much  to  learn  in  those  countries  tliat  are 
our  elder  sisters  in  the  civilization  of  America  and  much  to  give  their  scholars 
and  creative  workei's,"  he  and  his  wife  were  increasing  the  endowment  of  the 
foundation  to  provide  for  a  fellowship  plan  "to  assist  in  increasing  the  inter- 
action among  the  American  Republics,  each  upon  the  other,  in  the  arts  and 
sciences,  in  edvication,  and  in  tlie  learned  professions." 

That  far-seeing  and  typically  American  program  in  the  best  tradition  of  our 
country,  has  received  official  sanction  from  the  legislative  and  executive  branches 
of  the  Federal  Government,  first  in  the  good-neighbor  policy,  and  later  on  a 
world-wide  scale  in  Public  Law  No.  402  enacted  at  the  second  session  of  tlie 
Eightieth  Congress  "to  promote  a  better  understanding  of  the  United  States  in 
other  countries,  and  to  increase  mutual  understanding  between  the  people  of 
the  United  States  and  the  people  of  other  countries." 

With  the  expansion  of  the  foundation's  activities  to  embrace  citizens  of  the 
other  American  Republics,  there  arose  the  question  of  the  temporary  admission 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         159 

iuto  the  United  States  of  nonn'sideiit  alien  .scholars,  scientists,  members  of  the 
learned  proicssions,  and  other  creative  workers.  At  all  times  since  the  inception 
of  its  Inter-American  Fellowships  in  VXiO  the  foundation  has  kept  the  Federal 
Government  informed  of  iis  j;rants  to  citizens  of  the  other  American  Republics; 
and  in  June  1942 — cm  the  occasion  of  the  lirst  of  such  grants  after  Pearl  Harbor — 
the  foundation's  secretary  wrote  the  Department  of  State  : 

'"We  have  just  appointed  21  Latin  Americans  to  Gug;:;enheim  fellowships.  Six 
of  tiiem  are  now  in  the  I'nited  States  but  concerning  the  others  we  should  be 
glad  to  have  the  State  Department  make  inquiries  by  cable  of  United  States 
diplomatic  missions  in  the  respective  countries  of  which  the  fellows  are  citizens 
whethe)-  or  not  there  he  any  ol)jection  to  any  of  them.  This  is  iu  accordance 
with  what  you  kindly  said  to  me  the  Department  would  be  willing  to  do.  We 
shall,  of  course,  be  glad  to  pay  all  cable  charges. 

"Attached  hereto  is  a  list  of  fellows  appointed,  classltied  by  countries.  I  shall 
not  communicate  the  fact  of  their  appointment  to  any  of  them  until  I  have 
heard  from  you." 

This  initiated  the  procedure  which,  in  general,  has  been  followed  since  that 
time  witli  respect  to  Guggenheim  fellowships  granted  to  citizens  of  foreign  coun- 
tries not  resident  in  the  United  States  who  proposed  to  come  here  to  carry  on 
their  fellowship  studies. 

It  is  a  fact,  sometimes  explicitly  stated  by  the  Department  of  State  and  at  all 
times  understood  by  the  foundation,  that  a  favorable  i-esponse  from  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  and/or  from  the  cultural-relations  ofHcer  in  the  country  in  whicli 
applicant  for  a  fellowship  is  resident  is  not  conclusive  that  the  person  will  be 
granted  a  visa ;  for  the  function  of  granting  visas  is  the  function  of  consuls.  In 
general,  the  informal  procedure  has  worked  well,  but  there  have  been  exceptions, 
such  as  the  following  : 

(1)  A  fellowship  was  granted  to  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  American  Republics; 
the  usual  inquiries  were  instituted  and  we  were  told  that  he  would  not  receive 
a  visa;  and,  accordingly,  the  fellowship  was  withheld  and  was  canceled.  The 
following  year  the  applicant  renewed  his  application  and  again  I  inquired  of  the 
American  Embassy  in  the  country  concerned  whether  or  not  the  applicant  would 
be  granted  a  visa.  The  Embassy's  response,  by  the  assistant  public  affairs  of- 
ficer "for  the  Ambassador,"  was  that  the  applicant  "was  cleared  through  the 
proper  channels  and  therefore  there  appears  to  be  no  reason  why  *  *  *  (he) 
should  not  be  given  a  visa  to  visit  the  United  States."  But  when,  the  foundatiou. 
having  notified  the  applicant  of  his  fellowship,  he  applied  for  a  visa  to  permit 
him  to  visit  the  United  States,  it  was  not  granted  by  the  consul. 

(2)  A  fellowship  was  granted  to  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  American  Republics; 
the  usual  imiuiries  were  instituted  and  in  the  cases  of  all  fellowships  awarded 
to  citizens  of  this  particular  country  in  this  particular  year,  I  was  informed  that 
"a  regular  security  check"  was  given  all  of  them.  The  fellow  I  now  have  in 
mind  was  cleared  and  thereupon  he  was  informed  of  his  award ;  and  he  accepted 
it.  But  wlien  he  went  to  get  his  visa  he  declared  that  he  was  a  member  of  the- 
local  Communist  Party;  and,  accordingly,  a  visa  was  denied  to  him,  as  it  had 
to  be  under  the  law. 

May  I  repeat,  the  procedures  that  the  foundation  follows  with  respect  to  the 
admission  of  our  foreign  fellows  into  the  United  States  work  pretty  well ;  and  1 
have  no  complaints  to  make  about  anybody's  part  in  the  procedures.  But  it  is 
apparent  from  the  few  instances  of  the  failure  of  the  procedures  that  they  could 
be  bettered. 

What  is  needed,  I  submit,  are  i-egularly  established  administrative  procedures 
to  he  carried  by  the  Department  of  State  (similar  in  effect  and  intent  to  the 
l)reliniinary  rulings  any  taxpayei-  may  secure  on  tax  (luestions  from  the  Bureau 
of  Internal  Revenue),  whereby  an  organization  i)roposing  to  give  a  foreigner  a 
chance  to  study  in  the  United  States,  or  to  invite  him  here  for  other  cultural 
purposes,  might,  upon  proper  submission,  find  out  in  advance  of  issuing  an  in- 
vitation whether  or  not  there  would  be  any  oJ).iection  to  such  persons  getting-  a 
United  Slates  visa  and  especially  whether  or  not  the  Department  of  State  would 
consider  it  in  the  best  interests  of  the  United  States  for  him  to  come  to  this  coun- 
try. For  assuredly  neither  the  John  SiuKm  Guggenheim  Memorial  Foundation 
nor  any  other  responsible  organization  would  wish,  nor  would  I,  to  invite  any- 
body to  come  to  the  United  States  who  might  be  objectionable  or  whose  visit 
might  he  contrary  to  the  national  interest. 

One  purpose  of  the  John  Simon  (iTiggenheim  Memorial  Foundation  in  awarding 
its  inter-American  fellowships  is  the  pati'iotic  purpose  to  increase  understand- 
ing, on  a  higli  cultural   level,  between  the  other  American  Rei)uhlics  and  the 


160  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

United  States.  If  a  person  will  not  be  granted  a  visa,  it  would  be  better 
never  to  invite  him.  To  permit  an  invitation  to  issue  under  such  circumstances 
would  definitely  be  to  create  a  negative  factor,  contrary  to  the  policy  of  our 
country  as  declared  by  the  Congress  and  the  Executive:  it  would,  in  fact, 
increase  misunderstanding  between  the  United  States  and  the  other  American 
Kepuhlics. 

The  following  quoted  from  tho  trnnshilioii  of  a  letter  written  inc  liy  a 
highly  placed  and  intluential  scholar  in  the  South  American  University,  illus- 
trates what  I  have  just  said.  He  was  protesting  the  denial  of  a  visa  to  one  of 
his  colleagues  who  had  been  awarded  a  Guggenheim  fellowship  after  the  in- 
formal procedure  set  forth  above  and  had  been  gone  through. 

"You  have  granted  a  fellowsl.ip  to  one  who  deserves  it,  and  we  shall  defend 
liira  until  the  Department  of  State  proves  to  us  that  he  is  a  dangerous  individual, 
and  in  that  case  he  will  be  as  dangerous  to  us  as  to  you. 

"Excuse  the  harsh  language  in  this  letter,  but  it  cannot  be  otherwise,  and  I 
am  sorry  to  take  part  in  something  which  I  do  not  know  will  be  rectified,  but 
which  has  dimmed  the  absolute  faith  which  I  had  in  the  correct  behavior  of  the 
Government  of  your  country.  In  the  future  I  sliall  not  recommend  anyone  for 
any  fellowship,  and  you  will  excuse  me  for  not  wishing  to  find  myself  mixed 
in  anything  so  disagreeable." 

It  is  clear  that,  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  national  interests,  it  would 
have  been  much  better  had  the  fellowship  never  been  granted  to  the  referred-to 
scholar,  as  it  would  not  have  been  had  there  not  been  a  failure  of  the  procedures 
in  this  instance. 

It  should  be  added  that,  of  course,  the  foundation  itself  makes  all  reasonable 
efforts  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  any  prospective  grantee  would  be  objection- 
able as  a  visitor  to  tlie  United  States,  but  we  know — what  is  evident — that  we 
do  not  have  the  facilities  for  investigating  prospective  grantees  from  the  point 
of  view  of  visa  clearances  that  each  American  Embassy  has.  In  addition  to  our 
desire  not  to  grant  fellowships  to  foreigners  who  would  be  objectionable  as 
visitors  under  the  laws  and  declared  policy  of  the  United  States,  we  also  are 
realists  and  understand  that  when  an  organization,  as  ours,  grants  fellowships 
to  enable  foreigners  to  study  in  the  United  ^States,  the  purpose  of  granting  fellow- 
ship fails  utterly  if  the  grantee  is  not  admitted  to  the  United  States  for  such 
study. 

I  do  not  wish  to  presume  with  suggestions  as  to  how  or  by  what  machinery 
such  procedures  as  the  Guggenheim  Foundation  follows  with  res}  ect  to  foreign 
grantees  might  be  formalized  and  made  failure-proof.  That,  I  understand,  is 
one  of  this  Commission's  responsibilities  under  the  Executive  order  establishing 
it.  I  do  submit  with  all  earnestness,  that  in  the  world  as  it  is,  it  is  important 
that  every  effort  be  made  to  make  them  failure-proof.  Although  the  number  of 
persons  affected  by  the  question  raised  in  this  memorandum  may  be  small,  they 
are  likely  to  be  persons  whose  failure  to  obtain  a  visa  may  be,  and  sometimes  is, 
.made  a  cause  ceJehre — to  the  detriment  of  the  United  States. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  witness  will  be  the  representative  of  the 
international  Rescue  Committee. 

STATEMENT  OF  STERLIHG  D.  SPERO,  MEMBER  OF  THE  BOARD  OF 
DIRECTORS,  INTERNATIONAL  RESCUE  COMMITTEE 

Professor  Spero.  I  am  Sterling  D.  Spero,  professor  of  Pnblic  Ad- 
ministration at  New  York  University,  and  I  am  here  representing  the 
International  llescne  Committee,  62  West  Forty-fifth  Street,  New 
York,  of  whose  board  of  directors  I  am  a  member. 

The  International  Rescue  Committee  is  an  organization  which  has 
for  a  long  time  been  engaged  in  the  relief  and  rescue  of  victims  of 
totalitarian  persecution.  Our  committee  has  a  formal  statement  and 
I  jtist  wish  to  comment  briefly  on  the  points  made  in  that  formal  state- 
ment. The  statement  was  prepared  in  behalf  of  the  committee  by 
Mr.  Leo  Cherne,  a  colleagne  of  mine  on  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
committee.  He  was  to  have  testified,  and  I  am  testifying  in  his  stead. 
It  represents  the  views  of  the  committee. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  161 

The  Chaii;a!AX.  The  .statement  will  !)'>  received  in  the  record. 
(The  statement  foUoAvs:) 

Statement  of  Lko  Ciikrni:.  Mkmuer  ok  thk  Uoaku  of  Diiucctoks,  iNTERN.vnoxAL 

IlEscLiE  Committee 

I  would  like  to  address  myself  to  two  issues  which  the  organization  for  which 
I  ;nii  si)eakiii.si-  coiisidci-s  ^>t  areiU  iniiicrriiii'-e  wiCiin  tVe  tvumewmk  of  the  staled 
purpose  of  these  hearings,  i.  e.,  the  question  of  "what  our  immigration  policy, 
law,  and  procedure  ought  to  be."  However,  by  limiting  my  statement  to  two 
specitic  issues,  I  should  not  omit  going  on  record  in  favor  of,  in  general  terms, 
a  liberal  immigration  policy  not  based  on  the  dated  concept  of  "national  origins" 
and  in  favor  of  specitic  emergency  legislation  for  displaced  persons  and  refugees 
from  totalitarian  oppression. 

The  first  issue,  which  transcends  in  its  impact  the  limited  application  it  may 
find  in  our  country  due  to  our  geographic  separation  from  the  areas  under  direct 
Communist  control,  is  the  "right  of  asylum." 

The  United  States,  I  believe,  is  one  of  the  few  truly  democratic  countries 
that  does  not  contain  in  its  body  of  laws  a  provision  granting  asylum  to  victims 
of  political,  religious,  or  racial  oppression.  It  has  unfortunately  been  the  short- 
sighted policy  of  our  immigration  authorities  to  make  short  shrift  of  applications 
of  refugees,  illegally  in  this  country,  to  not  be  deported  to  the  countries  from 
which  they  originally  fled — the  countries  behind  the  iron  curtain.  Communist 
China,  Tito's  Yugoslavia,  or  Franco  Spain — and  I  have  reason  to  believe  that 
quite  a  few  refugees  have  actually  been  deported  to  these  countries  during  the 
past  year.  While  the  number  of  those  deported  has  not  been  made  public,  we 
know  of  a  good  many  cases  that  have  reached  the  courts  in  habeas  corpus  pro- 
ceedings, and  I  should  mention  here  that  the  courts,  as  a  rule,  have  sustained 
those  writs. 

In  the  alisence  of  any  positive  legislation  on  the  right  of  asylum,  refugees 
fighting  their  deportation  to  totalitarian  countries  could  avail  themselves  only 
of  a  provision  of  the  Internal  Security  Act  amending  section  20  of  the  Immigra- 
tion Act  of  1917,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

"No  alien  shall  be  deported  under  any  provisions  of  this  act  to  any  country 
in  which  the  Attorney  General  shall  find  that  such  alien  would  be  subjected 
to  physical  persecution." 

Since  the  enactment  of  this  provision  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization 
Service  has  consistently  held  that  (a)  an  alien  who  makes  a  claim  that  he  would 
be  subjected  to  physical  persecution  in  the  country  to  which  he  is  to  be  deported 
"is  not  entitled  to  a  full  and  coinplete  hearing"  with  reference  to  such  claim, 
(h)  that  any  evidence  he  may  submit  in  support  of  his  claim  "is  not  the  proper 
subject  matter  of  a  Federal  hearing,"  and  that  (c)  "at  best,  a  governmental 
official  in  such  a  case  must  exercise  his  individual  judgment  which  would  hardly 
be  the  subject  of  judicial  review."  I  quote  from  I\Ir.  Shaughnessy's  brief  in  the 
Chon  Ping  Zee  case  which  was  decided  by  Judge  Dimock  in  favor  of  Chon  Ping 
Zee. 

The  attitude  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  had  led  to  many 
tragic  instances  which  I  do  not  intend'  to  detail  here.  The  situation  is  likely  to 
become  even  more  critical  when  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service 
Act  of  19.")2  becomes  effective  (December  24,  1952)  since  in  the  new  act  the 
original  language  of  Use  Interna)  Security  Act  was  vratered  down  to  i-ead  : 

"The  Attorney  General  is  authorized  to  withhold  deportation  of  any  alien 
within  the  United  States  to  any  country  in  which  in  his  opinion  the  alien  would 
"be  subject  to  physical  persecution  and  for  such  period  of  time  as  he  deems  to  be 
necessary  for  such  reason." 

This  wording,  one  may  be  permitted  to  conjecture,  meets  the  desire  of  the  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalization  Service  to  make  more  difficult  the  intervention  of  the 
courts.  It  definitely  does  not  meet  the  desiderata  expressed  by  President  Truman 
in  his  message  to  Congress  on  June  25  : 

"Our  immigration  policy  is  equally  *  *  *  important  to  the  conduct  of  our 
foreign  relations  and  to  our  responsibilities  of  moral  leadership  in  the  struggle 
for  world  peace. 

"*  *  *  ^e  ^ant  (■()  stretch  our  helping  hand,  to  save  those  who  managed 
to  flee  into  Western  Europe,  to  succor  those  who  are  brave  enough  to  escape 


162  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

from  barbarism,  to  welcome  and  restore  them  against  the  day  when  their  coun- 
tries will,  as  we  hope,  be  free  again." 

Neither  does  it  conform  to  the  sentiment  expressed  by  General  Eisenhower  in 
his  speech  before  the  American  Legion  in  New  York  when  he  said  : 

"Never  shall  we  desist  on  our  aid  to  every  man  and  woman  of  those  shackled 
lands  who  seeks  refuge  with  us,  any  man  who  keeps  burning  among  his  own 
people  the  flame  of  freedom  or  wlio  is  dedicnted  to  the  liberation  of  his  fellows." 

What  is  needed  is  legislation  embodying  the  concept  of  asylum  to  replace  the 
negative  autliorization  granted  the  Attorney  General  "to  withhold  deportation 
to  any  country  in  which,  in  his  opinion,  the  alien  would  he  subject  to  physical  per- 
secution." We  know  too  well  that  the  authority  of  the  Attorney  General  is  dele- 
gated to  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  and  that  his  "opinion"  tends 
to  be  the  opinion  of  an  investigator  who  has  instructions  to  give  preference  to 
the  requirements  of  administrative  expediency  as  against  the  basic  humanitarian 
need. 

The  right  of  asylum,  the  right  not  to  be  deported  into  the  hands  of  a  Commu- 
nist or  Fascist  state  police,  is  an  elementary  human  riglit.  The  whole  civilized 
world  has  been  applauding  the  uncomprising  stand  of  our  Government  in  refusing 
to  return  to  North  Korea  those  Korean  and  Chinese  prisoners  of  war  who  have 
cho.sen  not  to  go  back.  What  we  actually  did  was  to  grant  these  prisoners  of 
war  the  right  of  asylum.  Nobody  should  lie  permitted  to  compromise  this  great 
manifestation  of  American  moral  leadership  by  petty  bureaucratic  considerations. 

The  second  point  which,  we  feel,  deserves  consideration  in  the  work  of  the 
President's  Commission  pertains  to  one  of  the  exclusion  clauses  of  our  extant 
immigration  laws. 

The  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  of  19.")2  is  very  specific  with  regard  to 
Communists  and  pro-Communists,  and  its  authors  should  be  commended  for  that. 
It  seems  to  us,  howevei-,  that  the  act  is  rathei-  magnanimous  with  regard  to  other 
totalitarians,  to  wit,  Nazis,  Fa.scists,  Falangists,  etc.,  or  any  pers(m  who  advo- 
cated or  assisted  in  the  persecution  of  any  per.son  because  of  race,  religion,  or 
national  origin.  We  should  not,  and  I  hope  we  do  not,  welcome  anti-Semites  to 
our  shores. 

All  I  can  find  in  our  immigration  laws  with  regard  to  totalitarians  of  the  right 
is  a  general  provision  declaring  inadmissible  people  who  are  or,  at  any  time, 
have  been  members  of  any  other  totalitarian  party  than  the  Communist  Party. 
Yet  this  proper  general  provision  is  completely  vitiated  by  the  Immigration  and 
Nationality  Act  where  it  says  that  a  "totalitarian  party"  means  an  organization 
which  advocates  the  establishment  in  the  United  States  of  a  totalitarian  dicta- 
toi-ship  or  totalitarianism. 

The  decisive  words  are,  of  course,  "in  the  United  States."  No  present  or  former 
Nazi  or  Fascist  or  anti-Semite  will  admit  he,  or  his  party,  advocates  a  totali- 
tarian dictatorship  in  the  United  States.  They  all  will  insist  that  thftir  ideology 
was  not  meant  for  export,  as  IVIussolini  once  said,  and  that  the  totalitarian 
governments  of  their  countries  did  not  wage  war  on  the  United  States  in  order 
to  establish  a  totalitarian  dictatorship  here.  The  prol)al)ility  cannot  be  excluded 
that  the  regulations  which  are  being  prepared  for  the  administi-ation  of  the  Immi- 
gration and  Nationality  Act,  in  keejiing  with  the  restrictive  definition  of  section 
101.  will  all  but  give  a  general  pardon  to  Nazis,  Fascists,  anti-Semites,  and  rabble 
rousers. 

If  this  interpretation  should  stand,  nothing  but  a  new  definition  of  the  words 
"totalitarian  party"  could  keep  our  democracy  from  an  influx  of  people  who,  by 
voluntarily  joining  a  totalitarian  party,  have  helped  to  inunerse  our  world  in  the 
holocaust  of  World  War  II.  A  former  Comnuinist  applying  for  admission  to  the 
United  States  must  prove  that  "(«)  since  the  termination  of  such  membership 
or  affiliation,  such  alien  is  and  has  been,  for  at  least  5  years  prior  to  the  date 
of  the  application  for  a  visa,  actively  opposed  to  the  doctrine,  program,  principles, 
and  ideology  of  such  party  or  oi-ganization  or  the  section,  subsidiary,  branch,  or 
affiliate  or  subdivision  thereof,  and  {1))  the  admission  of  such  alien  to  the  United 
States  would  be  in  the  public  interest."  Let  the  same  criterion  apply  to  totali- 
tarians of  the  right. 

All  of  us,  I  should  like  to  say  in  conclusion,  are  in  favor  of  liberal  immigration 
provisions.  But  this  position  of  ours  is  predicated  on  our  belief  in  a  humani- 
tiirian  democracy  and  its  best  interests.  Laws  and  procedures  which  are  detri- 
mental to  the  democratic  way  of  life  are  detrimental  to  a  liberal  immigration 
approach  for  which  I  have  been  a  witness. 


CUMMISSIUN"    ON    IMAIKIHA TlOX    A\U    XATIHALIZATION  163 

jVIeMOIIANUUM  0.\  THK  AUMI.MSTKATIOX  OF  THE  "CLAIM  OB"  PHYSICAL  PERSKCUTION" 

Clause  of  Section  2:>  of  the  Ixteunal  SEcriuTY  Act  of  V.)7>{)  Amending  Sec- 
tion 20  of  the  Immiokation  Act  of  1917 

(1)  Section  20  of  tlw  Iimnigration  Act  of  1017,  :is  anu'iided.  contains  the  fol- 
Jowinj;  iirovisimi  : 

"Ao  alien  sliall  be  (IciitirUMl  undci-  any  provisions  ol  this  act  to  any  country  in 
which  the  Attorney  General  shall  lind  that  such  alien  would  be  subjected  to 
physical  iiersecutiun." 

Since  the  enactment  of  this  provision  the  Immi.uration  and  Naturalization 
Service  lias  consistently  held  that  (a)  an  alien  wlio  makes  ii  claim  that  he  would 
be  subjected  to  physical  persecution  in  a  given  country  "is  not  entitled  to  a  full 
and  complete  hearing"  with  reference  to  such  chiim ;  (h)  that  he  may  submit 
•evidence  conceriung  his  claim  but  that  such  evidence  "is  not  the  proper  subject 
matter  of  a  Fed(n-al  hearing";  (c)  that  "at  best,  a  (lovernment  otlicial  in  such  a 
case  must  exercise  his  individual  judgment  which  would  hardly  be  the  subject  of 
judicial  review."  ^ 

(2)  The  rationale  of  the  position  of  the  INS  was  spelled  out  ))y  the  Service  as 
follows  :  "This  law  was  solely  intended  to  benefit  particular  aliens  who  were  obvi- 
ously trying  to  assist  the  United  States  in  strengthening  its  bulwarks  against 
communism  and  the  threat  of  Connnunist  aggression." " 

The  type  of  evidence  as  to  likelihood  of  physical  persecution  which  the  Service 
would  consider  probative  was  defined  in  one  instance  as  the  "authenticated 
copy  of  a  ijerson's  death  sentence." 

In  most  cases  which  until  now  have  come  up  at  bar,  the  coui'ts  have  not  gone 
ahmg  with  the  position  of  the  Service.  Judge  Dimock,  in  Chen  Ping  Zee  v. 
SliuHi/hnessy,  decided  that  a  deportee  claiming  physical  persecution  is  entitled 
to  due  process  and  hearing  and  that  there  must  be  a  reasoned  decision  and  a 
finding  of  fact.  A  claim  that  a  person  could  be  subject  to  persecution  in  a  Com- 
munist country  cannot  be  dismissed  lightly,  he  wrote,  and  though  it  is  difficult 
to  believe  that  the  Service  does  not  agree  with  this  dictum,  his  decision  was 
appealed,  and  the  case  is  now  jiending  in  the  circuit  court. 

(3)  Pending  a  ruling  on  the  INS  appeal,  the  Service  has  been  proceeding  with 
the  deportation  of  detainees  in  deportation  cases  and  of  all  aliens  in  exclusion 
cases.  While  there  is  no  reason  to  object  to  the  return  of  excluded  aliens  to  their 
countries  of  departure  if  such  a  country  is  not  a  Fascist  or  Communist  country, 
the  differentiation  between  exclusion  and  deportation  seems  to  be  more  than 
tenuous  if  an  alien  excluded  is  returned  to  the  country  from  which  he  fled  for 
political,  racial,  or  religious  reasons  because  the  country  from  which  he  came  to 
the  United  States  cannot  be  prevailed  upon  to  accept  the  alien  back.  To  have 
fled,  i.  e.,  left  illegally  a  Communist  or  Fascist  country  for  political  or  religious 
reasons,  is  in  itself  a  crime  in  all  totalitarian  states.  No  United  States  official 
can  in  good  conscience  submit  that  a  person  falling  into  this  category  of  refugees 
would  not  be  sid)jected  to  physical  ijersecution  u])on  return.  At  this  stage  of  the 
cold  war  no  "investigator"  can  plead  ignorance  as  to  the  likely  treatment  accorded 
to  defectors  behind  the  iron  curtain  or  in  Comnuniist  China,  Yugoslavia,  or  Spain. 
And  it  actually  is  upon  the  recommendation  of  an  investigator  that  the  Com- 
missioner, acting  for  the  Attorney  General,  finds  that  an  alien  would  not  be 
subjected  to  physical  persecution. 

(4)  It  is  not  known  how  many  people  who  have  made  l)one  fide  claims  that 
they  would  be  subjected  to  physical  persecution  in  China,  the  countries  behind 
the  iron  curtain.  Yugoslavia,  or  Spain  have  been  actually  deported  to  these  coun- 
tries. Most  of  the  people  whom  the  Service  cannot  deport  but  to  the  countries 
of  their  birth  or  nationality  are  illegally  in  the  United  States.  They  are  fre- 
quently repeaters  who  had  been  picked  up  by  the  Service  previously.  The  pro- 
ceedings against  them  lend  to  be  sninniary,  and  deportation  takes  place  on  very 
short  notice. 

The  cases  described  lielow  are  pattern  cases.  They  cover  three  different  situa- 
tions that  this  writer  has  come  across  during  the  last  few  months  : 

(<i)  Wladyslaw  Michalski  is  a  Polish  DP  who  entered  the  United  States 
illegally.  He  is  one  of  the  group  of  Polish  DP's  who  were  resettled  by  the  Na- 
tional Catholic  Welfare  Conference  in  Mexico.  He  had  l)een  deported  to  the 
Soviet  Union  in  lO.'J!),  was  amnestied  in  1041  to  join  the  Anders  Army,  in  which 


^  OnotfMl  frnin  Sli;nr.'liiiossy's  brief  in  tlio  Clion  T'ins  Zoc  cnsp. 

-Ibid.  Tlif  Icfrislntivc  history  of  tlic  Intcriiiil  Sociirily  Act  docs  not  sppm  to  bo.ar  ont 
the  rostrictivc  intcriJi-ctntioii  of  the  Service.  The  law,  moreover,  speaks  of  "any  country," 
not  of  countries  under  Communist  controL 


164  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

he  served  until  1945.    He  refused  repatriation  to  Poland  after  the  war  and  was 
granted  refugee  status. 

The  file  of  Mr.  Michalski  contains  an  affidavit  executed  by  Miss  Irene  Dal- 
giewicz,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  ^Mexican  iu-oject  of  XCWC,  and  a  letter  of  Mr. 
Bruce  M.  IMohler,  of  NCVVC.  which  are  both  exiilicit  ar.d  detruled.  Tli  ;  rniu'c 
sentative  entered  a  notice  of  appearance  and  requested  a  hearing  at  which  Mr. 
Michalski's  claim  of  physical  persecution  in  Poland  could  1)6  substantiated.  He 
was,  however,  unable  to  secure  a  copy  of  the  record,  no  special  hearing  was 
scheduled,  and  he  was  not  advised  that  Miclialski  was  to  be  put  on  a  plane  on 
June  17.  Michalski  himself  was  informed  of  the  scheduled  deportation  to  Poland 
about  one-half  hour  before  his  removal  from  Ellis  I.-^Iand. 

Upon  arrival  at  the  airport,  Tilichalski  tried  to  commit  suicide,  an  attempt 
qualified  by  the  Service  in  the  later  court  proceedings  as  "several  superficial 
scratches."  Pie  had  to  be  taken  to  a  hositital,  and  subsequently  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  was  sworn  out. 

Judge  Murphy,  in  his  decision,  did  not  enter  into  the  question  whether  the 
alien  involved  is  entitled  to  a  special  hearing  on  his  claim  of  physical  persecution. 
He  sustained  the  writ  on  the  ground  that  ''in  two  respects  the  hearing  upon 
which  the  administrator's  determination  based  in  this  case  departs  from 
rudimentai'y  requirements  of  fairness." 

To  summarize  the  essence  of  this  case;  Mv.  Michalski  was  not  accorded  at 
any  time  a  special  hearing  on  his  claim  of  persecution.  The  fact  that  he  is 
a  political  refugee,  the  fact  that  is  is  a  protege  of  the  NCWC,  the  fact  that 
he  was  previously  persecuted  by  the  Russian  State  Police,  the  fact  that  he 
had  refused  repatriation  to  Poland,  the  fact  that  he  is  a  stanch  anti-Communist, 
the  fact  that  former  mem))ers  of  the  Anders  Army  who  refused  repatriation 
are  on  the  index  of  the  Polish  Bezpieka,  which  is  in  practical  terms  a  branch 
of  the  NVD,  this  cluster  of  facts  as  well  as  the  athdavits  of  Miss  Dalgiewicz 
and  Mr.  Mohler  of  the  XCWC  were  classified  by  the  Service  as  "no  evidence 
establishing  that  Michalski  would  be  subjected  to  physical  persecution  if  deported 
to  Poland."  The  finding  of  the  Commissioner,  in  turn,  is  based  on  a  hearing 
that,  in  Judge  Murphy's  words,  "departs  from  rudimentary  requirements  of 
fairness."  If  nut  for  his  suicidal  attempt,  Michalski  would  have  been  deported 
on  June  17  to  Poland  and  most  probably  would  l)y  now  be  a  prisoner  of  the 
Bezpieka. 

(h)  Francisco  Pau  Molina  is  a  "certified"  Spanish  refugee  who  entered  the 
United  States  illegally.  On  May  1,  1952,  he  was  to  be  deported  to  Franco  Spain. 
Mr.  Ugo  Carusi  interceded  on  his  behalf  with  central  office  and  the  deportation 
was  stayed  at  the  very  last  moment.  Subsequently,  a  hearing  before  an 
investigator  was  granted  to  Pau  Molina  and  at  this  hearing  he  was  represented 
by  counsel.  The  evidence  he  submitted  in  behalf  of  this  refugee  were  (a) 
proof  of  Spanish  Republican  refugee  status  granted  by  the  International 
Refugee  Organization  (b)  a  statement  of  the  French  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Affairs  that  Mr.  I'au  Molina  was  classified  by  the  French  Government  as  a 
Spanish  political  refugee,  (c)  documentation  on  the  vindictive  and  political 
character  of  court  proceedings  before  Franco  judges. 

The  investigator's  report  to  the  Commissioner,  however,  failed  even  to  spell 
out  the  nature  of  this  documentation.  On  the  basis  of  Molina's  membership 
in  a  Spanish  State  Youth  Organization,  which  predated  his  tlight  from  Spain 
and  was  mandatory  in  order  to  secure  employment,  and  on  the  basis  of  a 
Spanish  national  passport  which  he  obtained  in  order  to  be  able  to  ship  out 
as  a  seaman  when  faced  with  deportation  from  the  United  States,  the 
Commissioner  ruled  that  he  would  not  be  subjected  to  physical  persecution 
if  deported  to  Spain.  As  if  the  INS  did  not  know  that  the  State  Department 
had  ruled  repeatedly  that  possession  of  a  Soviet  passport  taken  out  by  refugees 
in  China  and  possession  of  a  Polish  passport  taken  out  by  refugees  in  Sweden 
are  not  per  se  proof  of  such  refugees'  claim  to  bona  fide  refugee  status. 

Mr.  Pau  Molina's  case  is  now  pending  in  the  United  States  district  court  of 
New  York.  If  not  for  I\Ir.  Carusi's  intervention,  however,  he  would  have 
been  deported  to  Spain  without  a  hearing  on  May  1,  1952. 

(c)  Mr.  Svata  (Leskovich)  Kojich  is  a  Yugoslav  displaced  person  who 
emigrated  to  Canada  from  Italy  as  an  IRO  DP  and  later  came  to  the  United 
States  illegally.  He  was  accorded  no  hearing  on  his  claim  of  physical 
persecution,  and  March  21  he  was  to  be  deported  to  Yugoslavia.  He  slashed 
his  wrists  at  the  pier,  and  only  thereafter,  when  a  reporter  of  the  New  York 
Times  showed  considerable  interest  in  his  case,  was  he  accorded  a  hearing 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         165 

at  which  he  had  no  difficulty  in  proving  his  DP  status  as  well  as  his  legal 
admission  to  Canada.     He  was  returned  to  Canada  in  June  1952. 

Aiiain,  if  not  for  his  attempt  at  suicide,  he  would  have  been  deported  to 
the  country  from  which  he  lied,  and  oiu>  has  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  would 
by  now  be  couliued  in  a  Yugoslav  forced  labor  camp. 

(5)  The  three  cases  described  above  were  gone  into  in  detail  so  as  to 
illustrate  the  baneful  implications  of  the  attitude  adopted  by  the  Immigration 
and  Naturalization  Service.  It  is  a  strange  contradiction  that  in  any  routine 
exchision  case  there  is  available  an  orderly  hearing  procedure  with  appeal 
possibilities  and  all  other  aspects  of  due  process,  whereas  in  the  one  category 
of  cases  in  which  an  erroneous  adjudication  may  well  be  a  matter  of  life  and 
death  for  the  alien  in  point,  the  Service  has  adamantly  refused  to  grant  full 
and  complete  hearings. 

One  common  den(miinator  of  all  three  cases  outlined  above  is  that  actual 
deportation  to  a  Communist  or  Fa.scist  country  was  prevented  at  the  last  moment 
by  some  unusual  and/or  drastic  action,  as  though  the  price  of  nondeportation 
were  an  attempt  at  suicide. 

It  is  difficult  to  bring  this  attitude  of  bureaucratic  expediency  into  agreement 
witii  the  programatic  denouncement  of  our  Government  as  expressed  in  President 
Truman's  message  to  Congress  of  June  25  in  which  he  stated  : 

"Heretofore,  for  the  most  part,  deportation  and  exclusion  have  rested  upon 
the  findings  of  fact  made  upon  evidence.  Under  this  bill,  they  would  rest  in 
many  instances  upon  the  'opinion'  or  'satisfaction'  of  immigration  or  consular 
employees.  The  change  from  objective  findings  to  subjective  feelings  is  not 
compatible  with  our  system  of  justice." 

"Our  immigration  policy  is  equally  *  *  *  important  to  the  conduct  of 
our  foreign  relations  and  to  our  responsibilities  of  moral  leadership  in  the 
struggle  for  world  peace." 

"*  *  *  we  want  to  stretch  our  helping  hand,  to  save  those  who  managed 
to  flee  into  western  Europe,  to  succor  those  who  are  brave  enough  to  escape  from 
barbarism,  to  welcome  and  restore  them  against  the  day  when  their  countries 
will,  as  we  hope,  be  free  again." 

The  same  sentiment  was  expressed  by  General  Eisenhower : 

"Never  shall  we  desist  on  our  aid  to  every  man  and  woman  of  those  shackled 
lands  who  seeks  refuge  with  us,  any  man  who  keeps  burning  among  his  own 
people  the  fiame  of  freedom  or  who  is  dedicated  to  the  liberation  of  his  fellows." 

(G)  The  United  States  is  one  of  the  few  democratic  countries  that  legally  do 
not  know  the  concept  of  asylum.  The  physical  persecution  clause  of  section  20 
is  the  only  provision  of  our  laws  which,  at  least  in  a  negative  way,  safeguards  the 
rights  of  political  refugees. 

It  is  all  the  more  important  that  strong  recommendations  be  made  at  proper 
level  with  regard  to  this  matter  because  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Act 
of  1952  the  original  language  of  the  Internal  Security  Act  was  changed  to  read : 

"The  Attorney  General  is  authorized  to  withhold  deportation  of  any  alien 
within  the  United  States  to  any  country  in  which  in  his  opinion  the  alien  would 
be  subject  to  physical  persecution  and  for  such  period  of  time  as  he  deems  to  be 
necessary  for  such  reason." 

This  wording,  one  may  be  permitted  to  conjecture,  meets  the  desire  of  the 
Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  to  make  more  difficult  the  interference  of 
the  courts.  But  even  this  language  is  amenable  to  coverage  by  regulations,  the 
equitable  minimum  requirements  of  which  would  be  full  and  complete  hearings, 
a  finding  of  facts,  a  reasoned  decision,  and  an  opportunity  to  appeal  the  decision 
of  the  hearing  ofiicer.  The  continuation  of  the  present  practices  may  well  create 
an  issue  transcending  the  scope  of  administrative  parochialism. 

Professor  Spero.  I  just  wanted  to  comment  briefly  on  that  statement. 
There  are  two  aspects  of  preimmioTution  policy  wliich  the  committee 
would  like  to  see  revised:  (1)  in  the  direction  of  liberalization  and 
(2)  in  the  direction  of  further  tiijhtening  restrictions. 

On  the  first  point,  we  woidd  like  to  see  a  positive  declaration  of 
public  policy  declaring  the  privilege  of  asylum  of  victims  of  totali- 
tarian pressure.  The  proposition  or  privilege  of  asylum  is  something 
which  is  part  of  the  American  tradition.     Every  child  in  school  knows 


166  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

the  way  Kossuth,  tlie  great  Hungarian  democrat,  was  enthusiastically 
welcomed  to  this  country,  and  we  knoAv  that  during  the  war  President 
Roosevelt  instituted  a  system  of  emergency  visas  under  which  there 
were  admitted  to  this  country  hundreds  of  victims  of  totalitarian  pres- 
sure and  victims  of  Nazi  oppression,  some  of  whom  were  our  strongest 
allies  and  closest  friends  and  who  performed  great  services  to  the 
United  States.  We  feel  that  victims  of  Communist  oppression,  people 
who  take  untold  risks,  who  have  come  over  to  our  side  to  free  them- 
selves from  oppression  and  to  aid  us  in  our  fight  against  oppression 
should  be  welcomed  to  this  country  and  that  every  effort  should  be 
made  to  encourage  their  defection  from  their  totalitarian  masters  and 
to  encourage  them  to  come  over  to  our  side  and  serve  as  our  allies. 

It  is  interesting  that  the  United  States,  with  its  long  tradition  re- 
garding asylum  for  oppressed  peoples,  is  among  the  few  ti'uly  demo- 
cratic countries  which  does  not  have  written  into  its  statutes  a  positive 
]:)olicy  regarding  asylum.  At  ]:)resent,  victims  of  totalitarian  terror 
who  come  over  to  us  are  carefully  screened  by  the  administrative  au- 
thorities and  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service,  whose 
slogan  is  "The  guardian  at  the  gate."  It  regards  itself  as  an  instru- 
ment for  exclusion,  not  as  an  instrument  for  encouraging  allies  to  come 
over  to  us.  It  is  used  not  as  an  instrument  of  a  positive  immigration 
policy,  but  as  a  negative  instrument.  That,  I  think,  grows  from  the 
law  under  which  the  Service  operates. 

The  Immigration  Service  also  is  much  opposed  to  court  review,  to 
judicial  interference  with  its  administrative  decisions.  The  Immigra- 
tion Service  handles  problems  which  involve  human  beings.  Other 
regulatory  agencies  here,  such  as  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion and  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  which  deal  with 
property,  have  their  decisions  subject  to  the  most  careful  scrutiny.  We 
think  that  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service's  decisions 
should  be  subject  to  similar  court  review,  to  court  review  similar  to 
that  under  which  other  administrative  agencies  operate. 

Now,  specifically  as  to  the  right  of  asylum,  I  have  pointed  out  that 
these  victims  of  totalitarian  terror  who  can  be  our  most  ardent  and 
effective  allies,  come  over  to  us  at  very  great  risk.  Unfortunately,  to 
our  shame,  manv  of  these  victims  who  have  found  some  sort  of  refuge 
in  this  country  are  arrested  by  the  Innnigration  and  Naturalization 
iService  under  its  narrow  conception  of  its  functions  and  held  for 
Tieportation..  In  many  cases  the  courts  have  issued  writs  permitting 
these  people  to  stay  in  this  country,  but  a  positive  policy  recognizing 
their  right,  if  you  want  to  call  it  that,  to  stay  here  because  they  are  our 
demonstrated  allies,  I  think,  would  be  of  great  benefit  to  the  United 
States  as  well  as  an  act  of  humanitarian  decency. 

Under  the  present  law  the  kind  of  persons  in  whom  we  are  interested 
are  admissible  to  this  country  under  a  provision  which  provides  that 
no  alien  shall  be  deported  under  any  provisions  of  the  law  to  any 
country  to  which  the  Attorney  General  should  find  such  alien  would 
be  subject  to  physical  persecution.  The  new  act  which  goes  into  effect 
in  December  waters  that  decision  down  and  the  wording  therein,  it 
seems  to  us,  meets  the  desire  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization 
Service  to  make  court  review  more  difficult.  This  provision  would 
extend  the  discretion  of  the  administrative  agency  in  this  regard.  All 
of  this,  of  course,  is  negative  policy.    You  have  to  get  the  Attorney 


I  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION  107 

(ienenil's  O.  K.,  mul  the  resistance  of  the  agency  to  court  review  has 
made  it  ditticiih  to  aihninistor  a  positive  policy  of  welcome  to  these 
jjcople  who  aie  our  most  ardent  allies  and  who  take  great  risks  to 
demonstrate  that  fact. 

The  President  said   in  his  recent  veto  message  to  Congress: 

Our  iimiiiiii-jitioii  policy  is  equally.  If  not  more  important  to  the  coiiduct  of  our 
foreiLiri  relations  and  to" the  responsibilities  of  moral  leadership  in  the  struggle 
for  world  pearo.  *  *  *  we  want  to  stretch  out  a  helping  hand,  to  save  tho.se 
who  have  nianu.Lxed  to  He*-  into  Western  Europe,  to  succor  those  who  are  hrave 
enough  to  escape  from  iiarhai'isni.  to  welcome  and  restore  them  against  the  day 
when  their  countries  will,  as  we  hope,  again  be  free. 

In  this  coimection  too  I  would  like  to  refer  to  what  General  Eisen- 
hower said  in  this  city  before  the  American  Legion  convention  a  few 
weeks  ago  that  "never  shall  we  desist  on  onr  aid  to  every  man  and 
woman  of  shackled  lands  who  seek  refuge  with  us  any  man  who  keeps 
burning  among  his  i)eople  the  flan.ie  of  freedom  or  who  is  dedicated 
1<)  the  liberalization  of  his  fellows."' 

These  ]3eoplc,  it  seems  to  us,  have  a  moral  right  which  should  be 
i-ecognized  in  law  not  to  be  de})orted.  The  United  States  Government 
has  just  won  wide  acclaim  throughout  the  civilized  world  for  its  posi- 
tion reaardino-  the  return  to  the  tender  mercies  of  their  totalitarian 
masters  the  North  Korean  and  Chinese  prisoners  of  war.  It  seems 
to  me  and  the  committee  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  here  that 
these  victims  of  totalitarian  terror  about  whom  we  are  speaking  are  in 
a  po.sition  morally  little  ditferent  from  that  of  the  Chinese  and  the- 
Korth  Korean  j)risoners  of  war,  regarding  whom  this  Govermnent  is 
taking  so  splendid  a  stand. 

There  is  one  other  aspect  of  this  problem  which  I  think  hears  di- 
i-ectly  on  the  question  at  issue  to  Avhich  I  would  like  to  address  my- 
self too,  and  tliat  is  a  provision  or  recommendation  wliich  would  call 
for  the  strengtliening  of  exclusion  clauses  rather  than  liberalization. 
At  present  the  law  properly  excludes  Communists  and  pro-CommiL- 
nists.  We  are  in  agreement  with  that.  We  ap|)rove  of  that  becauss 
we  are  engaged  in  fighting  for  rescue  and  relief  from  Communists  and 
pro-Communists.  It  is  rather  magnanimous,  however,  in  regard  to 
other  totalitarians  who  are  also  opposed  to  the  American  system  of 
life  and  decency. 

The  legal  technicality  through  which  this  magnanimity  is  exercised 
is  through  a  definition  of  "totalitarian"  in  section  101  of  the  lawr 
Totalitarian  means  an  organization  which  advocates  the  establishment 
in  the  United  States  of  a  totalitarian  dictatorshi]:).  And  the  signifi- 
cant words  there  are  '"in  the  United  States."  Jioth  Hitler  and  Lenin 
insisted  their  totalitarianism  was  for  home  consumption  only  and  not 
for  export.  Yet,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  is  contrary  to  the  interests 
of  the  United  States  and  is  unsound  policy  to  make  it  easier  for  rab- 
ble roiisers.  Fascists,  Nazis  and  anti-Semites  to  get  into  this  country 
than  for  other  totalitarians  for  the  so-called  left  Avho  are  now,  in 
our  o])inion,  properly  excluded.  I  think  that  could  be  remedied  by 
amending  the  definition  of  totalitarian  i:)arty. 

That  is  aljout  all  1  have  to  say  here.    Our  formal  statement  in  the- 
record  elaborates  most  of  the  points  that  I  have  made  here.    If  you 
have  any  s})ecific  questions,  as  I  have  said  before,  of  a  specific  char- 
acter, Afr.  Ik'cker,  our  executive  director,  is  here  in  the  atidience  and 
I  am  sure  would  be  glad  to  answer  them. 


168  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Mr.  EosENFiELD.  Professor  Spero,  I  understand  the  International 
Rescue  Committee  received  a  very  substantial  grant  from  the  Ford 
Foundation  in  connection  with  the  iron  curtain  and  refugee  fund. 

Professor  Spero.  The  resettlement  fund.  The  International  Rescue 
Committee  has  two  so-called  campaigns.  One  of  them  is  the  iron 
curtain  refugee  campaign  and  the  other  is  the  resettlement  cam- 
paign for  displaced  persons. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Would  you  care  to  give  the  Commission  the  bene- 
fit of  your  views  as  to  the  meaningfullness  of  your  experience  with 
the  Iron  Curtain  Refugee  Fund. 

Professor  Spero.  I  think  Mr.  Becker  could  do  that  much  better 
than  I.  He  is  familiar  with  the  details  and  he  could  do  that  more 
effectively. 

The  Chairman.  Professor,  I  should  like  to  refer  back  to  some  state- 
ments you  made  to  the  etfect  that  the  Immigration  and  Naturaliza- 
tion Service  was  opposed  to  appeals  to  court.  Is  it  not  the  fact  that 
the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  in  many  important 
respects  does  not  fix  the  policy,  but  merely  carries  out  the  acts  of 
Congress  which  were  determined  by  the  Congress? 

Professor  Spero.  I  know  that  perfectly  well.  Of  course,  the  law 
does  not  subject  the  Immigration  Service,  or  at  least  it  relieves  it, 
from  the  kind  of  court  review  wliich  the  administrative  procedures 
applies  to  other  agencies. 

We  still  do  think  that  more  of  the  extension  of  the  principles  of 
administrative  procedures  to  the  Immigration  Service  would  be  a 
wholesome  reform. 

The  Chair3iax.  It  might  be  helpful  if  Mr.  Becker  would  file  a  sup- 
plemental statement  with  us  on  the  experiences  of  your  committee 
with  the  iron  curtain  refugee  fund. 

Professor  Spero.  I  Avill  ask  Mr.  Becker  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Is  Dr.  Louis  I.  Dublin  present  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  LOUIS  I.  DUBLIN,  SECOND  VICE  PRESIDENT 
AND  STATISTICIAN  OF  THE  METEOPOLITAN  LIFE  INSURANCE 
CO. 

Dr.  Dublin.  I  am  Dr.  Louis  I.  Dublin,  and  I  am  second  vice  presi- 
dent and  the  statistician  of  the  Metropolitan  Life  Insurance  Co.,  New 
York.  I  am  not,  however,  speaking  for  that  company,  but  rather 
as  an  individual. 

If  I  have  any  contribution  to  make  it  is  because  I  have  for  many 
years  given  close  study  to  certain  population  problems  which  I  think 
have  a  bearing  on  the  subject  matter  of  your  Commission,  and  I  would 
be  speaking  only  as  a  student  of  this  program. 

I  have  a  statement  here,  a  very  brief  one,  in  which  I  have  attempted 
to  summarize  the  results  of  a  long-term  study  on  what  I  call  the  Money 
Value  of  the  Man.     I  should  like  to  read  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  will  be  glad  to  hear  it. 
.    Dr.  Dublin.  I  assume  that  I  have  been  asked  to  testify  before 
your  Commission  because  of  certain  studies  which  my  office  has  con- 
ducted over  a  period  of  years.    These  have  appeared  as  a  volume  under 
the  title,  "The  Money  Value  of  a  Man."    The  first  edition  appeared  in 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         169 


1930  and  the  second  and  revised  edition  in  1946.  The  findings  in  this 
vohnne  liave,  I  believe,  a  very  direct  bearing  on  the  formuhition  of 
basic  immigration  policj^ 

I  shall  proceed  to  present  some  of  the  economic  assets  wliich  immi- 
grants bring  Avith  them  to  our  country.  In  doing  tliis,  I  shall  assume, 
of  course,  that  the  immigrant  has  been  carefully  selected  for  his 
qualities  of  health,  intellect,  and  moral  integrity.  There  are  three 
aspects  from  which  I  shall  consider  the  economic  value  of  the  immi- 
grant to  our  country. 

In  the  first  place,  during  his  period  of  dependency  through  infancy 
and  childhood,  he  has  been  only  a  consumer  of  goods.  He  had  to  be 
given  food,  shelter,  clothing,  medical  attention,  and  schooling  before 
he  could  become  a  producer.  The  cost  of  all  of  these  consumption 
items  was  borne  by  someone  outside  of  our  own  country.  In  other 
words,  each  young  innnigrant  we  receive  who  can  take  his  place  as  a 
producer  in  our  connnunity  brings  us,  without  cost,  all  that  another 
nation  has  put  into  bringing  him  to  manhood.  Let  us  just  consider 
what  the  cost  of  bringing  up  such  a  man  might  be.  For  this  I  shall 
be  conservative  and  assume  that  the  average  immigrant  we  take  into 
this  country  belongs  to  an  income  group  whose  family  averages  $2,500 
annually  after  income  tax.  For  such  families,  the  cost  of  bringing  up 
a  child  to  age  18  is  about  $10,000  in  our  country.  This  is  a  measure  of 
what  Avould  have  been  taken  from  our  own  production  to  bring  up  this 
immigrant  child  if  it  had  been  born  among  us.  It  is  a  clear  saving. 
If  more  had  been  put  into  its  rearing  and  education  before  coming 
here,  the  saving  to  us  is  so  much  the  greater. 

I  will  now  pass  on  to  a  second  aspect  of  this  problem,  namely,  the 
money  value  of  these  immigrants  when  they  become  producers  in  our 
country.  Bearing  in  mind  my  assumption  that  we  take  in  only  immi- 
grants whose  health  and  training  are  comparable  to  that  of  our  own 
citizens,  it  seems  proper  to  assume  that  their  earning  capacity  will  not 
be  too  far  below  our  own  average.  In  1950,  this  average  for  the 
American  family  was  about  $3,-300.  To  be  conservative,  I  shall  assume 
that  our  immigrant  will  have  an  earning  capacity  of  only  $2,500  after 
income  tax.  For  the  average  man  of  age  30  in  this  income  bracket,  the 
present  value  of  his  gross  future  earnings  is  about  $50,000.  This  is 
a  measure  of  what  he  can  add  in  these  times  of  labor  shortage  to  our 
productive  capacity  during  his  lifetime.  Again,  I  have  considered 
only  the  case  of  the  immigi-ant  who  would  now  be  perhaps  in  our  low- 
est income  bracket.  The  innnigrant  who  comes  to  us  with  superior 
technical  or  professional  training  brings  us  much  more  in  productive 
value.  Such  an  immigrant  at  age  30,  who  might  be  able  to  earn  $3,500 
annually  after  taxes,  has  a  present  value  of  gross  future  earnings 
amounting  to  about  $80,000.  In  other  words,  our  economy  gains 
substantially  in  these  days  of  full  employment  by  taking  in.to  the 
country  the  kind  of  immigrant  to  which  I  have  been  referring.  We 
benefit  first  from  what  another  nation  has  ])ut  into  bringing  him  up 
to  be  a  producer,  and  then  we  benefit  by  the  addition  of  his  productive 
capacity  at  a  time  when  we  greatly  need  such  help. 

Third  and  last,  we  may  view  this  problem  in  connection  with  the 
aging  of  our  popidation.  In  1930,  the  first  census  after  the  drastic 
cultailment  of  our  immigration  in  1924,  3.1  percent  of  our  people  were 
at  ages  70  and  over  and  their  number  then  totaled  somewhat  under 


170  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

3,900,000.  The  census  of  1950  showed  that,  we  have  4.8  percent  of  our 
])eople  at  aj^es  TO  and  over  and  their  number  is  now  abont  7,250,000, 
somewhat  under  twice  that  of  two  decades  ag-o.  In  other  words,  the 
burden  of  the  aged  upon  our  producers  is  increasing  rapidly,  a  situ- 
ation which  is  only  now  beginning  to  receive  the  attention  it  rightly 
deserves.  However,  we  cannot  view  this  matter  of  the  added  burden 
upon  the  producers  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  aged  alone ;  we  must 
also  consider  the  rapidly  increasing  numbers  of  dependent  childi-en 
because  of  the  recent  upswing  in  the  birth  rate.  We  thus  have  a  grow- 
ing burden  upon  our  producers  from  both  directions.  These  facts 
point  up  our  pressing  need  for  additional  producers  in  these  times  of 
full  employment  and  national  emergency. 

From  each  of  the  three  angles,  all  solely  economic,  it  must  be  clear 
that  carefully  selected  immigrants  can  constitute  at  this  time  a  very 
great  asset  to  our  country,  and  that  our  innnigration  policy,  quite 
apart  from  any  other  consideration  of  international  relationship, 
should  reflect  in  some  way  the  benefits  which  immigrants  can  bestow 
on  us. 

But  in  considering  these  economic  aspects  of  the  problem,  we  should 
by  no  means  overlook  the  cultural  and  spiritual  benefits  that  we  derive 
fiom  the  immigrants  to  our  shores.  I  need  hardly  list  the  large  num- 
ber of  immigrants  who  in  the  past  made  most  valuable  contributions  in 
the  arts  and  sciences  and  in  the  fields  of  religion  and  social  organiza- 
tion, all  of  which  have  advanced  our  cuUure.  These  are  innneasurable 
values. 

This  leads  me  to  say  that  from  every  angle  our  country  has  bene- 
fited greatly  from  the  immigration  of  tlie  ])ast.  Huge  additions  were 
made  to  our  labor  force  at  a  time  when  they  were  needed  by  the  indus- 
tries of  the  country.  The  immigrant  played  an  important  role  in 
building  our  railroads  and  our  vast  network  of  highways.  They 
served  our  mines  and  factories.  Indeed,  they  were  the  very  backbone 
of  our  expanding  productivity.  We  often  think  that  we  were  gener- 
ous to  th  oppressed  peoples  of  Euro]:)e  when  we  opened  the  door  to 
them.  I  do  not  question  this  attitude,  but  I  would  like  to  put  in  the 
record  the  fact  that  our  generosity  Avas  well  rewarded.  We  got  back 
a  good  deal  more  than  we  put  in. 

Our  present  situation  is  not  very  difl'erent  from  that  of  earlier  years. 
Our  economy  is  still  expanding,  our  labor  force  needs  additions,  and  we 
need  friends  among  the  free  peoples  of  the  world.  We  can  afford, 
therefore,  to  show  a  tolerant  and  even  friendly  spirit  in  terms  of  our 
immigration  policy.  We  can  afford  even  now  to  keep  the  door  open, 
being  very  careful,  of  course,  in  our  choice  of  those  whom  we  welcome. 

]Mr.  RosENFiELD.  If  I  maj^,  I  would  like  to  go  back  over  each  of  those 
points  for  a  moment.  Do  I  correctly  understand  your  first  point  to  be 
that  the  immigrant  aged  18,  coming  to  the  United  States,  inci'eases  the 
national  wealth  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  by  $10,000  upon 
his  arrival? 

Dr.  Dublin.  It  has  cost  that  to  bring  him  up. 

Mr.  RosKNFiELD.  Assuuiiug  that  in  the  year  1951,  approximately  a 
hundred  thousand  quota  visas  were  unused,  is  it  fair  and  correct  to 
draw  the  conclusion  that  that  lack  of  use  of  a  hundred  thousand  quota 
visas,  in  effect,  deprived  the  United  States  of  billions  of  dollars  in 
productivity  or  productive  energies  had  those  people  come  in? 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  171 

Dr.  DuHLiN.  I  (liink  llie  fiiiiuvs  ari'  even  lar<rei-  than  that,  because  if 
you  are  t]iinkiii<>-  in  terms  of  })roductivity  or  productive  energy,  you 
are  tliiiikino;  in  terms  of  Avliat  the  future  production  these  people — 
assuniini;  tliey  Avere  all  i'i<iht  in  every  other  resi)ect — would  have  added 
to  our  countiy's  wealth. 

Mr.  KosENFiKLD.  Do  I  correctly  understand  your  third  poiut  to  be 
that  failure  to  use  the  uumber  of  visas  authorized  wdll  in  the  future 
add  to  the  burden,  or  at  least  fail  to  alleviate  the  burden  on  the  pro- 
ducers because  of  the  increasino;  number  of  a<ied  aiTd  the  young ^ 

Dr.  Dublin.  I  prefer  the  latter  way  of  putting  it.  We  find  our- 
selves in  a  situation.  It  may  be  only  tem])orary.  At  any  rate  it  is 
Avhat  it  is,  so  we  have  an  increasing  number  of  de[)endents  with  a 
decreasing  ju'oportion  of  producers.  There  is  need — Ave  all  know — 
need  for  an  increase  in  our  labor  forces  for  an  expanding  economy. 
AVe  could  bring  in  an  increased  number  of,  or  a  sizable  number  of,  pro- 
ducers that  would  relieve  the  burden  on  the  working-age  period  of  our 
population.     It  would  relieve  the  burden  of  sustaining  the  dependents. 

Commissionei-  O'Gradt.  Is  anything  being  done  to  enlighten  Ameri- 
can industry  and  business  in  regard  to  the  situation  you  have  described  ? 

Dr.  Dublin.  I  think  "vve  are  all  aware — the  entire  country  is  now 
thoroughly  exercised  over  the  problem  of  our  aging  population.  We 
were  caught  asleep.  We  have  made  no  preparation  for  it  or  very 
little,  ancl  now  we  are  trying  to  catch  up  with  this  pressing  problem. 

Now  as  for  the  interest  of  industry,  that  is  a  very  real  problem  of 
hoAV  to  prepare  the  aged  for  retirement  and  all  the  rest  of  it. 

The  enlightened  industrialist  is  concerned  not  only  Avitli  this  prob- 
lem of  the  aged  but  is  more  concerned  with  the  i)roblem  of  the  labor 
force.  Our  country  is  growing.  Our  country  is  expanding.  Our 
country  needs  more  pi'oductive  hands,  and  the  industrialist  is  aware 
of  that.     The  labor  uuirket  is  very  tight. 

Now  let's  forget  the  industrialist  if  we  may  for  a  moment.  There 
is  another  group,  and  a  very  important  group,  whom  w'e  overlook.  We 
think  in  terms  of  industry  but  we  forget  there  is  a  very  much  larger 
number  of  housewives.  We  foraet  about  them.  There  is  a  larger 
mnnber,  and  I  think  in  the  aggregate  that  they  ai'e  even  more  impor- 
tant in  the  growth  of  the  life  of  the  country. 

Xow  they  are  suffering  in  the  o])inion  of  many  in  the  i)inch  of  the 
labor  force;  they  are  sullering  terribly  from  a  lack  of  very  important 
hands,  very  im})ortant  people  in  the  service  of  the  family;  and  gentle- 
men, don't  minimize  the  importance  of  what  that  means  to  the  Ameri- 
can family.  People  who  can  afford  to  pay  decent  living  wages  for 
help,  to  help  l)i-ing  up  their  families,  simply  can't  fiiul  such  hel]).  It 
doesn't  exist.  There  is  room  in  our  country  for  a  million  people  who 
coidd  do  most  useful  and  ))roductive  work  at  good  wages.  They 
simjdy  don't  exist.  I  think  that  is  as  important  for  the  future  history 
of  our  country  as  this  pi'oblem  of  the  tight  labor  force.  We  all  feel 
it.  and  very  few  talk  about  it. 

P)ut  Avhen  you  think  in  terms  of  what  it  means  to  our  housewife, 
to  our  Avomen,  to  have  no  hel}),  Avhat  it  does  to  the  birth  rate,  what 
it  does  to  the  character  of  tlie  family,  1  think  Ave  have  got  something 
very,  very  serious  to  consider.  As  far  as  I  can  see  from  the  lit»^rature 
and  in  our  public  statements,  A'ery  little  is  being  said  of  ihe  obvious. 

25356—52 12 


172  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

1  consider  that  a  most  important  item  in  the  thinking  of  our  immigra- 
tion problems. 

The  Chairman.  Did  the  liousewife  have  that  help  until  compara- 
tively recently  ? 

Dr.  Dublin.  It  has  been  a  tight  situation  for  a  good  many  years. 
Today  it  is  so  tight  that  you  need  a  shoehorn  to  adjust  it.  I  would 
say  that  condition  has  been  gi'owing  for  the  last  15  years,  and  getting 
worse  all  the  time.  It  flows  larijelv  from  the  fact  that  our  industries 
and  our  businesses  are  absorbing  people,  more  and  more,  and  here  we 
feel  the  pinch  in  the  domestic  economy. 

The  Chairman.  Doctor,  have  you  any  statistics  on  the  nmnber  of 
immigrants  that  this  country  could  profitably  absorb? 

Dr.  Dublin.  Mr.  Chairmxan,  I  have  no  such  estimate.  I  have  not 
addressed  myself  to  such  a  consideration. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  Doctor. 

Commissioner  Edward  Corsi  is  scheduled  to  be  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  EDWAED  CORSI,  INDUSTRIAL  COMMISSIONER 
OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK  AND  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  NEW  YORK 
STATE  DISPLACED  PERSONS  COMMISSION 

Commissioner  Corsi.  I  am  Edward  Corsi,  industrial  commissioner 
of  New  York  State  and  chairman  of  the  New  York  State  Displaced 
Persons  Commission.  I  am  also  president  of  the  American  Federation 
of  International  Institutes. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  I  wish  to  submit  for  the  record,  and 
then  I  should  like  to  make  a  few  pertinent  remarks. 

The  Chairman.  Your  prepared  statement  will  be  inserted  in  the 
record. 

(There  follows  the  prepared  statement  submitted  by  the  honorable 
Edward  Corsi:) 

A  "reassessment  of  our  immigration  policies  and  practices  in  tbe  light  of 
conditions  that  face  ns  in  the  second  half  of  the  twentieth  century"  has  long 
been  necessary.  The  congressional  committees  which  studied  this  question  in 
the  Eighty-first  and  Eighty-second  Congresses  were  more  concerned  with  plugging 
up  the  loopholes  in  existing  immigration  and  naturalization  laws  than  in  exam- 
ining the  basic  concepts  on  which  these  laws  were  based  and  the  relationship  of 
these  concepts  to  our  national  interests  at  home  and  abroad. 

Despite  the  prolonged  debate  on  the  various  bills,  there  is  grave  doubt  that  the 
fundamental  issues  involved,  the  number  of  persons  affected,  or  the  possible 
consequences  for  the  Nation  of  the  new  legislation  were  understood  clearly  by 
the  American  people. 

The  question  is  whether  the  legislation  of  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  born  of 
fear,  hysteria,  and  political  expediency,  still  expresses  the  policy  that  the  United 
States  wishes  to  follow  toward  its  own  citizens  and  the  peoples  of  the  world. 

If  the  Commission  can  succeed  in  bringing  this  issue,  with  all  its  ramifications, 
before  the  Nation,  I  am  certain  that  the  decision  of  the  public,  based  on  all 
enlightened  self-interest,  will  be  to  reject  the  solutions  of  Public  Law  414  in 
their  entirety  and  to  reassert  affii-matively  our  democratic  ideals  and  heritage. 
They  will  decide  tliat  the  present  immigration  law  based  on  archaic  concepts 
cannot  be  patched  up.  That  it  must  be  junked  entirely  and  out  of  its  ashes  a 
new  law  must  lie  conceived  based  on  the  idea  of  human  equality. 

As  Americans  we  cannot  accept  the  concept  incorporated  in  the  present  legis- 
lation that  mankind  is  divided  into  breeds,  biologically  and  culturally  separated 
from  each  other  and  that  one  breed  is  superior  and  all  others  inferior.  All  races, 
creeds,  and  colors  have  shared  in  the  making  of  America.  All  have  equal  dignity. 
All  share  our  heritage  in  the  same  de.gi'ee.  Tlie  blood  shed  in  its  defense  has 
come  no  less  from  those  whose  forefathers  were  of  Anglo-Saxon  heritage  than 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         173 

from  those  whoso  forofalhers  sjiiled  the  Moditorraneiin  Soii.  We  cannot  accept 
the  principle  tliat  the  cultural  descendants  of  the  Greelis  and  the  Romans,  whose 
civilizations  lighted  the  world  when  the  An.ulos  and  the  Saxons  still  roamed  the 
forests  of  northwest  Germany  and  foujiht  with  cluhs  and  who  in  modern  times 
have  fought  side  by  side  with  us  against  red  absolutism  are  less  capable  of 
making  good  Americans  tlian  the  descendants  of  other  national  groups. 

As  Americans  we  cannot  tolerate  discrimination  through  leuiilistic  subterfuges 
against  persons  whose  skins  are  of  a  (liferent  color  from  our  own. 

As  Americans  we  cannot  afford  a  domestic  policy  based  on  fear.  The  world 
is  in  too  precarious  a  state  for  this  Nation  to  indulge  itself  in  tlie  luxury  of 
conduct  based  on  the  same  type  of  pathological  mentality  that  brought  the  Ger- 
man people  to  destruction.  As  never  before,  our  safety  and  our  future  depend 
on  the  mutual  esteem,  trust,  and  faith  of  the  free  peoples  of  the  world.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  be  a  psychologist  to  know  that  xenophobia,  the  fear  of  strang- 
ers, merely  mirrors  our  own  insecurity  and  lack  of  faith  in  our  own  strength 
and  in  our  own  institutions.  It  will  be  difficult  enough  to  win  the  cold  war  with 
actions  based  on  rational  thought.  To  base  national  policy  on  a  type  of  reason- 
ing which,  if  displayed  by  an  individual,  would  place  him  in  jeopardy  of  commit- 
ment to  an  asylum,  is  to  admit  defeat  in  advance  of  battle. 

As  Americans  we  cannot  afford  to  establish  two  classes  of  citizenship  with 
one  set  of  rules  for  naturalized  citizens  and  another  for  the  native  born.  We 
cannot  adhere  to  our  traditional  values  and  at  the  same  time  set  up  a  system 
in  which  an  activtiy  which  is  lawful  for  a  person  born  in  this  country  may  be 
penalized  if  performed  by  a  naturalized  citizen. 

As  Americans  we  cannot  abrogate  a  person's  right  to  a  fair  tj-ial  before  an 
impartial  judge.  We  cannot  invest  our  administrative  officials  with  unbounded 
authority  subject  to  no  judicial  check  and  subject  to  no  appeal.  We  cannot 
adopt  techniques  for  administering  justice  which  are  indistinguishable  from 
those  of  the  totalitarians. 

These  are  all  concepts  which  are  embodied  in  our  present  immigration  and 
naturalization  statute.  They  are  alien  to  the  fundamental  concepts  on  which 
this  Nation  was  built.  Given  a  fair  opportunity,  the  American  people  will  re- 
ject the  legislation  which  embodies  these  harmful  concepts  and  develop  an  im- 
migration and  naturalization  statute  which  is  written  in  the  idiom  of  a  land 
of  the  free  and  the  brave. 

The  new  immigration  jiolicy  should  be  based  on  a  realistic  appraisal  of  the 
needs  of  our  domestic  economy,  especially  as  it  relates  to  the  adequacy  of  the 
labor  supply  in  the  present  defense  economy  and  in  the  foreseeable  future. 

Whether  our  manpower  resources  are  adequate  to  win  the  peace  without 
replenishment  through  immigration  cannot  now  be  ascertained  because  the 
total  requirements  of  a  state  of  national  existence  in  which  we  must  ever 
present  a  force  sufficient  to  dissuade  the  Kremlin  from  precipitating  a  crisis 
is  not  known.  The  world  cannot  endure  another  global  war.  At  whatever 
cost  we  nmst  have  assurance  that  we  are  strong  enough  to  win  the  peace. 

Under  these  Conditions  it  is  a  demonstrable  fact  that  our  economy  can  now, 
and  for  a  long  time  to  come  will  be  able  to,  absorb  advantageously  at  least 
double  the  number  of  immigrants  permitted  under  the  present  law  each  year. 

In  relation  to  our  defense  manpower  needs  of  an  estimated  2,000,(K)0  addi- 
tional workers  in  defense  production  by  mid-lOS.S,  an  annual  total  of  300,000 
immigrants,  of  whom  only  half  can  be  expected  to  enter  the  labor  market, 
seems  small  indeed.  Of  course,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  our  defense  man- 
power needs  will  be  met  largely  by  shifting  workers  now  employed  in  non- 
defense  to  defense  production  and  by  adding  to  the  labor  force  workers  not 
normally  employed.  That  is  what  we  did  in  the  last  war.  But  new  immigrants 
can  be  expected  to  fdl  the  jobs  of  those  who  shift  to  defense  work  and  to  fill 
the  other  jobs  that  American  workers  are  reluctant  to  accept. 

The  defense  production  level  expected  to  be  achieved  by  1053  is  but  the 
floor  from  which  full  mobilization  is  to  start  in  the  event  of  need.  Even  the 
present  state  of  mohilization  has  shown  deficiencies  in  the  supply  of  technical, 
Ijrofessional,  and  skilled  workers  to  meet  current  demands  for  labor.  Such 
workers  require  long  years  of  training.  This  lack  of  skilled  technicians  can 
be  eased  by  a  jilanned  inuuigration  program. 

The  immigration  of  the  last  decade  Vv'ith  its  relatively  high  proportion  of  pro- 
fessional, technical,  and  skilled  workers  compared  with  earlier  immigrations, 
as  well  as  the  displaced  persons  program  have  shown  that  we  can  obtain  from 
abroad  skilled  factory  workers,  engineers,  technicians,  and  other  skilled  work- 
ers who  would  be  of  great  value  in  expanding  production. 


174  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

The  forces  of  totalitarianism  have  iiraotically  unlimited  manpower  resources 
at  their  disposal.  Their  productive  efficiency,  while  far  from  being  on  a  par 
with  ours,  is  yet  increasins.  From  whence  will  our  manpower  come  to  cope 
with  this  flood  of  humanity? 

Apparently  our  supply  of  young  men  to  meet  Armed  Forces  needs  is  al- 
ready running  short.  According  to  estimates  of  the  Selective  Service  Ad- 
ministration manpower  requirements  for  the  military  services  for  this  year 
alone  will  be  approximately  l,19t),000.  They  anticipate  that  a  wider  range  of 
age  groups  will  be  subject  to  call  as  well  as  many  now  in  exempt  groups.  The 
war  we  are  fighting  is  only  a  peripheral  engagement  but  100,000  men  a  month  are 
being  withdrawn  from  productive  purposes  to  fight  it.  What  will  be  the  ex- 
tent of  manpower  demands  in  a  larger  conflict  V 

The  Korean  experience  is  ample  testimonial  that  wars  cannot  be  won  with 
modern  weapons  alone — military  manpower  is  necessary.  To  face  the  huge 
potential  of  the  ronnnunist  powers  men  will  be  needed  both  to  man  the  fac- 
tories and  the  guns.  X'nder  such  circinnstances  we  will  need  every  man  and 
woman  available.  Who  at  such  a  time  will  not  consider  our  innnigrants,  espe- 
cially if  carefully  chosen  for  their  adhei-ence  to  the  democratic  idea,  a  national 
asset  V 

In  this  connection  may  I  call  to  mind  one  of  the  lessons  of  World  War  II. 
The  decisive  battle  was  fought  not  in  the  field,  but  on  the  factory  production 
lines.  AVhen  tlie  (nitput  of  German  industry  was  reduced  to  such  an  extent 
that  its  gams  and  planes  could  not  be  supplied  and  its  people  fed,  the  German 
Army  was  licked  although  the  actual  battles  in  the  field  took  place  at  a  later 
date.  Tlie  s"»mple  fact  was  that  there  was  not  enough  manpower  to  man  the 
front  lines  and  supply  the  troops  at  the  same  time. 

There  are  other  areas  of  the  American  economy  in  which  nationals  of  other 
countries  who  believe  in  democracy  can  be  utilized  in  this  country.  In  my  own 
State,  the  average  age  of  farmers  is  52  years.  The  number  of  farms  abandoned 
because  there  is  no  one  to  run  them  increases  annually.  There  is  a  continued 
shortage  of  year-round  farm  workers.  In  this  State  as  in  otlier  areas  of  the 
country,  our  youngsters  for  several  decades  have  left  the  farm  for  the  urban 
communities.  There  is  real  danger  that  in  the  years  just  ahead  agi'icultural 
production  will  be  seriously  hampered.  The  continued  prosi>erity  and  high  pro- 
duction by  agriculture  is  fundamental  to  our  economic  prosperity.  The  farmer 
is  the  man  who  feeds  us  all- 
in  the  overpopulated  areas  of  western  Europe  there  is  a  rich  pool  of  surplus 
farmers  and  farm  workers.  There  are  many  farm  families  with  no  opportunity 
for  employment  on  the  land.  In  Italy,  in  Gerniany.  in  the  Netherlands, 'there  are 
large  groups  of  experienced  agricultural  woi'kers  who  cannot  find  productive 
employment.  These  people,  if  otherwise  qualified,  should  be  permitted  to  come 
to  this  country  to  the  mutual  benefit  of  the  immigrants  and  the  Nation. 

From  time  to  time  questions  have  l)een  raised  regarding  the  economic  aspects 
of  immigration.  Our  history  shows  that  both  our  productive  capacity  and  our 
standard  of  living  have  risen  witli  the  increase  of  popiflation.  Today  both  our 
population  and  our  standard  of  living  are  higher  than  ever  before  in  history. 
During  the  depression  decade  of  the  thirties  there  was  a  falling  off  in  the  birth 
rate.  Persons  horn  in  this  period  are  now  entering  the  labor  market  but  in 
reduced  numbers  compared  with  other  periods  in  our  history.  The  inability  to 
recruit  personnel  for  our  Armed  Forces  in  sufficient  numbers  is  one  indication 
of  this  condition.  For  the  next  decade  at  least,  the  deficit  between  the  normal 
annual  increment  to  the  labor  force  and  the  smaller  expected  increments  can  be 
made  up  by  pernntting  immigration  on  an  increased  scale. 

The  successful  operation  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1948  has  given  us 
some  additional  insights  into  the  economic  advantages  of  selected  immigration. 
Some  110,000  immigrants  have  settled  in  New  York  State  under  this  program 
since  October  104S.  About  4.'i  percent  of  this  number  were  housewives,  students. 
and  minor  children  who  did  not  join  the  labor  force.  Of  the  group  that  entered 
the  labor  force,  0  percent  were  professional  or  semiprofessional  workers  or 
managers  ;  86  percent  were  skilled  workers :  10  percent  were  farmers,  or  farm 
laborers  :  the  remaining  workers  were  in  commercial  jobs  or  unskilled  jobs  such  as 
laliorers  and  domestics. 

Among  the  professionals  were  24  electrical  engineers,  20  mechanical  engineers, 
77  chemists  and  metallurigists,  381  pliysicians  and  surgeons,  272  imrses.  Among 
the  .semiprofessional  workeis  were  l.jl  designers  and  draftsn.en  and  357  tech- 
nicians in  various  scientilic  pursuits.     Among  the  skilled  craftsmen  were  1,000 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  175 

c'ari>enters,  2,00(1  nuH-liaiiies  in  various  trades,  145  macliinists,  0  to(jI  and  die 
makers,  and  many  others. 

Tliese  innnl.irrants  liave  made  substantial  conti'ibutions  to  the  welfare  and 
pros|terit.v  of  New  York  State.  They  liave  been  absorlx'd  witliout  a  rii)i)h'  in  the 
economy,  whic-h  duriiii;  the  period  of  this  imniiKi'at  ion  has  risen  to  luipi'ecedented 
heifjhts  and  in  wliieli  unemployment  lias  dro^iped  to  postwar  lows.  They  have 
ad.iusted  to  their  new  way  of  life  with  remarkable  speed.  They  are  accepted 
in  the  coninmnities  in  which  they  live.  They  are  takins;  action  speedily  to  become 
American  citizens.  We  have  not  had  a  single  substantiated  cdniplaint  a,i;aiust 
any  of  the  thousands  that  have  resettled  in  New  York  State  communities. 

The  displaced  persons  who  have  come  to  this  country  are  not  "beaten  men 
from  beaten  races."  They  are  the  cream  of  European  industrial  and  agricul- 
tural society  whose  need  for  asylum  is  not  based  on  their  own  disabiliites  but 
on  the  chaos  and  disorder  caused  by  global  war  and  its  aftermath. 

There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  given  a  resettlement  policy  based  on  our 
national  economic  needs  and  on  the  belief  that  immigration  is  mutually  ad- 
vantageous both  to  the  immigrant  and  the  Nation,  that  many  more  immigrants 
can  be  absorbed  successfully  than  are  now  permitted  to  enter  under  the  Mc- 
Carran-AValter  law. 

Some  have  said  that  the  successful  immigrations  tif  the  past  few  years  are  but 
transatory  indications  which  are  Insufficient  to  justify  a  long  run  immigration 
policy.  They  have  claimed  that  the  agricultural  frontier  of  the  past  is  gone, 
the  possibilities  of  new  industries  lieiiig  developed  such  as  the  railroads,  electric 
power,  and  automobiles  which  in  the  past  absorbed  large  numbers  of  immigrants 
is  also  gone.     Population  growth  is  declining. 

If  these  false  prophets,  who  with  senile  eyes  focused  on  the  iiast  announce  the 
decay  of  the  American  economy,  would  but  turn  their  heads  to  the  future  they 
woidd  see  the  new  and  ever-expanding  frontiers  of  the  atomic  age.  We  are 
(inly  now  on  the  threshold  of  iwolutionary  new  advances  in  agriculture,  in 
teclmology.  and  in  social  invention. 

Tlie  agricultural  frontier  is  still  with  us  but  in  new  guise.  Conservation, 
reclamation,  river  development,  breeding,  distillation  of  fresh  from  salt,  water 
for  irrigation  purpo.ses,  yes,  even  climatic  ctmtrol  by  men  are  luit  indications 
of  the  natiu-e  of  the  new  agricultui-al  frontier.  Our  pioneers  will  not  chop  down 
the  trees  but  plant  them ;  not  erode  the  soil  with  wasteful  practices  but  lu-ing 
new  lands  into  cultivation  through  restorative  measures. 

Industriall.v,  the  atomic  age  lias  .lust  begun  and  we  can  scarcely  envisage  the 
limits  to  which  this  energy,  harnessed  to  constructive  purposes,  can  be  put. 

In  the  field  of  social  invention,  we  now  have  and  are  constantl.y  developing 
new  mechanisms  which  help  to  provide  a  stable  economy,  provide  social  security 
and  a  high  level  of  employment  and  which  insure  a  mininium  wage  to  immi- 
grants and  natives  alike. 

It  is  reasonable  to  conclude  therefore  that  in  tlie  future  there  will  be  a  place 
in  an  expanding  economy  for  immigrants  in  numbers  peihaps  not  as  great  as 
during  the  periods  of  fieak  immigration  in  our  history  but  well  above  the  limits 
set  in  our  current  legislation. 

A  new  immigralion  policy  should  be  based  on  America's  position  as  a  leader 
of  free  nations  and  the  world's  champion  in  the  struggle  against  Communist 
tyranny. 

The  underdevol"ped  and  colonial  nations  of  the  world  have  a  passionate  desire 
for  independence,  dignit.v,  and  self-realization.  After  centuries  of  dominance 
by  western  imperialism  they  are  deeply  suspicious  of  our  motives  and  our  actions. 
They  examine  sktolically  our  protestations  of  democratic  equality  in  the  light 
of  actual  performance. 

It  is,  therefore,  insufficient  to  claim  elimination  of  racial  discriminations  in  our 
immigration  and  naturalization  statutes  and  at  the  same  time  to  insert  new 
l>rovisions  which  set  forth  additional  harriers  on  the  biisis  of  race.  This  is 
self-deceiilion  on  o'.ir  ])art.     Certainly  the  Asiatic  peoples  are  not  fooled. 

When  we  specifically  limit  to  100  the  quota  of  Trinidadians  and  Jamaicans 
who  heretofore  were  alile  to  come  in  larger  numbers  if  they  so  desired,  it  is 
not  the  colored  people  who  are  deceived  by  the  claim  that  wliite  i)ersons  are 
H(pially  at^ect»^d  by  the  provision.  They  are  not  measuring  the  words  of  the 
.statute  but  tlipir  intent.  And  the  intent  seems  clear  enongh.  Our  basic  policy 
toward  these  Asi.-djc  and  colored  i)eople  as  evidenced  by  the  new  statute  lias  not 
changed  substantially — and  they  all  know  it. 

In  Europe  our  foreign  policy  is  geared  to  the  building  up  of  a  force  which  will 
contain  communism  within  its  present  boundaries.     ^J'his  objective  can  be  won 


176  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

only  with  the  cooperation  of  all  the  free  nations  of  Europe.  Nevertheless,  our 
present  immigration  statute  continues  the  discriminations  of  the  past  against 
the  vei-y  nations  that  we  expect  to  join  with  us  in  the  defense  of  democracy. 

The  quotas  of  our  allies  in  southern  and  eastern  Europe  are  not  enlarged. 
Unused  quotas  of  other  nations  are  not  made  available  to  them.  Mortgages  on 
future  quotas  imposed  by  special  postwar  legislation  are  not  removed. 

Standing  on  the  Soviet  borders  in  southeastern  Europe  are  Greece,  Yugo- 
slavia, and  Turkey.  Fifty  percent  of  the  total  quota  of  310  for  Greece  is 
mortgaged  to  the  year  2013.  The  quota  of  938  for  Yugoslavia  is  similarly  mort- 
gaged to  2001 ;  the  quota  for  Turkey  to  19G4.  They  are  key  countries  in  our  stand 
against  aggression. 

Can  we  believe  that  this  legislation  will  be  an  inspiration  to  these  and  other 
European  peoples  to  join  us  in  our  struggle  against  the  Reds?  Are  v\'e  extending 
the  hand  of  friendsliip  when  we  say  that  a  designated  number  of  people  may  be 
admitted  but  that  if  an  Englishman  or  an  Irishman  doesn't  want  to  come,  a 
Greek  or  a  Turk  or  a  Yugoslav  may  not  take  his  place?  Is  this  statute  an  aid. 
in  carrying  out  our  foreign  policy? 

It  is  not  sufficient  that  a  new  immigration  statute  be  devised.  Tlie  administra- 
tion of  a  newly  conceived  and  newly  written  immigration  and  naturalization  law 
should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  agencies  which  will  sympathetically  administer 
it.  If  it  is  desired  that  primary  emphasis  in  the  field  of  immigration  and 
naturalization  should  be  in  the  area  of  domestic  policy,  then  responsibility  for  the 
implementation  of  such  an  Immigration  policy  should  be  centered  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor.  If  it  is  desired  that  the  immigration  policy  be  closely  attuned 
to  our  international  interests  then  responsibility  should  be  vested  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  State.  Perhaps  the  responsibility  should  be  shared  between  these  twO' 
agencies. 

Commissioner  Corsi.  I  want  to  say  1  think  that  this  is  a  nnique  op- 
portnnity  for  me  to  appear  before  yonr  Commission,  and  I  think  the 
creation  of  the  Commission  was  an  extremely  wise  move. 

In  my  experience  I  think  there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  effort  on  the 
part  of  certain  parties  to  keep  this  subject  away  from  general  public 
discussion  and  general  public  education,  an  exclusion  of  it,  and  I  think 
for  an  ultimate  solution  for  this  important  problem  in  our  national 
life,  that  this  is  important. 

I  was  a  Commissioner  of  Immigration  at  Ellis  Island  for  several 
years,  and  I  had  a  pretty  fair  opportunity  to  see  the  workings  of  our 
immigration  laws,  and  the  front-line  trenches,  where  you  actually 
dealt  with  the  man  coming  in  and  the  man  going  out,  and  had  a  chance 
to  see  how  these  laws  actually  functioned  in  human  terms,  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  country  and  the  immigrant  himself;  and  I  left  the  Immigra- 
tion Service  clearly  with  the  impression  that  in  our  whole  immigration 
policy  we  are  motivated  by  fear.  We  are  afraid  of  the  immigrant. 
We  are  afraid  of  the  foreign-born.  AVe  are  afraid  of  the  alien.  And 
this  fear  permeated  the  whole  Immigration  Service,  from  the  Com- 
missioner down. 

We  were  perfectly  willing  to  block  the  admission  of  a  thousand  peo- 
yAe  to  m.ake  sure  that  one  wrong  person  wouldn't  get  in.  That  was 
in  the  administration  of  the  la'w,  and  it  Avas  in  the  law  itself. 

For  instance,  there  was  no  discretion  at  all  in  any  official  to  prevent 
a  hardsliip  in  the  immigration  laws.  I  sat  there  as  a  glorified  com- 
missioner of  the  United  States,  appointed  by  the  President  and  con- 
firmed by  the  Senate  of  the  Unitect  States,  and  I  could  witness  tragedy 
after  tragedy,  but  I  was  absolutely  powerless  to  do  anything  about  it, 
and  so  was  my  boss,  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Well,  finally  they  devised  this  cumbersome  system  of  introducing  a 
bill  in  Congress,  and  I  think  you  know  enough  about  that  so  I  need 
not  comment  on  it.    I  think  you  just  can't  administer  laws  that  deal 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  177 

with  people,  the  destinies  and  lives  of  the  people,  unless  yon  provide 
discretion  and  place  it  in  tlie  hands  of  wise  and  prudent  adminis- 
trators. 

For  extreme  cases  of  hardship  and  separation  of  families  and  other 
cruelties,  where  they  are  involved,  the}^  be  oiven  the  discretion  to  grant, 
time  or  to  do  something  about  it.  So  I  sincerely  hope  this  Commis- 
sion will  study  this  question  of  the  administration  of  the  law  as  it 
affects  the  individual  coming  in  and  going  out. 

In  my  time,  of  course,  the  emphasis  w^as  on  deportations  all  over 
the  country.  Somehow  the  impression  seemed  to  have  gotten  around 
that  w^e  could  solve  the  problem  of  unemployment  in  that  time — this 
was  in  1931,  '32,  and  '33  and  in  there — that  we  could  settle  that  prob- 
lem by  deporting  people.  So  we  were  in  the  wholesale  business  of 
herding  people  in  wagons  and  cars  and  everything  else  and  bundling 
them  out  of  the  country  as  fast  as  we  could. 

The  whole  thing  again  was  permeated  with  fear  of  people,  and  I 
think  you  find  a  good  deal  of  that  in  the  IMcCarran-Walter  law. 
Again  there  is  the  element  of  fear. 

Certainly  I  am  for  careful  detection  of  unworthy  elements,  and  of 
careful  qualifications  of  people  who  come  into  the  countr5\  Our  au- 
thorities abroad  are  to  look  over  these  people  carefully  and  make  sure 
they  are  the  kind  of  peo])le  we  want  and  will  make  good  citizens,  and 
then  we  will  have  a  double  check  at  the  port  of  entry  of  the  United 
States.  But  that  should  be  undertaken  in  the  spirit  of  careful,  wise 
administration,  rather  than  in  the  spirit  of  fear.  We  have  feared  all 
kinds  of  people  in  this  country  over  the  years. 

WTiile  in  instances  the  fears  have  been  justified,  on  the  whole  we  have 
been  mighty  foolish  in  suspecting  the  people  who  have  contributed  so 
much  to  the  making  of  America. 

Now  this  spirit  of  fear  permeates  the  quota  system.  The  quota 
system  is  a  hodgepodge  and  a  compromise  and  a  political  expedient 
when  it  was  written,  and  I  daresay  it  was  designed  to  discriminate 
against  certain  groups  of  the  world's  population.  The  person  who 
wrote  the  law  was  an  official  of  the  United  States  Labor  Department 
when  I  was  Commissioner,  and  he  told  me  that  deliberately  they  tried 
to  discriminate  against  certain  groups  and  keep  certain  groups  out 
of  this  country  if  they  could. 

But  entirely  aside  from  that,  the  quota  law  is  antiquated  and  use- 
less so  far  as  America  is  concerned.  We  have  not  gotten  an  immigra- 
tion policy  in  this  country  which  responds  to  the  needs  of  America. 
The  economic  and  social  needs  of  America,  that  is.  We  simply  try  to 
please  a  lot  of  people  by  establishing  quotas.  We  compromise  with 
minority  groups  and  pressure  groups  and  all  sorts  of  groups  and  try 
to  work  out  of  this  w^illingness  to  deal  with  people  politically  what  we 
call  an  immigration  law  and  an  immigration  policy.  We  have  not 
got  an  immigration  policy  and  we  have  a  very  poor  immigration  law. 

No^y  fundamentally,  immigration  is  labor.  From  a  purely  selfish 
American  point  of  view,  we  import  people  to  the  United  States  because 
w^e  need  them.  We  can  provide  a  living  for  them  and  even  enhance  the 
prosperity  of  the  United  States.  Then  it  is  humanitariar.,  and  it  is 
traditionally  a  continuation  of  the  policy  for  the  oppressed  of  the 
world.  Now  we  have  got  to  think  in  terms  of  a  policy  which  is  perma- 
nent, and  a  permanent  basic  policy  is  one  that  meets  the  social  and 
economic  needs  of  the  United  States. 


178  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    aND    NATURALIZATION 

Now  I  listened  to  Mr.  Dublin  speak  about  the  social  needs  of  the 
United  States,  and  formulating  a  policy  based  on  that.  Let  me  give 
you  a  picture  of  the  State  of  New  York,  which  after  all  is  an  important 
segment  of  the  United  States,  and  let's  see  what  this  immigration 
policy  has  done  to  the  economy  of  this  State. 

Regarding  the  manpower  situation  of  this  State,  the  economic  neecls 
of  this  State  we  are  suffering  from  a  very  serious  labor  shortage  in  this 
State,  both  on  the  farm  and  in  the  factory. 

The  other  day  I  asked  the  Employment  Service  to  give  me  a  quick 
report  of  the  manpower  situation  in  this  State,  and  what  it  is  that 
we  need.  As  of  August  31,  1052,  there  were  in  this  State,  53,366  un- 
filled jobs  in  the  nonagricultural  field.  Well,  I  might  say  that  half 
of  them  unfilled  at  that  time  have  probably  been  filled ;  but  there  are 
thousands  of  jobs  in  this  State  which  we  have  not  been  able  to  fill  for 
5  years.  They  are  always  open,  in  the  Employment  Service  of  this 
State,  and  I  take  it  that  is  true  of  the  employment  service  in  every 
other  State  of  the  Union. 

There  were  at  the  same  time  some  4,500  farm  jobs  in  this  State  which 
can  never  be  filled,  just  can  never  be  filled.  ISTow  these  labor  short- 
ages in  the  State  which  are  ]:)ermanent  involve  electrical  workers, 
experienced  engineers,  toolmakers,  machinists,  garment  operators, 
tailors.  IVliy,  it  has  been  estimated  that  in  5  years,  or  a  little  more 
there  won't  be  a  single  tailor  in  this  entire  country  who  can  make 
your  suit.  That  is  the  testimony  of  the  leaders  of  the  garment  workers 
in  this  city.  I  could  submit  for  the  benefit  of  the  Commission  a  whole 
list  of  jobs  that  just  can't  be  filled  in  this  State.  We  have  not  got  the 
workers  for  them. 

On  the  farm  you  would  be  interested  to  know  the  average  age  of  the 
New  York  farmer  is  53  years,  and  the  labor  scarcity  is  tremendous. 
W^e  have  to  import  all  the  time  on  a  seasonal  basis,  boi'row  most  of  the 
time  as  many  as  10,000  workers  from  other  States,  Puerto  Rico,  and 
from  the  South,  the  Bahamas,  and  outside  of  the  United  States,  to 
take  care  of  the  farm  needs  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Now  all  that  is 
remediable,  I  suppose,  by  the  use  of  a  potential  labor  reserve  con- 
sisting of  the  handicapped,  the  housewife,  people  who  have  not  been 
on  the  labor  mai'ket  before  but  who  could  be  drafted  for  the  labor 
market.  We  could  put  women  in  uniform,  or  put  them  in  overalls,  take 
them  out  of  the  kitchen  and  put  them  on  the  railroad  track.  We  could 
do  that  as  an  emergency  proposition.  But  no  one,  I  hope,  would  ad- 
vocate that  as  a  permanent  way  of  meeting  the  labor  shortages  of  the 
United  States.  We  could  do  that  but  we  would  not  be  doing  what  we 
ought  to  do. 

But  let's  face  the  problem  of  security  in  terms  of  manpower.  What 
if  a  war  that  might  last  5  or  six  years  against  the  Connnunist  powers 
of  the  world,  with  their  tremendous  manpower  resources,  should 
come  ?  Why,  I  think  that  we  are  going  pretty  well  now ;  we  have  just 
got  about  enough  workers  in  our  factories  and  so  on  to  take  care  of 
the  number  of  people  who  are  in  the  Army,  Navy,  or  in  uniform  all 
over  the  world.  But  we  are  not  armed  for  the  war.  We  have  not 
put  in  uniform  jet  the  millions  we  should  need  in  the  event  that  we  are 
actually  on  the  battlefields  of  the  world.  One  of  the  reasons  that 
led  to  the  defeat  of  Germany  was  the  inability  of  the  factory  at  home 
to  take  care  of  the  boy  at  the  front;  the  production  at  the  end  of 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  179 

the  war  had  dropped,  and  otlier  thinos  had  dropped,  and  they  couldn't 
substitute  the  nmnpoAver  needed  at  home  to  provide  anununition  and 
food  and  everytliiiiii'  else  foi-  the  tiahters  at  the  front. 

I  seriously  question  whether  this  country  with  its  present  limita- 
tions of  hibor  and  manpower  coukl  wage  a  successful  war  over  a  long 
period  against  the  tremendous  hordes  now  in  control  of  the  Com- 
munist woi'ld.  ^Ve  should  have  to  forever  lean  on  the  free  nations 
of  the  world  for  the  su})ply  of  labor  that  we  need.  VCe  should  have  to 
do  it  by  immigration  to  the  United  States,  or  by  drafting  that  labor 
abroad  in  the  comitries  where  it  is  and  transferring  a  good  deal  of 
our  American  industries  for  our  purposes  to  foreign  countries  where 
labor  is,  so  that  we  might  have  the  ini})lenients  of  war  to  carry  us 
to  victory.    That  is  a  very  serious  question. 

Now  what  do  we  substitute  for  the  quota  system?  Well,  Senator 
Lehman  said  a  very  wise  thing  when  he  said  "let's  take  people  into 
this  country  on  the  basis  of  individual  fitness  rather  than  on  the  basis 
of  nationality,  religion,  or  anything  of  that  sort." 

First  of  all  I  feel  the  Immigration  Service  should  be  brought 
out  of  the  Department  of  Justice  and  brought  back  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor.  If  it  doesn't  belong  in  the  Department  of  Labor  it 
belongs  in  the  Department  of  State.  It  certainly  doesn't  belong  in  the 
Department  of  Justice,  and  perluq^s  in  the  Department  of  Justice  for 
the  same  reason  that  I  indicated  before,  it  permeates  our  whole  immi- 
gration policy  with  fear. 

The  Department  of  Labor  can  deal  with  this  question.  The  Depart- 
ment of  Labor,  on  a  policy  which  is  based  on  the  manpower  needs  of 
our  comitry,  can  recommended  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
from  time  to  time  just  how  many  immigrants  we  need,  what  kind  of 
immigrants  we  need,  and  let  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  approve 
oi-  disapprove  of  the  recommendations  of  the  United  States  Secretary 
of  Labor. 

Now  I  wouldn't  place  this  whole  policy  in  the  basis'  of  our  man- 
power needs,  because  we  live  in  the  age  in  which  there  are  terrific  dis- 
locations that  affect  the  i)eace  of  the  world.  There  are  millions  of 
refugees  roaming  all  over  there  in  Europe.  There  are  all  kinds  of 
peo))le  who  are  burdens  on  poverty-stricken  countries,  and  certainly 
we  have  a  moral  responsibility,  let  alone  a  duty  as  a  leading  nation 
of  the  world,  to  do  something  about  the  relief  toward  these  countries 
aiul  these  populations,  and  so  there  should  be  added  to  the  basic  immi- 
gration policy  a  real  genuine  effort  to  be  helpful  to  these  displaced 
persons. 

I  was  in  charge  of  the  dis])laced  persons  program  for  the  State  of 
New  York,  and  I  remember  in  spite  of  the  almost  universal  approval 
of  the  DP  program  in  the  State,  there  were  a  lot  of  people  who  felt 
that  we  were  taking  in  a  great  many  workers  whom  we  might  never 
be  able  to  use,  who  might  create  a  serious  problem  of  unemployment  in 
the  United  States. 

I  think  this  State  took  in  certainly  more  DP's  than  any  other  State 
in  the  Union,  twice  as  much,  I  think,  as  the  rest  of  the  country  or 
States.  We  have  absorbed  that  additional  manpower  witliout  the 
slightest  dislocation  of  oui'  labor  economy  at  any  point  of  the  State, 
and  certaindy  I  would  know  as  the  labor  connnissionei-  of  this  State  if 
anything  of  that  sort  had  happened. 


180  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

American  workers  were  not  displaced  in  tlieir  jobs.  The  displaced 
persons  did  not  take  anybody's  job  away.  They  fitted  into  the  scheme 
of  the  State  marvelously  and  they  are  boconiing  good  citizens,  pro- 
ductive workers,  and  are  unquestionably  a  valuable  addition  to  the 
State  itself,  and  to  its  economy,  and  to  its  social  betterment. 

I  think  we  could  take  more  of  these  people.  I  agree  that  we  could 
double  the  effort  that  we  have  made  in  the  past ;  take  these  people  above 
and  beyond  what  we  need  for  our  economic  and  security  needs  in  this 
country. 

I  think  that  once  a  person  has  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
no  matter  where  he  was  born  or  what  his  religion  is,  he  should  be  a 
citizen  on  an  equal  basis  with  everybody  else  and  should  be  accepted 
as  such. 

Once  he  becomes  an  American  citizen  he  should  be  an  Amei'ican 
citizen.  I  have  seen  some  very  peculifir  cases  here  at  the  port  of  New 
York  on  the  basis  of  security,  where  children,  or  immigrants  who  were 
children  at  the  time  of  the  Fascist  regime,  were  barred  from  our  coun- 
try because  they  wei'e  Fascists  when  they  were  8  or  9  years  old  or  some- 
thing like  that.  That  makes  us  look  silly  throughout  the  world  and 
ridiculous. 

My  last  point  is  that  we  have  a  tremendous  international  responsi- 
bilit}'  in  the  matter  of  immigration. 

A  very  interesting  thing  happened  at  the  time  the  people  in  this 
country  were  engaged  in  assisting  tlie  forces  in  Itnlj  in  the  general 
elections  in  Italy  a  few^  years  ago,  and  a  great  many  people  wrote 
letters  to  their  relatives  and  friends  in  Italy  urging  them  to  vote  for 
the  Christian  Democratic  or  Anti-Communist  parties,  but  certainly 
against  communism.  That  campaign  was  lauded  and  it  was  a  wise 
thing  and  a  very  smart  thing  and  will  be  repeated  in  the  coming  elec- 
tions in  Italy,  because  the  Communist  danger  is  even  more  serious 
now  than  it  was  at  that  time. 

But  while  people  from  tliis  country  were  writing  letters  over  there 
and  telling  them  of  the  benefits  of  democracy  in  the  United  States, 
what  do  you  think  was  happening'^  The  Communists  staged  a 
counterattack  or  counterdrive,  and  thousands  of  letters  arrived  in 
the  United  States  from  Communists  in  Italy  to  their  relatives  in 
the  United  States,  asking  them  to  change  our  immigration  laws — to  be 
reasonable,  and  so  on  and  so  forth.  But  they  specifically  pointed  to  the 
immigration  laws  and  the  exclusion  of  people  from  Italy  to  the  United 
States. 

Now  they  used  it  with  a  great  deal  of  vehemence  and  with  great 
success  in  some  spots.  Now  I  have  visited  Italy  and  all  the  people 
just  couldn't  understand  our  restriction  and  urged  a  more  liberal 
policy. 

If  we  are  going  to  be  a  world  leader  we  have  got  to  be  more  reason- 
able and  more  understanding  on  two  great  fronts,  which  involve  a 
good  deal  of  our  own  interest,  and  that  is  the  question  of  tariff  and 
everything  else  that  bars  the  importation  of  goods  from  the  rest  of 
the  world,  and  high  immigration  barriers  that  keep  people  out.  We 
just  can't  be  a  world  leader  if  we  are  going  to  isolate  ourselves  beliind 
walls.  I  am  not  pleading  for  a  wide-open  immigration  policy  be- 
cause this  cannot  be  good  and  this  country  couldn't  stand  it.  It  would 
be  against  American  interests.     But  I   do  believe  that  we  should 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         181 

have  a  liberal  aiul  luuiiane  immi oration  policy,  good  for  ourselves  and 
good  for  the  rest  of  the  world. 

That  is  all,  Mr.  Cliairnian.    I  have  nothing  else  to  say. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Thank  you,  Commissioner  Corsi,  for  giving  us 
your  views.  Do  I  correctly  understand  you  to  suggest  that  the 
administration  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  should 
he  removed  from  the  Department  of  Justice  and  placed  in  either  the 
Department  of  Labor  or  the  Department  of  State? 

Commissioner  Corsi.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Would  yon  favor  that  the  Immigration  and  Natur- 
alization Service  be  made  an  independent  agency  ? 

Commissioner  Corsi.  I  don't  believe  much  in  independent  agencies, 
Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  departmental  agencies  in 
Government.  One  of  the  great  things  in  this  State  is — or  was — the 
reorganization  of  the  State  government  by  the  late  Gov.  Alfred  E. 
Smith,  when  a  lot  of  independent  units  were  brought  into  19  depart- 
ments of  government,  and  I  think  that  is  one  of  the  things  w^e  need 
veiy  much  in  Washington. 

I  am  very  much  in  favor  of  definitely  placing  bureaus  and  agencies 
and  divisions  in  definite  parts  of  Government  where  they  belong,  re- 
sponsible to  a  Secretary  who  is  a  member  of  the  Cabinet.  I  don't 
believe  that  we  should  have  a  Federal  Security  Agency  independent 
of  the  rest  of  the  establishments  and  the  Federal  Security  Adminis- 
trator not  having  the  status  of  a  Cabinet  officer,  but  depending  on 
contacts  with  the  White  House  or  with  secretaries  in  the  White  House. 

That  is  my  feeling  as  an  Administrator  with  a  good  deal  of  experi- 
ence in  the  Govennnent.  So  I  don't  favor  a  Biu'eau  of  Immigration 
set  oif  by  itself.  In  the  Department  of  Labor  it  vrould  be  part  of  a 
great  Department  which  concerns  itself  with  the  welfare  of  the  wage 
earners  of  the  United  States,  and  certainly  of  the  immigrants  when 
they  arrive  as  wage  earners.  If  I  had  to  choose  between  State  and 
Labor.  I  woukl  say  the  Department  of  Labor,  I  would  suggest  Depart- 
ment of  Labor,  first  choice,  and  Department  of  State  as  No.  2  choice. 

It  was  in  the  Labor  Department  originally  and  then  I  think  the 
argument  used  was  that  the  Department  of  Justice  was  in  a  better 
position  to  investigate  the  qualifications  of  applicants  for  admission 
to  the  United  States  because  of  its  mechanism  for  dealing  with  sub- 
versives and  that  sort  of  thing,  and  so  it  was  shifted  to  the  Department 
of  Justice. 

The  Chairman.  Don't  you  think  that  is  a  valid  argument? 

Commissioner  Corsi.  No;  I  don't  think  so.  I  think  any  qualified 
department  of  the  Government  can  do  that  job  if  properly  financed 
by  the  United  States.  I  don't  think  that  is  the  No.  1  job.  I  think  it  is 
the  essential  job,  but  not  the  No.  1  job.  We  need  to  get  the  kind  of 
people  for  America's  needs  and  do  it  in  a  way  that  is  reasonable  and 
understandable;  that  is  what  is  needed. 

Mr.  RosENriELD.  Commissioner,  would  you  have  any  estimate  as  to 
the  number  of  people  you  think  the  L'nited  States  could  profitably 
admit  into  the  country  wathin  the  next  4  or  5  years? 

Commissioner  Corsi.  That  is  hard  to  answer.  I  would  say  we  could 
take  in  2,000,000  workers  riglit  now,  the  kind  we  need  in  factories  all 
over  the  country,  in  connection  wnth  our  defense  program,  anyway. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  You  wouldn't  be  concerned  with  future  unemploy- 
ment in  comiection  with  those  people? 


182  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Commissioner  Corsi.  No.  I  think  any  student  of  this  question  of 
immigration  will  know  that  over  the  years  the  country  has  had  periods 
of  unemployment  regardless  of  immigration.  It  has  been  up  and  down 
but  the  immigrant  has  become  a  part  of  the  Avhole  economy,  and  we 
have  not  sutiered  unemployment  in  this  country  because  of  immi- 
gration. 

I  suppose  Dr.  Dublin  could  confirm  or  deny  this,  but  somebody  said 
that  if  we  had  never  had  any  immigrants  in  the  United  States — 
speaking  of  the  immigration  of  our  times — the  population  of  the 
United  States  would  be  just  the  same.  I  don't  know  whether  that  is 
true  sociologically  or  not.  The  more  immigrants  you  have  the  more 
native-born  you  have.  But  the  question  of  the  immigrant  has  not  been 
the  source  of  our  employment  problem. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  Rev.  William  Kelly. 

STATEMENT   OF   REV.   WILLIAM   E.   KELLY,    S.    T.   D,,   DIRECTOR, 
SOCIAL  ACTION  DEPARTMENT,  CATHOLIC  DIOCESE  OF  BROOKLYN 

Reverend  Kelly.  I  am  Rev.  William  F.  Kelly,  director  of  the  social 
action  department,  Catholic  Diocese  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  I  am  testify- 
ing as  a  representative  of  the  diocese. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  is  rather  brief,  and  in  the  interest 
of  time  I  should  like  to  read  it. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  be  pleased  to  hear  it. 

Reverend  Kelly.  Mr.  Chairman  and  distinguished  members  of  the 
President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  I  am 
very  grateful  for  your  invitation  to  appear  before  you  to  present 
some  views  and  considerations  which,  I  believe,  are  shared  by  many  of 
our  fellow  citizens. 

May  I  commend  you  in  your  pursuit  of  the  ennobling  duty  that  is 
yours  and  also  endorse  the  viewpoint  that  there  is  need  to  study  and 
evaluate  the  immigration  and  naturalization  policies  of  the  United 
States. 

Though  we  readily  acknowledge  the  related  importance  of  the  nat- 
uralization and  denaturalization  of  aliens.  I  beg.  in  the  interests  of 
time,  to  invite  your  attention,  and  thus  confine  myself  to  some  ethical 
considerations  of  our  immigration  policies.  I  assume,  of  course,  in  my 
presentation,  the  generally  accepted  conclusions  of  the  extensive  eco- 
nomic, sociological,  and  demographic  study  and  i-esearch. 

As  we  all  know,  the  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fullness  thereof 
Psalm  XXIII,  1),  we  read  in  Holy  Writ.  The  Lord,  our  God,  is 
the  Supreme  Ruler  of  all  mankind.  His  law  must  govern  the  distribu- 
tion as  well  as  the  use  of  the  earth  and  its  goods.  He  made  the  earth 
for  all,  not  a  few,  men.  All  men,  therefore,  have  a  natui'al  right  to 
subsist  on  its  resources  ad  find  sustenance  in  its  goods.  This  natural 
right  is  a  sovereign  right  which  no  nation,  no  people  may  arbitrarily 
disregard.  The  goods  of  the  earth  are  for  all  mankind;  they  are  not 
by  nature  the  property  of  the  few. 

We,  as  a  people,  have  title  to  this  great  heartland  of  human  freedom 
that  is  called  America.  We  are  deeply  grateful,  as  yearly  we  set  aside 
a  day  to  bear  witness,  to  the  lavish  hand  of  God  whose  bountiful  provi- 
dence has  so  wonderfrillv  endowed  it.     We  recognize  that  we  must 


COMMISSION    OX    lArAnORATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  183 

render  an  account  to  God  and  to  mankind  as  well  as  to  our  own  pos- 
terity of  our  stewardship  over  this  land  and  its  resources. 

We  liaA'e  not  failed  to  share  our  abundance  with  those  in  need.  A\'ar- 
stricken  Europe  and  Asia  have  known  o\ir  bounty,  and  now  famine  in 
India  is  relieved.  (,)ur  open-door  policy  in  the  past  toward  innni- 
grants,  as  all  the  world  know^s,  has  built  us  into  a  mighty  people. 
Tomoi'row,  or  some  other  tomorrow,  we  will  readily  feed  the  hungry 
and  aid  the  needy  among  Russia's  unhappy  slaves  once  they  are  set 
free. 

Migration  is  as  old  as  man.  But  only  within  the  modern  era  do  we 
find  virtually  world-wide  restrictive -inunigration  policies.  Now,  as 
is  commonly  accepted,  freedom  of  migration  is  intimately  related  with 
freedom  from  want.  Freedom  from  want  suggests  the  right  of  oppor- 
tunity or  of  access  to  acquire  natural  resources  and  goods  to  satisfy 
human  needs.  Freedom  of  movement  or  migration,  whether  within  a 
nation  or  between  and  among  nations,  obviously,  may  only  be  limited 
within  the  demands  of  the  common  good.  There  is  a  natural  right  of 
a  family  to  living  space,  as  Pope  Pius  XII  wrote  in  his  notable  La 
Solennita  della  Pentecoste,  The  living  space  of  a  family  as  we  may 
properly  interpret  it  may  mean,  in  an  agricultural  economy,  produc- 
tive land  area.  In  an  industrial  societ}^  it  is  the  opportunity  to  suitable 
employment  at  a  family  living  annual  saving  wage. 

Sacred  Scrii)ture  records  many  accounts  of  migrations  and  expul- 
sions, of  refugees  and  of  son-owing  displaced  persons.  Yet  we  tind 
no  exi)ress  warrant  in  Holy  Scripture  or  in  sacred  tradition  defining 
and  declaring  the  right  to  emigrate  and  innnigrate  in  the  sense  that 
these  terms  are  currently  employed. 

Now  while  the  genei-ic  I'ight  to  migrate  is  a  basic  natural  right,  we 
must  clearly  recognize  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  specific  right  to 
immigrate  to  the  United  States — or  any  other  country,  for  that  mat- 
ter— is  an  acquired  right.  An  alien  has  no  natural  right  to  immigrate 
to  the  United  States  and  there  is  no  corresponding  obligation  on  the 
j)art  of  the  United  States  in  justice  though  there  nuiy  be  in  charity  to 
accept  him.  One  acquires  the  privilege  to  innnigrate  to  this  or  the 
next  country.  This  is  granted  by  the  Government.  The  determina- 
tion of  this  innnigi'ation  privilege  must  be  left  to  the  Govermiient ; 
it  declares  when  and  under  what  conditions — as  the  connnon  aood 
demands — a  person  may  innnigrate  or  enter  the  country.  The  Gov- 
ernment, however,  is  itself  bound  to  act  not  in  an  aibitiaiy  fashion, 
fndeed.  the  Goveinment  itself  must  abide  by  laws  more  ancient  than 
governments  and  more  enduring  than  the  laws  of  man,  for  such  are 
the  laws  of  God. 

It  is  clearly  the  responsibility  of  the  Government  to  safeguard  the 
Nation's  present  and  provide  for  its  futniv  in  its  general  administra- 
tioji  of  tbe  ])ubl!c  welfare. 

Immigration  is  not  purely  an  internal  nudter  of  any  nation.  l>y 
its  very  definition  and  scope  it  relates  to  other  nations  and  the  relation- 
ships between  nations.  Immiffration  involves  more  than  the  inttM'ual 
economy  of  a  country.  If  is  also  an  obvious  aspect  and  very  usually 
a  not  unimportant  instrument  of  foreign  policy. 

Though  in  the  practical  order  an  immigration  policy  must  embody 
many  diverse  and  comi)licated  mnfters — at  least,  sudi  is  the  testimony 
of  experience,  one  nuist  be  guided  by  the  ethical  and  moral  conudera- 
tions  in  the  formulation  of  such  a  policy.     To  be  realistic  it  must 


184  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

express  tlie  internal  capacity  of  the  country  and,  at  the  same  time, 
be  in  accord  with  external  obligations  in  the  family  nations. 

There  is  one  more  important  consideration.  As  a  lieoj^le  we  have 
always  recognized,  both  in  personal  and  national  way  of  life,  that  the 
stronger  should  lielp  the  weaker.  These  great  United  States,  by  the 
lavish  hand  of  God  and  the  great  effort  if  its  ingenious  citizeiis/have 
developed  an  economy  unequaled  in  world  history.  The  per  capita 
income  in  the  United  States  is  three  times  higher  than  in  its  nearest 
international  com])etitor.  We  tlierefore  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the 
refugee  problem  abroad,  nor  to  the  api)aning  magnitude  of  the  prob- 
lems confronting  the  overj:)opr>lated  countries  especially  in  Western 
Europe.  If  for  no  other  reason  than  self-interest,  America  must  not 
fail  to  assist  in  the  solution  of  these  problems  since  any  Comnumist 
solution  would  seriously  and  obviously  affect  America's  security. 

In  view,  therefore,  of  the  ])opuiation  pressures  particularly  in  such 
areas  as  Greece,  Italy,  and  Western  Germany,  to  mention  but  a  few, 
it  is  in  the  interests  of  world  peace  and  stability,  and  thus  clearly  in 
America's  own  interests,  to  promote  aud  aid  the  international  solution 
of  the  whole  migration  problem.  ^lore  than  American  advocacy  of 
a  solution,  or  money  to  aid  it,  is  needed.  We  nnist  set  an  example  even 
if  only  through  a  token  share. 

The  great  problem  of  our  times,  it  ap]iears,  is  the  jn-oblem  of  the 
spirit :  The  defense  of  hunuin  freedom  and  human  dignity.  The  most 
formidable  menace  of  communism  is  the  naked  denial  of  man.  Con- 
versely, the  affirmation  of  man's  dignity,  in  addition  to  recognizing 
man's  value :  That  man  was  made  by  God  to  serve  in  His  image^ 
requires  that  arrangements  provide  him  opportunity  for  bread  and 
land  and  work. 

These  few  considerations,  may  I  submit,  of  the  many  that  abound 
and  are  relevant,  seemingly  impose  upon  us  the  duty  to  examine 
our  immigration  policy  in  terms  of  its  conformity  with  America's 
capacity  in  justice,  and  obligation  in  charity  to  the  rest  of  the  world. 
American  immigration  policies,  may  I  therefore  suggest,  if  they  are 
to  express  our  deepest  convictions  and  be  true  to  our  traditions  must 
be  directly  related — because,  obviously,  they  are  a  part  of — the  con- 
temporary social,  economic,  and  political  facts  of  national  and  inter- 
national life.  The  purpose  of  America's  immigration  policy  must  be 
to  admit  rather  than  to  exclude  that  generous  number  which  our 
capacious  dynamic  economy  can  obsorb. 

In  light  of  these  considerations  may  I  accordingly  urge  that  this 
Commission  recommend,  among  many  other  things,  I  hope,  modifica- 
tion of  immio-ration  law  at  least  to  the  following  extent: 

(1)  That  the  1950  instead  of  the  1920  census  be  used. 

(2)  That  quota  numbers  unused  under  this  modified  act  be  made 
available,  as  the  Congress  may  direct  to  deserving  persons  in  the  sur- 
plus population  areas,  especially  of  Western  Europe,  and,  also,  to 
]:)eoples  whose  ntitionality  quotas  were  mortgaged  under  the  emergency 
Displaced  Persons  x\ct. 

(3)  That,  as  soon  as  feasible,  the  visa  mortages  contracted  under 
the  Displaced  Persons  Act  be  canceled. 

(4)  That  in  addition,  as  a  temporary  measure,  provision  be  made 
for  the  admission  as  America's  fair  share  of  limited  numbers  of 
refugees  and  surplus  peoples,  such  as  outlined  in  proposals  before  the 
last  Congress. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         185 

The  Chairman.  Th;iiik  you  very  much.    We  appreciate  your  cour- 
tesy in  coiniuo-  lu're  and  making  a  statement  to  the  Commission, 
judge  Jolin  J.  Rafferty  is  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  JUDGE  JOHN  J.  RAFFEKTY,  EXECUTIVE  SECRE- 
TAEY.  NEW  JEESEY  STATE  LEGISLATIVE  COUNCIL,  CATHOLIC 
DIOCESE  OF  NEW  JEESEY 

Judge  Rafferty.  I  am  Jolm  J.  Rafferty,  55  Paterson  Street,  New 
Brunswick,  N.  J.,  and  1  am  representing  the  New  Jersey  State  Legis- 
lative Council,  of  which  I  am  executive  secretary.  This  council  is 
formed  under  the  approbation  and  encouragement  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Diocese  of  New  Jersey— Paterson  and  Camden — including  what 
might  be  said  to  be  the  Catholic  Church  in  New  Jersey. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  on  behalf  of  the  council  I  should  like 
to  read,  but  before  doing  so  wish  to  make  a  few  remarks. 

I  think  my  first  obsei'vation  should  be  that  it  is  my  view  that  this 
Commission,  having  been  appointed  by  the  President  so  shortly  after 
the  enactment  of  the  1952  codification,  known  as  the  McCarran- Walter 
Act,  the  function  of  the  Commission  is  to  go  out  into  the  grass  roots, 
so  to  speak,  and  see  what  the  grass  roots  are  thinking  about  with  re- 
spect to  this  legislation,  and  to  bring  back  to  the  President  some  spe- 
cific, concrete,  objective  recommendations  for  the  improvement  or 
modification  of  this  bill,  and  the  policies  that  are  included  therein, 
and,  thereafter,  to  make  a  report,  perhaps,  to  the  Congress,  or  to  the 
country,  and  depend  u]K)n  these  grass  roots,  so  to  speak,  to  bring  it 
to  the  attention  of  the  Federal  legislators,  so  that  the  change  may  be 
brought  about. 

I  suppose  that  nothing  has  been  said — certainly  nothing  that  I  shall 
say  has  not  already  been  said  before,  and  I  think  the  Congress  is  well 
aware  of  whatever  may  be  said.  But  I  think,  also,  that  the  Congress 
will  be  responsive  to  the  viewpoints  expressed  to  this  Commission 
under  its  inquiry  into  the  matter. 

I  sliould  iiov.-  like  to  re;ul  for  the  record  my  prepared  statement. 

The  Chairmax.  You  may  do  so. 

Judge  Rafferty.  Within  the  time  allotted  me  I  cannot,  of  course, 
make  any  extended  presentation  of  the  matter  charged  to  your  study 
and  evaluation  by  the  President.  I  shall  limit  myself  to  a  few  points 
respecting  the  current  iunnigration  and  naturalization  laws  as  em- 
bodied in  the  McCarran-AValter  bill  recently  enacted  in  Congress  over 
the  veto  of  the  President  and  which  is  the  present  statutory  law  on 
the  subject. 

We  first  desire  to  endorse,  as  though  set  out  herein  at  length,  the 
veto  message  of  the  President  sent  to  the  Congress  on  June  25,  1952, 
with  his  return  of  this  bill  unapproved  by  him. 

This  legislation  is  uni-ealistic  in  its  application  to  the  world  situation 
of  today;  it  is  contradictory  of  the  great  principles  of  natural  law 
set  forth  in  our  Declaration  of  Independence;  it  is  a  variance  with, 
and  destructive  of,  the  underlying  purposes  of  the  foreign  policy  of 
the  United  States;  it  is  the  latest  emanation  of  a  condemned  and 
detested  principle  of  racism. 

The  philosophy  of  the  McCarran-Walter  bill  would  seem  to  be  that 
the  United  States  of  America  can  continue  in  the  luxury  of  a  sharply 


186  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

restricted  pickiiiir  and  clioosiiio-  from  amovig  the  peoples  of  the  world 
of  those  who  are  to  be  permitted  to  come  to  our  shores.  This  concept, 
if  it  was  not  dead  prior  to  1917,  certainly  expired  with  the  fall  of 
Kerensky  in  Russia  in  that  year.  With  the  emergence  of  communism 
in  Russia  at  that  time  all  of  the  eas}^  standards  of  self-sufficiency  and 
self-complacency  of  nations  were  at  once  destroyed.  The  conflict  there 
ushered  into  the  world  is  one  which  will  not  be  settled  by  force  of 
arms  but,  rather,  one  which  can  only  be  settled  by  the  thinos  of  the 
spirit.  Thereby,  the  spirit  of  our  Declaration  of  Independence  set- 
ting forth  the  inherent  dignity  of  the  individual,  not  merely  citizens  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  but  of  all  people,  was  put  directly  in 
issue.  Our  iunnigration  laws,  at  that  time,  became  a  matter  of  con- 
cern in  the  conflict  and  ceased  to  be  an  instrument  having  as  its  objec- 
tive only  the  comfort  and  convenience  of  the  people  of  this  country. 

No  one  can  complain  against  reasonable  and  proper  restrictions  of 
an  immigration  law  which,  although  self-serving,  are  nevertheless, 
justified  by  the  economy  and  the  peculiar  or  special  interests  of  a 
country.  But  no  one  who  believes  in  the  things  which  we  say  we 
believe  in  can  justify  the  exclusion  of  an  alien  on  the  ground  that  he 
has  suffered  a  conviction  at  the  hands  of  a  Nazi  or  Communist  judge. 
Nor  that  his  racial  ancestry  bars  liirn.  It  seems  impossible  to  justify  a 
quota  system  contained  within  legislation  enacted  in  1952  which  is 
based,  among  other  things,  upon  the  population  of  the  country  as  of 
1920  and  then  only  u])on  a:  portion  of  that  population,  namely,  the 
white  portion.  The  intellectual  dishonesty  of  these  proposals  is 
apparent. 

It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  any  quota  system  which  is  to  com- 
mand the  respect  of  the  people  of  the  world  must  be  based  upon  the 
1950  or  current  census  of  the  country  and  must  include  the  black  man, 
the  red  man,  and  all  other  hues  as  being  part  of  the  population,  as  well 
as  the  white  man. 

This  law  contains  the  indefensible  principle  that  those  who  came  to 
this  country  under  the  Displaced  Perscms  Act  continue  to  be  a  charge 
against  the  quota  of  the  particular  country  of  origin  until  their  number 
has  become  exhausted.  Thus  a  mortgage  of  50  percent  of  quota  is 
laid  against  some  of  these  countries  for  many  years.  Estonia,  Lithu- 
ania, and  Latvia,  for  instance,  will  be  burdened  with  such  a  mortgage 
for  centuries  to  come. 

Italy,  Denmark,  and  Norway,  in  spite  of  the  discouraging  prospects, 
have  a  waiting  list  of  those  who  would  come  to  this  country  of  from 
five  to  six  times  their  respective  quotas.  On  the  other  hand,  only  a 
small  portion  of  the  quota  allotments  to  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  and 
Germany  are  used.  The  unused  ijortion  of  each  allotment  is  canceled 
at  the  end  of  each  quota  year.  If  it  is  agreed  that  this  country  can 
absorb  a  given  number  of  immigrants  per  year  then  there  can  be  no 
just  reason  for  refusing  to  transfer  these  unused  quotas  to  the  Danes, 
the  Norweigans,  the  Italians,  the  Greeks,  the  Austrians,  the  Africans, 
and  others  whose  quotas  not  only  are  mortgaged  as  above  stated  but 
who  have  long  waiting  lists  of  those  waiting  to  come  to  this  coimtry 
and  who,  even  under  the  standards  of  this  legislation,  are  acceptable 
persons.  The  provision  for  cancellation  of  unused  quota  allotments 
rather  than  transfer  thereof  to  other  acceptable  persons  is  a  striking 
instance  of  the  injustice  of  our  inmiigration  laws. 


COMMISSION     OX     IMMKiUAllO.N     ASD    ..\ ATLliALlZATIOX  187 

I  would  like  to  siiy  a  woid  about  the  tlieorv  of  this  lefjislatiou  re- 
.si)eetino-  deportations  ol"  those  who  have  been  admitted  into  this  coun- 
try. Le<ial  procedure  normal  to  eveiy  othei-  I'elationshi})  under  onr 
system  of  irovermnent  is,  to  all  i)ractical  purposes,  abandoned  under 
our  inniiiiiiat  ion  law.  jNferely  to  state  that  the  riii'h's  of  iiidixichials 
are  ))laced  within  an  all-inclusive  disci-etionary  i)ower  of  an  adminis- 
trative ^'overnmental  oHicerAvith  little,  if  any.  op[)ortunity  for  judicial 
review  of  the  acts  of  this  administi'ative  olhcer,  is  to  dam  the  law  under 
traditional  Amei'ii-an  i)rocedure. 

The  denial  to  persons  resident  within  this  country  of  the  pi'otection 
of  statutes  of  limitation  and  the  retroactive  effect  of  new  ^rounds  for 
de])ortation  of  those  Avho  have  es,tal)lished  theii-  homes  and  business 
and  family  t  ies  here,  to  a  country  they  know  not  but  from  whence  they 
came  many  foro-otten  years  ajio  is  violative  of  the  basic  jirinciples  of 
American  justice.  These,  vrith  the  introduction  of  a  number  of  other 
additional  grounds  for  deportation  present  a  legislative  spectacle  that 
makes  the  guarantee  of  privacy  and  of  freedom,  native  to  onr  Govern- 
ment and  of  the  essence  of  our  fundamental  pronouncements  of  indi- 
vidual right  and  of  due  process  of  law,  appear  as  a  mockery  to  an 
inquiring  and  hopeful  mind. 

The  extensive  etl'orts  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  coordinate 
the  activities  of  the  few  remaining  free  governments  of  the  world;  to 
aid  vm\  as-^ist  these  countric^s  and  their  respective  people  in  vitalizing 
the  democratic  concept;  the  building  up  of  the  military  forces  of  these 
countries,  and  the  fair  promises  of  liope  which  we  hold  out  to  them, 
must  all  fall  into  the  pit  of  destruction  when  viewed  practically  in  the 
revelation  of  our  real  attitude  as  expressed  in  this  innnigration  law 
which  says  to  the  world  that  freedom  and  justice,  equality  and  per- 
sonal dignity,  are  for  the  Americans,  but,  as  to  the  others  who  dream 
of  these  things,  they  shall  serve  only  as  our  first  defense  aaginst  the 
onrush  of  communism. 

The  battle  for  the  mind  of  man  is  measurably  aided,  for  the  Connnu- 
nist,  by  the  cruel  discriminations  of  our  immigration  laws. 

1  am  glad  that  this  Commission  is  facing  the  task  of  reaxamining 
oui'  immigration  legislation.  I  hope  that  all  organizations  throughout 
our  country  will  join  with  the  Connnission  in  trying  to  get  a. better 
understanding  of  the  meaning  of  our  immigration  legislation.  I  am 
sure  that  once  the  American  people  have  an  opportunity  of  studying 
this  legislation  for  themselves  that  we  shall  be  able  to  work  out  a  pro- 
gram of  innnigration  legislation  that  will  harmonize  with  the  best 
traditions  of  our  country,  with  the  needs  of  our  country,  and  with  our 
position  as  the  leader  of  the  democratic  nations  of  the  world  today. 

This  iiational  origins  formula,  I  respectfully  submit,  is  based  upon 
a  false,  prejudiced  viewpoint  as  to  the  obligation  of  this  country  to 
the  peoples  of  the  world,  and  when  I  say  "obligation"  I  mean  in  the 
sense  that  Father  Kelly  has  just  refen-ed  to  it.  It  is  not  an  obligation 
in  justice,  but  it  is  an  obliufation  in  charity.  It  is  the  Law  of  (iod.  the 
law  of  love  for  man  to  man.  and  what  applies  to  men  a[)plies  to  mitions, 
because,  after  all.  nations  are  only  aggregations  of  men,  and  as  we 
liaA-e  been  so  blessed,  and,  as  has  been  indicated,  we  have  a  solemn, 
moral  duty,  not  only  to  our  own  people  to  ]irotect  and  defend  them,  but 
to  the  peojjles  of  the  woi-ld  who  are  being  driven  hither  and  yon  by 
the  monstrosity  of  atheistic  coiunnniism. 


188  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

So  I  uro-e  upon  you,  respectfully,  that  this  national  origins  l'->rmula 
must  be  changed  if  we  are  to  be  considered  as  dealing  jnstly  with  the 
})eoples  of  the  world.  It  must  be  changed  so  that  the  unused  ([uota 
mav  be  used  every  vear. 

I  desire  to  point  out  to  you  that  in  the  years  from  lOiii  to  11)51, 
inclusive,  the  authorized  quotas  throughout  the  world  were  approxi- 
mately 11/2  million;  just  a  little  over  a  half  a  million  were  used,  and 
these  was  a  million  unused  quotas,  which  were  canceled  out.  These 
million  unused  quotas  came,  for  instance,  from  Great  Britain,  from 
Ireland,  from  Germany,  where  more  than  50,000  from  just  in  tliose 
three  countries  were  unused. 

We  say  to  you,  respectfully,  that  these  unused  quotas  shoidd  be  dis- 
tributed amongst  the  other  nations  of  the  world,  to  acceptable  persons 
under  the  standards  of  the  act — understand  me,  to  acceptable  persons 
under  the  standards  of  the  act — according  as  the  demand  proportion- 
ately spread  about  comes  from  those  countries. 

We  suggest,  further,  that  the  national  origins  formula  sliould  be 
changed  so  that  it  shall  be  based  upon  the  1950  or  current  census,  that 
is  to  say,  the  196'2  or  197^2,  as  the  decennial  census  comes  along.  It 
sliould  not  be  applied  on  the  basis  on  which  it  is  presently  applied  giv- 
ing Great  Britain,  for  instance,  over  65,000  when  Britain  uses  only 
a  fraction  of  that  number ;  giving  Ireland  over  17,000 — I  don't  recall 
tiie  exact  figures — when  Ireland  has  stopped  being,  to  all  practical  pur- 
poses, a  migrating  country  or  a  migrating  people  The  Irish  are  not 
migrating — their  system  of  law  has  been  changed.  They  are  now  per- 
mitted to  participate  in  government.  They  now  are  acknowledged 
as  the  free  men  that  God  created  them  to  be,  and  they  are  satisfied  to 
stay  in  Ireland,  and  with  Germany,  the  whole  quota  is  not  used  there, 
and  so,  therefore,  we  say  that  these  quotas  must  be  applied  to  tliose 
countries  that  are  needed.  And  from  decennial  period  to'  decennial 
period  this  formula  should  be  changed,  based  upon  the  population  of 
the  country,  the  entire  population — not  a  part  of  the  population — the 
entire  population  of  the  country,  having  determined,  of  course,  how 
many  we  may  properly  and  reasonably  admit,  upon  the  demand  for 
visas  from  tliose  who  wish  to  come  here;  that  is  what  should  deter- 
mine the  situation,  not  where  we  arbitrarily  say  we  will  take  so  many 
English  and  so  many  Irish,  but  how  many  people,  and  from  where, 
wish  to  come  to  this  country. 

Now,  if  they  are  within  the  legislative  standard,  if  they  are  accept- 
able people,  what  difference  should  it  make  to  this  country  from  which 
country  they  come  ?  If  we  say  :  "We  may  take  500,000  people,"  then 
let's  take  the  500,000  people  according  to  the  demands  of  people  to 
come  into  this  country. 

Commissioner  HAitRisoN.  Under  the  argument  you  are  presenting, 
why  is  the  selection  of  any  census  date  relevant  ? 

Judge  Rafferty.  It  is  of  no  importance,  sir,  and  I  am  happy  that 
you  asked  me  the  question.  The  year  u])on  which  it  is  taken,  or  any 
other  factor  which  may  enter  into  it,  is  only  the  process  of  arithmetic 
to  determine  how  many  we  shall  have.  That  is  the  only  importance  it 
has. 

The  over-all  number  is  all  that  is  important  to  me.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  they  can  take  the  census  in  1780,  if  they  wished,  provided  the 
arithmetic  formula  is  applied  which  brings  the  result  we  want. 


COMxMISSION    ON'    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  189 

Coniiiiibsioiier  Hakiusox.  AVhen  you  referred  to  the  1950  census, 
were  you  doing  so  on  a  nationality  basis  with  respect  to  the  other 

countries?  ... 

.Ju(l<re  Rakfkkty.  Only,  sii-,  as  it  troes  into  the  arithmetic  of  the  for- 
mula, that's  all- 
Congress  has  said  we  can  acconnnodate  so  many.  My  yiew])oint 
is  they  should  be  acconnnodated,  and  the  method  of  arriving  at  the 
distribution  and  the  metliod  of  determining  that  figure  is  a  matter  of 
uritlnuetic  with  which  1  am  not  concerned. 

Mr.  KosENFiKLi).  Within  the  principles  you  have  stated,  do  you  con- 
pAdev  the  pre.senl  over-all  ([iiota  figure  of  approximately  154,000  to  be 
approximated 

J  udge  Kafffkty.  Sir.  1  must  say  very  frankly  and  honestly  I  haven't 
the  slightest  idea.  After  all,  I  am  a  lawyer,  I  am  not  a  social  worker 
nor  am  I  one  who  studies  population  trends,  nor  other  things  of  that 
hind.  I  am  trving  to  look  objectively  at  this  law  to  accomplish  what 
1  think  the  law  itself  should  accomplish,  and  I  am  trying  to  give  you 
my  reasons  from  a  lawyer's  vieAvpoint  for  those  conclusions. 

I  don't  know  whether  it  should  be  100,000  or  1,000,000.  I  must 
leave  that  to  others  who  study  those  situations, 

1  have  tried  to  determine  on  what  this  national  origin  quota  rests, 
and  the  only  thing  that  I  can  bring  my  mind  to,  and  it  has  been  stated 
liere  before,  is  that  it  rests  on  tw^o  things:  fear,  and  prejudice  which 
comes  from  fear.  If  there  is  no  fear,  there  is  no  prejuclice.  What 
you  know,  yoi'  arc  not  afraid  of,  and  so  the  prejudice  is  based  on 
fear,  and  what  is  that  fear  ( 

Well,  the  fear  is,  first,  there  may  be  too  many  of  another  kind  of 
people  whom  you  may  not  like  who  will  come  to  this  country.  That, 
of  course,  can  be  dismissed  at  once.  The  next  would  be  fear  of  com- 
petition. Well,  why  should  we  be  afraid  of  competition  'i  We  boast 
about  the  economy  of  this  country.  The  gentleman  who  was  here  a 
few  minutes  ago  told  about  our  wonderful  economy,  and  how  our 
artisans  function  and  produce  all  these  goods,  and  he  indicated,  too, 
that  the  supply  of  these  competent  persons  are  dw^indling  and  falling 
away.  Well,  "now,  gentlemen,  if  it  is  fear  of  competition,  then  I  say 
to  you  that  is  the  best  reason  Avhy  we  should  permit  these  people 
to  come  in,  because  fear  of  competition  admits,  as  a  basic  precept  the 
capacity  of  those  Avho  are  coming  in  to  do  these  things,  and  if  they 
have  the  capacit}',  then  I  say  America  needs  them  and  America  should 
have  them. 

1  think  whatever  fornmla  is  arrived  at  it  should  be  adjusted  from 
time  to  time  according  to  the  realities  of  the  situation.  I  think  this 
business  of  moitgaging  quotas,  which  comes  out  of  the  Displaced  Per- 
sons Act — I  su])pose  it  was  the  best  they  could  get  at  the  time  out  of 
Congress — perpetuated  in  this  act,  I  think  it  ought  to  be  repealed  out- 
light.  These  people  are  here.  These  people  are  established  here. 
And  the  populations  of  Europe  from  Avhich  they  come  should  not  be 
mortgaged,  as  they  put  it. 

NoAv,  that,  gentlemen,  is  very  briefly  Avhat  I  have  to  say.  I  do  ho})e 
1  have  said  it  in  some  manner  that  is  intelligent  and  understandable 
to  you. 

I'lie  Cir.MRM AX.  Thank  a'Ou  A-ery  much,  Judge. 

jNIi'.  James  Wilmcfh  is  .^cluMliilcd  next. 


190  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT  OF  JAMES  L.  WILMETH,  REPRESENTING  THE  NA- 
TIONAL COUNCIL,  JUNIOR  ORDER  UNITED  AMERICAN  MECHAN- 
ICS OF  PHILADELPHIA 

Mr.  WiLMETH.  My  name  is  James  L.  Wilmetli.  I  am  an  attorney 
and  consultant,  and  I  am  here  to  represent  the  national  council,  Junior 
Order  United  American  ^Mechanics  of  Philadelphia,  o(>27  North  Broad 
Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  I  wish  to  read  in  behalf  of  my  organi- 
zation. 

Th.e  Chairman.  We  will  be  glad  to  hear  your  statement. 

Mr.  WiLMETH.  It  is  our  understanding  that  your  honorable  Com- 
mission exists  by  reason  of  the  President's  Executive  Order  No.  10o92, 
bearing  date  of  September  4,  1952,  and  that  your  duties  as  defined 
in  said  Executive  order  are  to  make  a  survey  and  evaluation  of  the  im- 
migration and  naturalization  policies  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
make  recommendations  to  the  President  for  such  legislative,  admin- 
istrative, or  other  action  as  in  your  opinion  may  be  desirable  in  the 
interest  of  the  economy,  security,  and  responsibilities  of  this  country. 

Said  Executive  order  calls  uj^on  the  Commission  to  give  special 
emphasis  and  consideration  to  the  requirements  and  administration 
of  our  immigration  laws  with  respect  to  the  admission,  naturalization, 
and  denaturalization  of  aliens,  and  their  exclusion  and  deportation; 
and  the  admission  of  immigrants  into  this  counti-y  in  the  light  of  our 
present  and  prospective  economic  and  social  conditions,  and  the  effect 
of  our  immigration  hnvs  and  their  administration,  including  the  na- 
tional origin  quota  system,  on  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  ]wlicies  of  the 
Ignited  States,  and  the  need  for  authority  to  meet  emergency  condi- 
tions such  as  the  present  overpopulation  of  parts  of  Western  Europe 
and  the  serious  refugee  and  escapee  problems  in  such  areas. 

The  Junior  Order  United  American  Mechanics  is  incorporated  un- 
der the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.  The  order  of 
fraternity  was  organized  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  oii  May  IT,  1853, 
and  plans  to  celebrate  its  one  hundredth  anniversary  in  1050. 

I  appear  before  you  as  a  representative  of  this  corporation  duly 
authorized  thereto  by  the  national  board  of  officers  of  the  national 
council.  Junior  Order  United  American  Mechanics. 

Your  invitation  for  our  organization  to  present  its  views  before 
your  honorable  Commission  at  this  time  and  place  is  duly  appreciated. 

Our  organization  has  been  active  in  the  matter  of  the  restriction  of 
immigration  into  the  United  States  during  the  larger  part  of  the  his- 
tory of  our  order.  We  were  actively  interested  in  the  immigration 
legislation  of  1917,  wdiich  passed  both  Houses  of  Congress  and  suffered 
the  same  action  by  the  President  as  the  McCarran-Walter  bill  by  re- 
ceiving the  veto  of  the  then  President  of  the  United  States.  We  par- 
ticipated then  in  an  effort  to  override  the  President's  veto  of  this  meas- 
11  re,  the  same  as  we  did  recently  in  the  action  of  the  President  who 
vetoed  this  latest  immigration  bill.  We  take  pride  in  the  fact  that  the 
President's  veto  was  overridden  by  both  Houses  of  Congress,  both  in 
1917  and  1952.  We  also  took  an  active  part  in  promoting  the  Immi- 
gration Act  of  1921  and  the  act  of  1924  which  established  the  national 
origin  q,uota  svstem. 


CUAlMlS81U-\     ().\     I.M.MU.KATIOX     A.XD    XATLUALlZATlUN  191 

I(  will  not  !)('  our  purpose  iu  this  l)i'ief  to  review  the  history  ol'  the 
restriction  of  iiuiiii<iriitioii  into  the  I'nited  States,  but  we  shall  eonline 
oui'  ar<:unieiits  to  the  subjects  ein|)hasi/e(l  in  sect  ion  '1  of  the  Kxecutive 
order. 

^^'e  submit  that  under  section  ::!  ( a  )  of  the  requirements  of  oui'  innui- 
^ration  hnvs  witli  respect  to  the  admission,  naturalization  of  aliens 
and  their  exclusion  and  deportation  is  amply  and  (U\\\  covered  in  the 
^Ic{ 'arran-AA'alter  bill,  and  that  tlie  ])i'ovisions  of  said  bill  are  tlie 
result  of  .")  years*  intensive  study  and  sui'vev  of  the  innnijri'idion  sys- 
tem: the  important  facts  secured  by  the  stud}-  of  the  Senate  Judiciai'v 
Committee  under  Senate  Kesolution  l-iT  are  full  and  coni|)lete.  In 
a.ddition  to  the  wondei-ful  array  of  facts  and  information  the  Senate 
,Iudiciary  Connnittee  assembled,  contacts  svere  made  by  the  Senate 
.ludiciary  (^)nunittee  witli  the  depai'tments  and  bureaus  of  our  (lovern- 
ment  interested  in  the  administration  of  oui*  inuni<>'ration  laws,  aiul 
consultation  was  held  over  all  dis|)uted  points  and  (piestions,  and  in 
addition  the  hearings  covered  the  testimony  of  many  witnesses  both 
for  and  against  tlie  measure.  AVe  submit  that  all  preliminary  work 
necessary  for  the  enactment  of  the  best  innnio-ration  laAv  of  oui'  na- 
tional history  was  made  availalde  and  used  in  the  })reparation  of  this 
latest  Code  of  Inuni<iration  Laws. 

As  stated  by  the  President  in  his  announcement  establishing-  your 
honoi-able  Commission,  the  Ei<rhty-secoud  Congress  devoted  nuicli 
time  and  etloi-t  to  the  j)i'oblein  of  prei)arino:  the  McCarran-Walter  bill. 
Jt  is  worth  while  to  add  that  the  Eighty-first  Congress  also  actively 
cngiiged  in  the  same  research  and  survey  of  the  immigration  system. 

We  submit  that  the  admission  of  aliens  is  well  regulated  uncler  the 
latest  general  law  massed  b}'  Congress,  and  that  the  selectivity  of  aliens 
under  the  quota  system  authorized  therein  will  have  a  far-reaching 
ctlVct  for  good  because  it  limits  admissions  to  those  who  are  of  good 
nior;d  chai'actei',  and  who  i)ossess  special  skills,  education  and  culture 
which  will  be  of  far-i'eaching  beneht  to  American  institutions  and 
economy.  Other  (piota  immigrants  under  the  bill  are  selected  by  rea- 
son of  family  relationshi])s  and  other  unobjectionable  features  for  the 
most  ])art.  though  not  entirely. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  no  substantial  change  should  be  made,  or 
attenq)ted  to  be  made  in  this  measure  so  far  as  section  (a)  is  concerned, 
exce])t  that  we  do  believe  that  impi-ovenients  can  be  made  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  immigi-ation  laws  which  we  shall  discuss  brielfy.  Two 
departments  of  the  (jovei'ument  ai'e  involved  with  ]'es])ect  to  admis- 
sions and  administration,  namely,  the  State  Department  and  the  l)e- 
l)ai-tment  of  Justice.  Immigi'ation  and  naturalization  is  handled  by 
a  bui-eau  of  the  Depai't  inent  of  Just  ice  known  as  the  liui'eau  of  Innni- 
gration  and  Naturalization.  "We  advocate  no  change  in  the  adminis- 
trative set-up  and  submit  that  with  Cabinet  lepresentation  which  we 
consider  to  be  absolutely  necessary,  rather  than  an  independent  bureau 
of  the  Covermnent,  that  the  Tnnnigi'al  ion  and  Naturalization  Service 
is  amply  staffed  and  manned  to  pi'operly  handle  all  immigi'at  ion  mat- 
ters under  the  McCarran-Walter  bill,  and  tliat  thciv  is  absolutely  no 
i-eason  for  an  independent  commission  to  handle  any  new  law  that 
Congress  may  pass,  such  as  H.  R.  7;5T('..  but  that  it  shou'ld  be  legulated, 
controlled,  ami  atlministered  by  the  Immigration  ami  Natui-alization 
Service  under  the  Attorney  General.    This  means  fewer  Government 


192  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

bureaus.  It  means  Cabinet  re])resentation  and,  in  our  opinion,  will 
conduce  to  better  administration  than  an  independent  bureau. 

T'nder  the  matter  of  administration  Ave  call  s])ecial  attention  to  the 
issuance  of  regulations  having  the  force  and  eftect  of  law  by  the  Immi- 
gration and  Xaturalization  Service  through  the  Department  of  Justice. 
The  present  immigration  law  does  not  leave  as  much  room  for  regula- 
tions as  certain  of  the  previous  laws.  We  considei-  that  the  best  ad- 
ministration of  the  immigration  laws  will  come  through  the  strict 
enforcement  of  the  laws  as  they  appear  in  the  new  statute.  We  also 
feel  that  the  naturalization  and  deportation  of  aliens  is  amplj^  and 
fully  covered  under  the  McCarran-Walter  bill. 

We  now  come  to  the  discussion  of  section  2  (b)  which  deals  with 
the  admission  of  immigrants  into  this  country  in  the  light  of  our 
present  and  prospective  economic  and  social  conditions.  We  beg  to 
submit  that  we  consider  tlie  quotas  establislied  in  tlie  ])resent  inunigra- 
tion  law  ample  and  sufficient  for  all  needs  of  our  economic  and  social 
conditions  and  our  general  American  economy.  We  submit  that  it 
would  be  a  useless  thing  to  liberalize  quotas  or  to  enact  special  legisla- 
tion such  as  H.  R.  7376  to  admit  300,000  immigrants  over  and  above  the 
quota  system  because  of  overpopulation  or  charitable  considei-ations. 

In  our  judgment,  it  is  a  poor  policy  to  enact  special  legislation  au- 
thorizing nonquota  visas  for  a  large  number  of  people  to  be  admitted 
as  immigrants,  and  we  would  consider  such  action  by  Congi-ess  as  a 
deliberate  attempt  to  break  down  immigration  barriers  and  to  open  the 
doors  to  immigrants  whose  services  are  not  needed  for  the  w^elfare  or 
well-being  of  the  United  States.  We  are  strictly  opposed  to  the  ])rop- 
osition  of  relieving  overpopulated  countries  sucli  as  Italy,  for  in- 
stance, and  call  attention  to  your  honorable  committee  to  the  fact  that 
we  have  in  the  United  States  overpopulated  areas  and  cities  of  our 
own  where  people  live  in  crowded  tenements  and  many  of  them  in 
})overty.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  Italy  is  an  overpopulated  coun- 
try not  from  infiltration  of  refugees  and  escapees  but  by  its  own 
])rolific  people. 

We  submit  further  that  there  should  be  no  increase  over  the  Mc- 
Carran-Walter bill  quotas  for  Italy,  Japan,  Russia,  and  the  Asiatic 
countries.  All  of  these  nations  now  have  a  quota  and  some  of  them 
contributed  nothing  whatsoever  to  the  colonization  of  America  and  the 
establishment  of  our  Government  and  its  free  institutions  and  liberties. 

We  believe  that  the  quotas  in  the  present  immigration  law  recently 
passed  by  Congress  are  fair  and  just,  and  that  with  tlie  selectiA^e  system 
of  immigration  the  United  States  will  receive  all  of  the  new  blood 
from  the  old  countries  it  needs.  Certainly  we  do  not  wish  to  admit  by 
s])ecial  legislation  a  flood  of  immigrants  who  will  be  in  competition 
with  our  own  working  people  and  whose  services  are  not  now  urgently 
needed,  and  will  be  much  less  needed  after  the  Korean  conflict  is  over 
and  peace  fully  restored.  The  American  people  are  likely  to  find  them- 
selves in  the  position  of  having  a  horde  of  foreigners  here  in  this  coun- 
try when  peace  comes  who  will  have  no  jobs  and  will  be  a  burden  to 
the  taxpayer  by  reason  of  their  being  on  relief  rolls. 

We  have  seen  the  bad  effects  of  unrestricted  immigration.  We  know 
that  there  are  many  people  in  many  lands  who  want  to  come  to  our 
shores,  and  we  know  that  some  of  our  overzealous  people  including 
certain  Senators  and  Representatives  are  pleading  for  their  admission 


COMMISSIOX    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  193 

on  the  <:roiinds  of  present  immigration  laws  being  unfair  and  unjust. 
We  take  no  stock  in  any  such  arguments  and  consider  them  to  be  only 
excuses  for  legishition  which  will  break  down  inunigration  barriers 
and  admit  aliens,  including  refugees  and  escapees  whose  presence  could 
become  a  menace  to  our  own  people.  Of  course,  these  aliens  want  to 
come  to  America  and  their  appeal  is  something  in  the  nature  of  assert- 
ing a  right,  but  we  submit  that  our  own  country  should  be  the  judge 
as  to  eligibility  and  w^ho  may  be  admitted  as  an  immigrant,  and  that 
the  present  good  immigration  law  establishes  in  no  uncertain  terms 
just  who  may  come  and  under  what  conditions. 

Section  2  (c)  requests  your  honorable  committee  to  inquire  and 
survey  as  to  the  effect  of  our  immigration  laws,  their  administration, 
natioual-oi-igin  quota  on  the  conduct  of  foreign  policies  of  the  United 
States  and  the  need  for  authority  to  meet  emergency  conditions. 

We  are  opposed  to  the  establishment  of  any  such  policy.  It  is  con- 
trary to  the  very  nature  and  intent  of  immigration.  We  should  be 
the  judge  and  the  American  people,  through  congressional  legislation, 
are  the  judges  as  to  who  shall  be  admitted  regardless  of  what  other 
nations  nuiy  think  about  it.  It  is  useless  to  advocate  a  plan  or  system 
which  would  grant  emergency  powers  to  relieve  congestion  in  foreign 
countries,  or  to  bring  escapees  and  refugees.  We  are  having  trouble 
here  in  the  United  States  by  reason  of  the  infiltration  of  communism. 
We  are  bidding  for  more  trouble  if  we  liberalize  ottr  immigration 
laws,  throw  down  the  bars  and  let  everyone  who  wants  to  be  admitted 
come  in.  We  tried  that  system  and  had  to  abandon  it.  A  striking 
example  of  liow  such  liberties  are  abtised  arose  from  the  Chinese  sit- 
uation prior  to  the  turn  of  the  century  when,  through  the  promiscuous 
and  unregulated  immigration  of  Chinese  people  and  their  settling  to- 
gether in  large  cities  like  San  Francisco  and  New  York,  they  became 
a  menace  to  our  American  civilization  and,  as  a  result,  Chinese  ex- 
clusion laws  had  to  be  enacted.  We  want  no  repetition  of  such 
conditions. 

Furthei-.  our  order  has  l)een  active  in  the  suppression  of  comnnmism. 
The  McCarran-Walter  bill  is  positive  in  its  control  and  regulation  of 
tlie  admission  of  Connnunist  followers.  We  utter  a  word  of  warning 
in  coiniection  with  escapees  and  refugees  under  any  emergency  or 
liberalized  legislation.  We  feel  that  the  present  law  will  take  ample 
and  suffiiient  care  of  all  such  people.^ 

AVe  submit  to  your  honoi-able  Commission  that  humanitarian  con- 
siderations should  have  no  ])lace  in  immigration  legislation.  To  be 
sure,  we  are  sympathetic  with  those  who  are  in  trouble  Avhich  is  usually 
of  their  own  making  and  not  of  ours.  The  United  States  has  never 
received  any  substantial  consideration  on  humanitarian  grounds  but 
it  is  constantl}'  extending  its  benefits  to  those  who  are  in  trouble,  but 
the  American  people  should  hesitate  before  adopting  any  law  which 
will  admit  people  on  the  grounds  of  s^'mpathy  rather  than  merit. 
What  we  are  ])leading  for  is  confining  our  humanitarian  efforts  to 
those  ])eople  who  are  embraced  within  the  present  statute  without  the 
enactment  of  a  special  law  by  Congress. 

At  a  recent  charities  convention  held  in  the  city  of  Cleveland  one  of 
the  prominent  members  of  vour  honoral)le  Commission  publicly  stated 
that: 

The  quf'Stion  before  tlif  < 'omniission  is  whetlier  the  fraiiiewdrk  of  isolatioiilsni 
of  the  pa«t  two  decades  is  workable  in  tod.-iy's  worM.  and  that  the  Commission 


194         COMMISSION    ON   IMMIGRATION   AND   NATURALIZATION 

will  review  immigration  and  naturalization  laws  with  particular  attention  fniused 
on  the  McCarran-Walter  bill  and  America's  international  position  as  a  result  of 
this  law. 

He  claimed  that  the  door  liad  been  shtit  to  Italians,  Greeks,  and  hun- 
dreds of  displaced  persons  and  escapees  from  behind  the  iron  curtain. 
He  alleged  that  the  latest  immigration  law  contains  "all  the  prejudices 
included  in  the  1924  act  and  that  if  anything  the  law  is  more  exclusive." 
He  advocated  the  disregard  of  national  origins  and  to  have  a  new 
approach  and  a  flexible  policy. 

If  the  statements  alleged  to  have  been  made  by  this  honorable  mem- 
ber of  3'our  Connnission  are  correct  and  in  any  way  reflects  or  speaks 
for  the  Commission  as  a  whole,  then  it  is  time  for  the  patriotic  ])eople 
who  want  to  preserve  our  institutions  and  our  American  way  of  life  to 
advise  your  Commission  in  no  uncertain  terms  that  they  will  bitterly 
ojDpose  any  such  legislation.  It  is  entirely  too  lil)eral.  It  will  admit 
people  who  would  be  unworthy  of  American  citizenshij)  and  would  go 
a  long  way  toward  the  destruction  and  tearing  down  of  all  immigra- 
tion restriction  barriers.  We  want  to  go  on  record  now  with  your  Com- 
mission at  this  hearing  as  opposing  such  liberality  in  dealing  with  the 
important  question  which  atfects  the  American  citizenship. 

At  the  Cleveland  convention  to  which  reference  is  made  above,  other 
influential  American  citizens  advocated  the  destroying  of  quotas  estab- 
lished in  the  McCarran-Walter  bill,  and  the  establishment  of  an  over- 
all quota  of  one  immigrant  for  ever}'  1,000  people  nuiking  up  our  entire 
population.  We  are  opposed  to  any  such  action  or  the  establislunent 
of  any  quota  formula  based  upon  any  such  computation.  We  believe 
that  the  nations  who  wei'e  good  enough  to  give  us  the  solid,  stibstantial, 
patriotic  people  who  founded  this  Government  ouglit  to  have  some 
consideration  or  favor  in  the  matter  of  preferential  quotas,  and  that 
the  doors  should  not  be  thrown  open  to  people  wdiose  chief  aim  in  life 
is  to  reach  the  United  States  as  an  alien  resident  to  enjoy  its  blessings, 
privileges,  and  benefits.  American  citizenshi]:)  is  too  precious  a  thing 
to  be  frittered  avray  in  any  such  manner.  We  hope  your  honorable 
committee  will  entertain  no  views  of  this  kind  when  it  comes  to  making 
up  your  final  report. 

It  has  been  alleged  that  present  quotas  are  inifair  and  unjust.  We 
fail  to  see  any  cogency  in  any  such  statement.  Quotas  were  estab- 
lished after  long  consideration  and  those  nations  which  contributed 
most  were  rewarded  for  their  patriotic  eff^orts.  Those  who  came  as 
pioneers,  helped  settle,  develop,  and  form  the  new  country  are  entitled 
to  our  everlasting  gratitude  and,  in  our  opinion,  to  all  preferences 
which  are  accorded  them  in  the  McCarran-Walter  bill. 

The  restriction  of  immigration  is  a  fixed  policy  with  the  American 
people  and  the  over-riding  of  the  President's  veto  in  the  1917  and  1952 
inmiigration  bills  shows  that  it  is  not  only  fixed  but  is  a  continuing 
policy  which  should  not  be  disturbed  or  interfered  with  by  reason  of 
exigencies  which  arise  and  which  is  of  too  serious  import  to  admit  to 
flexibility.  The  only  thing  that  will  satisfy  the  American  peoi)le  in 
the  matter  of  the  control  of  the  admission  of  new  citizens  to  this  coun- 
try is  a  hard  and  fast  law  such  as  we  now  have  on  our  statute  books. 

We  offer  the  following  suggestions  and  submit  that  they  are  not 
the  views  of  isolationism  but  of  patriotic  American  citizens  who  want 
to  preserve  the  American  Avay  of  life : 


COMMISSION    ON     IM.MK.WA  I  1()\     AND    X AH  liALlZATIOX  195 

1.  The  quota  systoin  sliould  not  he  (list  ihIxmI.  Tt  is  si'Icctiv*'  ami 
Avill  Kriuo-  in  a  jrood  class  of  citiz(Mis. 

-.  ('oulrarv  to  stateint'iits,  we  submit  that  aliens  who  are  admitted 
upon  considerations  of  humanitarianism.  or  refugees  or  escapees  will 
contribute  but  little  to  the  United  States  either  socially  or  politically 
or  economically. 

o.  The  services  of  immigrants  o\ei'  and  above  present  quotas  are 
not  now  needed  in  American  industry. 

4.  Tr  is  a  well-known  fact  that  escapees  and  refuaeps,  or  many  of 
them,  come  from  nations  which  would  not  recei\('  them  back  if  de- 
l-^orted  because  of  violation  of  our  laws. 

5.  To  tear  down  the  innniaration  bars  and  admit  a  Hood  of  innui- 
i:ran.ts  over  and  above  the  (|tiotas  established  in  the  pi'esent  law  would 
work  a  hardship  u])on  oui-  taxpayers  and  American  workiuii'  i)eople 
by  reason  of  competition. 

(■>.  We  suggest  that  the  administration  of  the  innnigration  system 
should  be  placed  under  the  Immigration  and  Xaturalization  Service 
(>f  the  Department  of  .Justice.  This  suggestion  does  not  include  the 
work  now  performed  by  the  State  Department. 

Our  country  fortunately  is  not  bound  by  law,  certainly  not  by  equity 
or  chai-itable  considerations,  by  the  j)ul)lic  good  to  attempt  through 
legii-lation  to  relieve  ()vei"po])ulation  in  any  nation.  We  are  unalter- 
ably op})osed  to  any  legislation  of  this  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Wilmeth. 

The  meeting  will  stand  in  recess  until  1 :  30  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

( \\  liereupon,  at  liJ :  oo  j).  m..  the  Commission  recessed  until  1:30 
\>.  ill.  of  the  same  day.) 


HEARINGS  BEFORE  THE 

PRESIDENT'S  COMMISSION  ON  IMMIGRATION 

AND  NATURALIZATION 


WEDNESDAY.   OCTOBER   1,    1952 
rOUKTlI  SESSION 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

The  President's  Coinmissioii  on  Innnigration  and  Naturalization 
met  at  1  :  )W  p.  m.,  ])nrsnant  to  recess,  in  room  1501),  Admiralty  Court, 
Federal  Court  House  Building,  Foley  Square,  New  York  City,  N.  Y., 
Hon.  Philip  B.  Perlman,  chairman,  presiding. 

Present:  Chairman  Philip  B.  Perlman  and  the  following  Com- 
missioners: Mr.  Earl  G.  Harrison,  Vice  Chairman,  Monsignor  John 
O'Grady,  Dr.  Clarence  E.  Pickett,  Mr.  Thomas  G.  Finucane,  Mr. 
Adrian  S.  Fisher. 

Also  present :  Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield,  executive  director. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  will  come  to  order.  This  after- 
n(K)n  our  first  wit  ness  will  be  Dr.  George  N.  Shuster. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  N.  SHUSTER,  PRESIDENT,  HUNTER  COL- 
LEGE, NEW  YORK,  FORMER  LAND  COMMISSIONER  FOR  BAVARIA, 
GERMANY 

Dr.  Snus'iTiR.  I  am  Dr.  George  N.  Shuster,  G95  Park  Avenue,  New 
York  City,  and  I  am  ])resident  of  Hunter  College.  I  have  prepared  a 
brief  statement,  and  with  your  permission  I  will  read  it. 

The  Chaikman.  We  will  be  pleased  to  hear  it. 

Dr.  Shustkr.  I  shall  discuss  the  problem  which  this  Conmiission  has 
under  consideration  solely  fiom  the  point  of  view  of  an  exofficial  of 
the  Department  of  State  who  served  for  a  year  and  a  half  in  a  critical 
area  of  Europe,  namely  Bavaria.  Into  that  region  there  came  during 
the  war  and  after  it  many  tens  of  thousands  of  disi)laced  persons,  about 
2  million — probably  more — expellees  from  Central  Europe,  and  many 
moi-e  thousands  of  political  refugees  from  Conununist  rule.  For  a 
time  the  social  situation  created  by  these  transfers  of  people,  gen- 
erally under  conditions  which  left  them  utterly  penniless,  was  well- 
nigh  catastropliic.  And  despite  tlie  progi'ess  since  made  to  alleviate 
all  this  human  misery,  neai'ly  (iO.OUO  persons  still  live  in  barracks, 
while  countless  otliei-s  exist  on  doles  in  small  villages  where  there  is 
no  opportunity  to  earn  a  living. 

Efforts  made  by  the  Government  and  the  people  of  the  United 
iStates  to  help  have  been  very  generous,  and  I  am  frank  to  say  that 
without  these  it  would  not  have  been  possible  to  prevent  wholesale 

197 


198  COAIAIISSION    ON    lAFMIGRATION    AXD    NATURALIZATION 

death  of  refuo-ee  me]i,  women,  and  children.  In  })ai-ticnlai-.  the  admis- 
sion to  tlie  United  States  of  considerable  numbers  of  people  testifies 
to  the  excellent  lunnanitai'ian  c()nal)orati()n  established  between  ])iib- 
lic  and  private  afjencies.  What  I  shall  say  about  steps  forward  that 
could  still  be  taken  is  not  intended  to  detract  iji  the  least  from  my 
aj^lireciation  of  what  has  been  accomplished.  This  has  been  a  great 
endeavor,  and  as  an  American  I  am  proud  of  it. 

First  of  all,  I  am  persuaded  that  our  quite  understandable  desire 
to  exclude  pro-Comnumists  and  their  like  has  led  us  to  take  quite 
unrealistic  views  of  what  average  human  beings  have  to  do  under 
totalitarian  regimes.  To  believe,  for  example,  that  a  streetcar  con- 
ductor in  Xazi  Germany  or  a  street  cleaner  in  Communist-dominated 
Poland  should  be  a  man  of  such  heroic  virtue  that  he  will  resist  an 
order  to  join  some  party-dominated  organization  of  conductors  or 
street  cleaners  is,  in  my  opinion,  to  ignore  the  needs  and  limitations 
of  human  nature.  A  totalitarian  regime  is  by  dehnition  one  which 
starves  the  recalcitrant  when  it  does  not  imprison  them  or  chop  off 
their  heads.  I  am  afraid  that  decapitation  will  remain  an  experience 
to  which  few  people  can  look  forward  with  relish. 

The  regulations  currently  in  force  have  led  to  situations  so  ridicu- 
lous that  they  have  had  to  be  revised  on  the  spot.  May  I  give  you  one 
example,  admittedly  extreme?  The  regulation  that  no  one  who  has 
ever  served  a  prison  sentence  could  emigrate  to  the  Ignited  States  led 
to  the  tem])orary  denial  of  a  visa  to  a  young  widow  and  mother  whose 
child  had  been  born  just  prior  to  the  end  of  the  war.  She  brought 
the  baby  home  from  the  hospital  and  was  then  indicted  for  having 
stolen  from  the  hospital  the  diaper  in  which  the  infant  was  wrapped. 
A  jail  sentence  was  imposed  by  a  Xazi  court,  and  this  was  sufficient 
to  hold  up  the  visa. 

Naturally,  we  do  not  want  to  admit  persons  who  admit  to  Commu- 
nist, Nazi,  or  Fascist  philosophies  of  life.  But  when  we  make  the  net 
to  catch  them  so  fine  that  no  one  else  can  get  through,  we  are  defeating 
our  own  purposes.  P'or  it  is  precisely  from  this  group  of  unfortunate 
])eople  now  congregated  without  hope  in  Europe  that  the  America  of 
the  future  could  draw  many  of  its  best  citizens.  And  what  better  de- 
fense against  communism  could  we  think  of  than  one  which  is  designed 
to  prevent  the  growth  to  the  point  of  pestilential  virulence  of  social 
infections  caused  by  poverty,  hopelessness,  and  heartache? 

I  therefore  propose  for  your  consideration  the  following  changes 
of  attitude:  First,  any  ])erson  who  since  May  11)4.")  has  shown  by 
his  public  and  private  conduct  that  he  scorned  every  desire  to  sup- 
port a  Fascist  or  a  Nazi  cause  be  entitled  to  consideration  for  a  visa 
without  reference  to  previous  affiliations,  provided,  of  course,  he  was 
never  convicted  of  a  criminal  offense.  ^Vnd  insofar  as  refugees  from 
communism  are  concerned,  I  should  like  to  contend  that  the  elaborate 
screening  processes  to  which  they  have  been  subjected  by  Central  In- 
telligence and  other  agencies  should  be  accepted  at  their  face  value.  It 
]nay  be  that  a  ciypto-Communist  may  still  get  through,  but  he  would 
be  far  less  dangerous  over  here  than  he  is  in  Western  Oermany  or 
Western  Europe. 

Finally,  I  should  like  to  propose  that  the  quotas,  in  case  we  main- 
tain quotas,  for  the  regions  affected  be  increased  in  number  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  flow  of  political  refugees  from  Eastern  Europe. 


COMMISSIOX    OX    IMMICIUTIOX    AND    XATrRALIZATTOX  199 

Tlial  is.  if  ^^■('steI•tl  (nM-iiiaiiv  ^iivcs  jxjlit ical  a>yliiiii  to  200.000  persons 
<luriii>i-  the  yonv  1!>.")L\  we  lui^-lit  a<riv('  to  admit,  say,  at  least  25  per- 
cent of  tliat  luiinber  in  addition  to  the  estal)lished  (|iiotas.  T  an-ive 
at  tins  Hoiiiv  by  estimatiiiii-  tliat  we  could  absorb  tiiat  many  without 
any  diflicidty.  and  also  that  this  would  he  our  fail-  shaiv.  The  plight 
of  decent  peo})le  from  tlie  east  in  quest  of  freedom  ou<:ht  not  to 
end  in  somethin<i-  worse  than  jail  itself,  namely,  a  concentiation  cen- 
ter in  which  they  are  doomed  to  ve^'etate  witliout  any  o))i)ortuuity  or 
any  antidote  a<>ainst  despaii'. 

In  my  o|)inion,  which  I  oive  you  for  what  little  it  is  worth,  the 
stren<itli  of  our  country — insofar  as  it  is  moral  ])()wer — lies  in  the  hope 
which  its  institutions  and  its  professed  ])olitical  philosophy  can  en- 
kindle in  the  hearts  of  men.  At  this  hour  we  simply  nnist  use  this, 
our  ui-eatest  treasuie,  as  wisely  as  possible.  I  trust,  therefore,  that 
your  connnission  will  understand  me  when  I  say  finally  that  some 
aspects  of  our  system  of  innnijrration  leu'islation  have  sei'ved  to  ad- 
vertise to  people  abroad  less  our  confidence  in  the  future  than  our  dis- 
trust in  it.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  one  kind  of  advertising  that 
does  not  pay.  i 

^Ir.  KosKNFiKLD.  "Would  3'ou  be  in  a  position  to  enli<ihten  the  coni- 
jiiission,  on  the  basis  of  your  exjierience.  as  to  what  is  the  impact, 
if  any.  on  the  foreign  aifairs  and  the  foreign  relations  of  the  United 
States  in  these  immigration  areas  of  your  last  observation? 

Dr.  SiirsTKH.  A^'el],  I  would  say  that  the  most  im]>ortant  im]iact 
is  that  made  on  political  I'efiigees;  that  is,  the  man  who  in  good  faith 
accepts.asyluni  in  the  west.  xVs  a  matter  of  fact,  as  you  know,  lie  is 
very  frequently  attracted  to  the  west  by  what  kind  of  advertising 
that  we  do.  Then,  when  he  arrives  at  his  point  of  destination,  which 
is,  of  course,  some  depot  of  persons  into  which  he  is  put,  unless  he  es- 
capes and  wanders  around  illegally — then,  if  there  is  no  opportunity 
for  him  to  do  anything,  to  go  anywhere,  find  any  work,  first  of  all, 
his  own  decision  in  retros])ect  looks  highly  questionable;  and,  second- 
ly, the  im])act  there  from  where  he  came  is  also  very,  very  seriously  one 
of  disillusionment  and  opposition,  and  we  have  plenty  of  evidence 
to  that  effect. 

The  second  (|uestion  that  I  think  I  can  speak  about,  as  I  have  in 
this  memorandum  I  just  read,  is  tlie  question  of  the  manner  in  which 
we  interpret  for  total  itarian  countries  the  character  of  alliance.  Natu- 
rally, no  one  of  us  would  ever  want  to  admit  somebody  who  had  been 
genuinely  a  Xazi,  or  genuinely  a  Fascist,  Avho  was  interested  in  anti- 
racial  legislation,  but  the  great  majority  of  peoj^le  there  are  in  a  totally 
different  kind  of  category — they  are  people,  who  being  civil  servants, 
or  one  thing  or  another,  were  almost  automatically  inscribed  in  some 
organization.  So  that  the  moment  we  make  membership  in  that  (u-- 
ganization  a  test  of  Xazi  or  Fascist  philosophy  we  exclude  many  fi'om 
any  further  consideration  for  immigration.  In  that  way,  I  think  we 
disillusion  large  masses  of  people  in  those  countries,  make  them  think 
that  our  system  of  evaluation  is  too — if  I  may  use  a  mild  tei'm — 
slightly  erratic. 

Now  I  would  like  to  add  this,  and  I  think  I  would  like  to  add  it  in 
all  fairness:  As  Land  Commissioner  for  Bavaria,  I  had  quite  a  bit  to 
do  with  Ignited  States  rei)resentatives  and  also  with  the  consuls,  and 
I  would  like  to  say  that  on  the  whole  I  think  these  people  did  every- 


200  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

thing  they  possibly  could  to  circinuveiit  the  highly  crippliiio-  letris- 
hition  that  had  been  put  upon  them.  So  I  don't  think  our  bureaucracy 
needs  any  reform.  I  think  Avhat  is  needed  is  a  reform  of  the  lejrrisla- 
tion  by  which  that  bureaucracy  is  necessarily  ooverned. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  may  I  say  in  conclusion,  that  this  has  had 
a  very  important  impact  on  the  manner  in  which  the  peo]>les  of 
Europe,  and  I  can  speak  on  them,  view  the  over-all  policies  of  the 
United  States. 

Oommissioner  O'Grady.  Can  you  give  us  an  estimate  of  the  number 
of  German  expellees  in  Western  Germany  who  cannot  be  absorbed  in 
the  German  economy? 

Dr.  Shustp:r.  Yes,  The  great  majority  of  tlie  people  who  cannot 
be  absorbed  are  the  people  who  are  settled  in  small  towns.  As  you 
know,  tlie  practice  is  through  the  housing  authority  to  assign  a  man, 
wife,  and  children  to  a  person's  house  in  some  g-iven  town;  there  they 
get  a  couple  of  rooms.  As  I  Avent  around  Bavaria  1  was,  of  course, 
startled  by  the  number  of  such  persons. 

Now,  unfortunately,  we  have  no  statistics  that  I  would  reconunend 
to  you  as  being  trustworthy.  I  think,  however,  I  can  estimate  the 
number  of  people  who  cannot  be  absorbed  among  the  German  ex- 
pellees as  in  the  neighborhood  of  II/2  niillion.  Now  many  of  those 
you  probably  would  not  be  able  to  consider  for  immigration  because 
of  the  age  levels  in  which  they  are  found.  Then,  of  course,  there  is 
another  problem,  and  that  is  the  problem  of  the  relative  value  to  the 
economy  of  male  workers  and  female  workers.  So  that  the  surplus 
in  many  respects  is  largely  feminine.  The  surplus  of  young  workers 
between  the  ages  of  16  and  22  is  not  great.  The  potential  surplus  of 
those  who  are  becoming  16  is  very  substantial,  and  I  think  we  may  say 
tliat  unless  there  is  another  mushroom  in  the  German  economy  within 
the  next  3  3'ears  you  will  have  an  employable  youth  surplus  some- 
where in  the  neighborhood  of  150,000. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Frank  W.  Notestein  is  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OE  FRANK  W.  NOTESTEIN,  DIRECTOR  OF  THE  OFFICE 
OF  POPULATION  RESEARCH  AND  PROFESSOR  OF  DEMOGRAPHY, 
PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY 

Professor  Notestein.  I  am  Frank  Wallace  Notestein,  and  I  am 
professor  of  demography  and  director  of  the  office  of  population  re- 
searcli  at  Princeton  University.  I  am  testifying  in  my  individual 
capacity  and  have  a  prepared  statement  I  should  like  to  read. 

The  ChairmxVn.  You  may  do  so. 

Professor  Notestein.  I  believe  I  can  best  assist  your  deliberations 
on  matters  of  migration  by  discussing  our  population  trends  in  re- 
lation to  those  of  the  world.  In  doing  so,  I  should  like  to  touch  first 
on  the  world  situation,  second  on  our  recent  history  of  growth,  third 
on  our  future  prospects,  and  finally  on  some  conclusions  that  seem  to 
me  to  flow  from  the  analysis. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  constitute  a  very  small  proportion 
of  the  world's  total.  In  1950,  only  about  6  percent  of  the  world's  2.3 
billion  lived  within  our  continental  boundaries.  The  most  important 
single  fact  about  our  relatively  small  population  is  that  it  has  inherited 


C0MMIS8I0X    OX    IMMIGRATIOX    AXU    NATURALIZATION  201 

a  large  country  richly  endowed  with  productive  soil,  industrial  raw 
material,  and  fuel.  AVe  now  have  only  52  persons  per  square  mile  of 
our  land  area.  "By  contrast,  Europe,  outside  the  Soviet  Union,  has 
over  2(10  persons  per  square  mile,  and  England,  Belgium,  and  the 
Xetherlands  have  more  than  TOO  persons  per  square  mile.  Needless 
to  say.  the  latter  nations  have  avoided  ])()vert5'  only  because  their 
advanced  technology  permits  theui  to  sell  their  })roductive  services  to 
the  Avorld  in  exchange  for  food  and  raw  materials.  The  major  popu- 
lations of  Asia,  whose  densities  are  several  times  our  own,  live  in 
disease-ridden  povert}'  for  lack  of  both  resources  and  advanced  tech- 
niques. Eor  example,  we  luive  something  like  six  times  as  much  arable 
land  per  person  as  China,  whose  industrial  resources  are  also  poor. 

Other  large  areas  of  the  world  are  virtually  empty,  and  some  of  them 
will  remain  uninhabited  because  they  are  essentially  uninhabitable. 
Still  other  regions,  notably  parts  of  South  America,  Africa,  Borneo, 
and  New  Guinea  have  huge  uninhabited  regions  that  might,  under 
suitable  circumstances,  carry  very  considerable  populations.  In  a 
good  many  cases  it  is  clear  that  development  would  require  heavy 
capital  investment,  for  the  regions  present  special  problems  of  climate, 
teri"aiu.  or  disease.  The  empty  areas  of  the  world  could  certainly  be 
utilized  much  more  fully  than  they  are,  but  speaking  in  general  terms 
the  present  sparse  populations  should  be  taken  as  an  index  of  the  difli- 
culties  to  be  foreseen  in  their  future  development. 

"Whatever  the  future  may  show  in  such  areas,  in  our  own  case  one 
fact  is  clear.  The  single  most  important  source  of  our  health,  pros- 
perity, and  power  lies  in  the  wealth  of  our  resources  in  relation  to  our 
population.  Rich  resources  plus  an  advanced  technology  and  a  rela- 
tively efficient  economic  organization  permit  us  to  produce  almost 
half  of  the  world's  industrial  output,  and  nearly  as  large  a  proportion 
of  the  agricultural  commodities  that  reach  the  world  market,  although 
we  liave  little  more  than  6  percent  of  the  world's  total  population.  It 
is  highly  probable  that  if  we  had  twice  the  population  we  should  be 
both  less  jDrosperous  and  less  powerful  than  we  are. 

We  are  a  small  population,  but  contrary  to  the  current  impressions 
we  are  not  groAving  slowly  com]:)ared  with  the  world  as  a  whole.  It  is 
often  supposed  that  the  populations  of  the  world's  technologically 
undeveloped  regions  are  growing  rather  rapidly  because  their  birth 
rates  are  extremely  high.  Growth  is  rather  rapid  in  some  of  them. 
South  America,  for  example,  has  recently  been  the  most  rapidly  grow- 
ing population  of  all  the  continents,  and  it  probably  will  reinaiji  in 
that  position  for  several  decades  to  come.  Its  very  high  birth  rates  are 
only  paitially  canceled  by  moderately  high  death  rates.  In  most  of 
Asia  and  in  much  of  Africa,  however,  the  very  high  birth  rates  are 
nearly  canceled  by  extremely  high  death  rates,  so  that  growth  on  the 
whole  is  slow.  For  such  huge  populations  as  those  of  Asia,  which 
contains  more  than  a  billion  people,  even  slow  rates  of  growtli  bring- 
large  additions  in  numbers.  The  India-Pakistan  region,  for  example, 
has  grown  much  more  slowly  than  the  United  States  in  the  last  30  years, 
but  its  slow  growth  has  increased  its  population  by  more  than  100 
million. 

At  present  the  population  of  Asia  is  not  growing  rapidly  because 
health  conditions  are  so  tragically  bad.  The  expectation  of  life  at 
birth  is  roughly  one-half  our  own.     Another  wav  of  saying  the  same 


202  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

thing-  is  tliat  it  requires  about  twice  as  many  births  a  year  to  maiiitain 
a  given  population  under  Asiatic  health  conditions  as  under  present 
conditions  in  the  United  States  or  in  Western  Europe.  Any  time  it 
becomes  possible  to  improve  health  in  Asia  rapid  increase  may  be  ex- 
pected. There  is  every  indication  that  birth  rates  will  remain  high 
for  some  decades.  On  the  other  hand,  in  recent  decades  the  world  has 
learned  how  to  reduce  death  rates  with  almost  startling  efficiemy. 

The  experiences  of  Formosa  and  Ceylon  illustrate  the  case.  There, 
economic  development  and  energetic  efforts  to  control  disease  have 
reduced  death  rates  so  that  the  increase  has  been  between  2  and  3  per- 
cent per  year.  Two  percent  doubles  a  population  in  35  years  and 
trebles  it  in  53  years.  How  areas  already  populated  hundreds  t(»  the 
square  mile  are  to  absorb  such  increase  is  the  problem.  The  great 
risk,  of  course,  is  that  the  gains  in  production  that  make  the  growth 
possible  will  be  absorbed  by  the  increase,  and  that  the  ultimate  result 
will  be  larger  po])ulations  living  in  much  the  same  conditions  of  pov- 
erty as  before.  The  breaking  of  this  cycle  of  growth  that  perpetuates 
poverty  is  the  greatest  single  humanitarian  problem  facing  the  world 
toda}^,  and  it  is  not  being  faced  with  elementary  candor  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  more  than  half  of  the  human  race  is  caught  in  it.  Unfor- 
tunately the  jjotential  for  expansion  is  so  huge  as  to  make  it  unlikely 
tliat  migration  can  be  a  major  factor  in  the  general  solution. 

In  Eastern  Europe  and  the  Soviet  Union  population  growth,  so  far 
as  we  can  tell,  is  fairly  rapid.  Both  death  rates  and  birth  rates  are 
high  by  our  standards,  but  in  recent  decades  both  have  been  falling. 
One  does  not,  therefore,  look  forward  to  an  indefinite  period  of  popula- 
tion increase.  Moreover,  the  regions  have  the  resources  and  appar- 
ently are  acquiring  the  productive  skills  to  support  such  increases  as 
are  in  sight.  Given  decent  political  management,  there  seems  to  be 
no  reason  why  their  epoch  of  growth  should  not  run  its  course  before 
resources  are  very  seriouslj^  strained. 

Japan  is  in  a  different  position.  It,  like  England,  with  thousands 
of  people  per  square  mile  of  cultivated  land,  cannot  live  without  selling- 
its  industrial  products  to  the  world  in  exchange  for  food.  It  faces  a 
considerable  period  of  growth.  But  unlike  the  huge  mainland  popu- 
lations of  Asia,  Japan's  transition  to  low  birth  rates  has  been  under 
way  for  a  generation.  Indeed,  there  is  a  good  chance  that  this  year 
Japan's  birth  rate  will  be  lower  than  that  of  the  ITnited  States.  Here, 
then,  is  a  country  whose  problems  would  be  greatly  simplified  if  emi- 
gration could  take  off  some  of  the  increase  for  a  matter  of  one  or  two 
decades. 

In  Southern  Europe  a  somewhat  similar  situation  is  found.  In 
Italy,  Spain,  and  Portugal  there  are  some  decades  of  growth  ahead. 
The  growth  potential  is  much  less  than  is  commonly  realized,  for  birth 
rates  have  been  falling  fast.  Italy's  birth  rate  in  fact  has  been  below 
that  of  the  United  States  for  the  last  several  years.  Indeed,  a  perpetu- 
ation of  the  present  chances  of  birth  and  death  would  in  the  long  run 
lead  to  a  decline  in  the  population  of  Italy.  However,  its  age  distri- 
bution is  favorable  to  growth  so  that  growth  will  probably  continue 
for  some  decades,  and  the  population  is  already  pressing  heavily  on  its 
resources.  The  Italian  economy  would  undoubtedly  be  assisted  by 
substantial  emigration  for  a  decade  or  so.  Even  more  clearly  than  in 
the  case  of  Japan,  the  need  for  migratory  outlet  seems  to  be  of  a  rather 
temporary  sort. 


COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  203 

West(Mn  Eui()i)e"s  position  is  si  ill  (litieient.  liv  iuid  laiiie  its 
situation  is  analogous  to  our  oAvn  except  that,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is 
more  densely  populated  and,  on  the  other  hand,  its  pros])ective  increase 
is  slower.  Life  is  efficiently  maintained  on  a  rather  close  balance  of 
low  birth  and  death  rates.  Indeed,  in  the  dei)ressi()ii  decade  of  the 
lS>;U)*s  the  oidy  countries  of  Northwestern  Euiope  that  were  reproduc- 
ing- at  rates  sufficient  to  forestall  eventual  poi)ulation  decline  were  the 
Xetherlands  aiul  Ireland.  The  special  circumstances  of  the  war  and 
the  ])ostwar  years  have  brought  a  remarkable  and  unforeseen  resur- 
iience  of  births,  but  one  that  shows  sign  of  ebhino-.  Jn  a  sensibly  or- 
pmized  and  functioning  world  economy,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  area 
would  be  a  major  source  of  future  mi<rrants.  Its  period  of  almost 
automatic  o-rowth  is  past.  Indeed,  France  is  a  major  recipient  of 
innnigration,  and  several  states  of  the  area  have  govermnental  policies 
designed  to  stimulate  a  rise  in  the  birth  rate.  Political  dislocations, 
particularly  in  Germany,  have  created  a  pool  of  eligible  migrants,  but 
the  source  lies  in  the  disorganization  of  the  world  economy  an.d  not  in 
the  fundamentals  of  the  demographic  i^osition.  The  problem  is  an 
innnediate,  not  a  long-range,  one. 

"We  may  turn  from  this  highly  condensed  survej'  of  the  world  to 
consider  our  own  situation.  We  have  been  one  of  the  most  rapidly 
growing  po])ulations  of  the  world.  Thanks  to  the  possibility  of  using 
our  natural  resources  with  almost  profligate  abandon,  we  supported 
rates  of  population  increase  of  about  8  ])ercent  per  year  from  1750  to 
1850.  Thereafter,  our  rate  of  growth  fell  rapidly.  The  population 
increased  only  at  an  annual  rate  of  1.5  percent  between  11)00  and  1950 
but,  even  so,  we  virtually  doubled  our  size  in  the  first  half  of  this 
century.  Up  to  the  outbreak  of  the  last  World  War,  however,  the 
rate  was  falling.  In  the  depression  decade  of  the  thirties  our  annual 
increase  was  onh-  about  0.6  of  1  percent.  In  that  decade,  too,  chances 
of  birth  and  death  were  ones  that  if  perpetuated  would  just  about 
maintain  a  stationary  population  in  the  long  run.  It  was  then 
that  most  of  us  who  study  population  trends  were  predicting  slowing 
growth  and  perhaps  the  onset  of  population  decline  for  the  United 
States  in  a  few^  decades. 

Quickly  on  the  heels  of  these  predictions  of  an  impending  end  to 
growth  came  the  most  remarkable  resurgence  of  childbearing  in  the 
Nation's  history.  From  a  depression  low  of  a  little  over  2  million 
births  a  year  we  jumped  to  a  postwar  high  of  nearly  4  million  births. 
^Meanwhile,  death  rates  droj)ped  with  remarkable  speed.  As  a  result, 
in  the  wartime  decade  the  population  grew  again  at  a  rate  of  about 
1.5  percent  per  year. 

AVhat.  then,  are  our  prospects  for  future  population  increase?  The 
first  thing  to  note  is  that  the  experience  of  the  1940's  is  not  likely  to 
be  continued,  and  fortunately  so.  Growth  at  that  rate  would  give  us 
a  population  of  half  a  billion  within  the  lifetime  of  people  already 
born.  The  main  source  of  the  increase  was  an  increase  in  marriage 
which  came,  in  turn,  from  a  declining  age  at  marriage.  When  mar- 
riage age  stops  dro])})ing,  that  source  of  increase  disappears,  and  if 
marriage  age  should  begin  to  rise,  the  drop  in  births  might  become 
very  sharp.  Another  source  of  the  increase  apparently  was  the  de- 
clining popularity  of  the  childless  and  one-child  famih'.  The  evi- 
dence is  not  yet  entirely  clear,  but  there  may  have  also  been  some  in- 

25356 — 52 14 


204  COMMISSION    ox    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

crease  in  the  popularity  of  the  three-child  family.  At  the  other  end 
of  the  scale,  however,  the  evidence  is  unambiguous.  The  truly  large 
family  has  become  progressively  less  popular  throughout  the  upsurge 
in  births.  The  fact  to  note  is  that  the  increase  in  marriage  cannot 
be  sustained  at  its  past  high  levels.  The  high  rates  of  childbearing 
of  the  forties  could  be  maintained  only  if  new  factors,  of  which  there 
has  thus  far  been  no  sign,  were  to  come  into  play.  It  is  this  fact  that 
leads  most  of  us  to  suppose  that  the  stream  of  births  will  shrink  dur- 
ing the  current  decade,  and  rise  again  in  the  1960's  when  the  large 
birth  classes  of  the  1940's  enter  the  ages  of  reproduction. 

On  balance,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  new  world  war,  it  seems  likely 
that  our  population  will  continue  to  grow  in  the  foreseeable  future, 
but  at  a  substantially  lower  rate  than  during  the  1940's.  In  all  prob- 
ability, I  might  say,  we  shall  have  more  than  200  million  people  by 
the  end  of  the  century.  The  population  then  will  in  all  probability 
have  a  higher  average  age  than  it  does  at  present,  but  it  should  still 
have  a  rather  favorable  ratio  of  persons  in  the  working  ages  to  those 
in  the  ages  of  economic  dependency. 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  this  position  for  our  national  pros- 
perity ?  Well,  for  the  record,  I  will  run  through  the  argument  that 
I  am  going  to  say  directly — that  it  is  wholly  indecisive  in  its  nature. 
The  sheer  fact  is  that  no  one  can  prove  that  we  would  be  economically 
better  off  from  the  point  of  view  of  per  capita  income,  maximizing 
per  capita  income,  if  we  had  100  million  than  if  Ave  had  200  million, 
or  vice  versa.  One  can  talk  at  great  length  about  it,  but  the  evidence 
is  not  something  that  lies  in  the  field  of  proof.  Strictly  from  the 
point  of  view  of  a  favorable  economic  position  as  judged  by  per 
capita  income,  it  is  most  unlikely  that  there  is  any  advantage  in  a 
larger  population.  The  only  advantage  that  flows  from  larger  num- 
bers per  se  results  from  the  economies  of  specialization  and  of  scale 
of  operation.  It  would  be  very  difficult  to  prove  that  we  do  not  al- 
ready have  ample  numbers  to  reap  such  economies.  Indeed,  we 
might  do  so  even  with  smaller  numbers  than  we  now  have.  On  the 
other  hand,  larger  populations  do  entail  progressively  heavy  drafts 
on  our  resources,  many  of  which  are  in  limited  supply  and  irreplace- 
able. Technological  advance  in  the  past  has  of  course  often  more 
than  canceled  the  rising  costs  of  materials ;  new  advances  in  technique 
will  tend  to  offset  rising  costs  in  the  future.  It  remains  true  that 
many  of  the  gains  used  to  cancel  rising  costs  cannot  be  used  to  im- 
prove living  conditions. 

Apart  from  matters  of  size,  there  is  the  question  of  growth  itself. 
A  growing  population  gives  a  form  of  mild  stimulation  to  the  economy, 
partly  because  of  the  fact  that  a  growing  population  is  younger  than 
a  stationary  one,  and  has  elements  of  flexibility  that  are  not  present 
if  growth  is  lacking.  It  is  quite  possible  that  within  the  range  of 
the  probable  trends,  the  advantages  of  growth  might  for  a  time  out- 
weigh the  penalties  of  the  larger  size  that  growth  entails.  The  pen- 
alties, however,  would  be  postponed,  not  avoided. 

All  this  amounts  to  saying  that  no  one  can  demonstrate  that  our 
per  capita  incomes  would  be  improved  by  having  a  population  over, 
say,  100  million.  On  the  other  hand,  neither  can  anyone  prove  that 
the  position  would  be  appreciably  worse  if  we  were  to  go  to  200  million 
and  perhaps  a  good  deal  more.     It  probably  will  turn  out  that  a 


COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  205 

Avliole  range  of  factors  are  "oin^  to  liave  such  a  larce  effect  on  our 
l>er  capita  income  that  tlie  matter  of  our  size  within  foreseeable  limits 
juay  be  i-elatively  unimportant.  Moreover,  if  one  attempts  to  maxi- 
mize per  capita  income  to  matters  of  national  military  and  economic 
pov.-er  there  is  something  to  be  said  for  the  higher  ligure. 

With  respect  to  the  migration  policy  of  the  I'nited  Stat(>s,  the  factors 
'Nvitli  which  I  have  dealt,  if  they  alone  were  involved,  would,  it  seems 
to  me.  lead  to  the  following  conclusions : 

1.  At  present,  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  own  economic  advan- 
tage, there  is  no  evidence  that  we  need  any  innnigr-ation  to  increase 
the  size  of  our  po[)ulation.  It  is,  however,  equally  impossible  to  show 
that  a  net  immigration  of,  say,  5  million  in  the  next  decade  would  do 
the  slightest  harm  so  far  as  numbers  are  concerned. 

2.  It  would,  however,  be  wantonly  reckless  of  us  to  endeavor  to 
accept  immigration  on  a  scale  that  would  have  any  appreciable  effect 
on  the  world's  major  areas  of  population  pressure.  To  do  so  would 
be  to  jeopardize  our  own  standards  of  living  without  the  assurance 
of  rendering  appreciable  aid  to  the  sending  areas.  This  does  not 
mean  that  1  personally  apjn^ove  of  oriental  exclusion  or  of  the  trivial 
quotas  now  assigned  to  the  oriental  nations.  My  hope  that  these 
(piotas  will  be  relaxed  to  some  extent  rests  on  other  grounds  than 
those  under  discussion  here.  The  fact  is  that  no  scale  of  immigi-ation 
that  would  be  safe  for  us  will  significantly  improve  the  lot  of  the 
inajor  populations  whose  birth  rates  remain  at  the  high  levels  char- 
acterizing peasant  societies  throughout  the  world.  An  essential  part 
of  the  solution  to  their  problems  of  poverty  must  be  the  reduction 
of  their  birth  rates, 

3.  Within  the  scope  of  a  reasonably  small  immigration — one  of  the 
general  order  of  5  million  within  10  years — it  is  possible  that  a  pro- 
gram might  be  designed  that  would  work  to  our  own  advantage  as  well 
as  to  the  advantage  of  selected  regions  of  origin.  The  rapid  current 
increases  of  our  total  population,  the  high  level  of  civilian  economic 
acti\^ty,  and  the  large  demands  of  the  Armed  Forces  are  all  creating 
strains  in  the  economy.  At  the  same  time  the  short  birth  classes  of 
the  depression  years  are  cutting  the  rates  of  grovrth  of  our  labor 
force.  A  considerable  immigration  of  young  workers,  particularly 
in  the  next  2  or  3  years,  could  assist  in  relieving  these  strains.  It 
would  hel])  even  out  the  dip  in  our  age  distribution  and  tend  to  mini- 
jnize  the  chance  of  a  secondary  shrinkage  of  our  parental  stocks  a 
generation  hence. 

To  draw  such  workers  heavily  from  the  countries  of  Northwestern 
Europe,  in  line  with  the  concept  of  quotas  based  on  national  origins, 
would  probably  be  impossible  except  in  the  cases  of  the  Netherlands 
and  Germany.  Moreover,  if  it  were  possible,  it  would  probably  be 
disadvantageous  to  the  sending  regions.  They  are  in  much  the  same 
position  as  we  are  with  res])ect  to  the  shortage  of  young  workers.  On 
the  other  hand,  to  draw  such  workers  from  Germany,  Italy,  and  Japan, 
where  they  are  not  efficiently  utilized  and  where  temporary  relief  is 
needed,  would  materially  help  those  countries.  Other  considerations 
than  those  of  numbers  and  age  distributions  are,  of  course,  invoh^cd 
for  both  the  sending  and  receiving  areas.  However,  the  pro])osition 
that  we  should  endeavor  to  utilize  our  limited  capacity  for  absorption 
in  ways  that  assist  the  sending  countries  over  their  period  of  tem- 


206  COMMISSION    ox    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

porarv  difficulty  has  strono'  appeal.  From  that  point  of  view,  our 
present  system  of  quotas  leased  on  national  orioins  has  the  <ireat  disad- 
vantage of  permitting  immigration  from  countries  that  do  not  need 
it  and  of  barring  immigration  from  precisely  the  countries  to  ^vhicli 
it  would  give  the  most  effective  relief. 

•1.  We  know  so  little  of  what  the  future  will  bring  that  our  policies- 
should  be  kept  under  constant  review. 

5.  Finally,  I  do  want  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  I  was  asked  to  come 
here  as  a  demographer,  and  I  have  discussed  the  problem  from  a  demo- 
graphic point  of  view.  In  doing  so  I  fully  recognize  that  wise  policy 
must  be  based  on  a  much  wider  range  of  considerations  than  that  to 
which  I  have  been  asked  to  address  myself  or  than  that  which  I  can 
discuss  with  professional  competence. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Could  you  compare  the  relative  growth  pattern  of 
the  United  States  with  the  growth  pattern  of  the  areas  behind  the  iron 
curtain? 

Professor  Notestetx.  The  areas  behind  the  iron  curtain,  if  one  neii'- 
lects  war  and  assumes  that  over  a  considerable  time  there  may  come 
a  reasonable  political  management  so  that  people  just  aren't  slaugh- 
tered, those  areas  ought  to  groAv  pretty  rapidly.  The  situation,  in 
principle,  is  this:  Their  death  rates  are  still  quite  high;  their  birth 
rates  are  still  very  high.  Recently  we  know  little  about  them,  but 
both,  over  the  long  pull,  say,  since  IIUO,  have  been  declining  very 
rapidly,  with  the  death  rate  leading  the  birth  rate  down,  as  it 
almost  always  does  in  these  transitions.  This  gap  is  a  very  ditticult 
gap  to  close,  even  if  a  nation  wanted  to,  and  I  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  these  nations  do  want  to  close  that  gap.  A  growing- 
population  having  had  in  the  past  a  high  death  rate  is  a  young  popu- 
lation. It  has  high  proportions  of  people  in  the  very  low  ages  and 
rather  few  at  the  top.  This  means  that  if  death  rates  are  brought 
down  these  large  numbers  of  births  will  move  into  the  child-bearing- 
period  and  these  people  will  then  become  potential  parents.  It  would 
likewise  aft'ect  the  arms-bearing  period. 

In  any  circumstance,  the  situation  is  one  that  is  almost  set  up  for 
an  automatic  period  of  growth  of  some  decades. 

Mr.  RosEXEiELD.  What  do  you  estimate  the  population  of  the  United 
States  M-ill  reach  by  the  year  2000? 

Professor  Noti':steix.  At  least  200  million  people.  It  may  well  on 
current  census  estimates  reach  200  million  by  1975. 

Mv.  RosExriELD.  What  do  you  estimate  it  will  be  for  the  iron- 
curtain  area  for  a  comparable  period  ? 

Professor  Notesteix.  I  think  you  can  estimate  it  will  go  from 
wherever  it  is  now  to  the  rate  of  at  least  II/2  percent  per  year.  It  is  200 
million  now. 

Mr.  RosEXFiEED.  Are  vou  savino-  our  population  should  reach  at 
least  200,000,000  by  then,^and  theirs  300,000,000? 

Professor  Notesteix.  No  ;  their  population — the  U.  S.  S.  R.  popu- 
lation, to  the  best  of  one's  guess  is  of  the  order  of  200,000,000  now,  plus 
or  minus  10  or  15  million — they  don't  tell.  Now,  if  it  were  to  gi'ow 
at  one-half  of  1  percent  per  year  for  over  a  50-year  period  that  would 
be  400,000,000. 

I  should  like  to  emphasize  that  is  not  just  behind  the  iron  curtain; 
■that  is,  the  U.  S.  S.  R.  within  its  present  territory.    I  should  like  to 


COMMISSION'   OX   i.M.Mi(;i;\riox  and  xaitralizatiox       207 

enipliasize  tli.-it  it  is  not  at  all  a  cli'ar  (|iH'sti()ii  that  Russia  will  he  the 
more  ))oAvert'iil  or  the  more  prosperous  for  that  o-rowth:  in  many  re- 
speets  iis  resouii'e  base  is  not  as  desirable  a  base  as  oui's. 

Xo\\ .  I  am  not  expert  in  a<irii'ulture  and  minerals,  and  probably  you 
peo]>le  will  have  someone  testify  to  you  on  these,  l)ut  it  is  my  im))res- 
sion  rhat  our  a^ricultui'e  potential  is  a  a'ood  deal  hi<i:her  than  that  of 
Russia,  and  tliat  there  are  a  good  many  hi<ih-cost  features  in  the  loca- 
tion of  tlieir  iron  and  tlieii"  coal.  'I'hat  doesn't  say  for  a  moment  that 
liussia  cannot  su])port  that  sort  of  increase:  it  prijbably  can.  and  ))r()b- 
al)ly  at  a  good  deal  better  livino-  level  than  it  has  now.  Uut  I  suspect 
that  Russia  would  be  both  more  prosperous  ami  the  more  poAverfid  if 
in  .'»()  years  it  did  not  have  to  double  its  already  pretty  large  [)opulation. 

C'oHDnissioner  Fisii.ok.  Professor  Xotestein,  will  you  explain  again 
the  s])('cinl  factors  that  make  you  think  that  within  what  you  referred 
to  as  the  "scope  of  a  reasonably  small  immigration"  in  terms  of  United 
States  capacity  to  absorb,  it  could  be  advantageous  to  both  the  United 
States  and  some  countries  burdened  with  overpopulation,  while  not 
to  other  overpopulated  countries^ 

Professor  Xotestein.  In  the  general  transition  from  the  present 
modern  pei'iod  of  societies  that  maintained  their  ))op\dations  on  the 
basis  of  extremely  high  birth  rates  canceled  out  by  extremely  high 
death  rates — in  the  transition  from  that  situation,  which  was  ours  some 
hundred  or  so  years  ago,  to  the  modern  situation  of  the  adA^anced 
countries  of  low  birth  and  death  rates,  the  death  rate  always  leads 
the  tiend.  leads  the  birth  rate  down,  for  a  very  simple  reason :  People 
all  agree  they  like  to  stay  alive,  and  this  is  a  very  universal  want 
around  the  Avorld.  There  are  no  substantial  social  inhibitions  to  keep- 
ing alive.  People  do  not  all  agree  that  it  is  a  good  thing  to  have  small 
families:  on  the  contrary,  many  cultures  are  organized  in  ways  that 
give  you  lai'ge  fannlies. 

Xow,  to  reverse  this  deeply  laid  social  value  that  produces  the  big- 
families  into  one  that  prefers  small  families  almost  always  takes  time. 
So.  the  transition  of  birth  rates  from  high  to  low  lags  a  great  deal 
l>ehind  the  transition  of  the  death  rate  from  high  to  low,  and  out  of 
that  lag  comes  the  modern  epoch  of  growth  in  which  ])opulations  of 
European  extraction  have  gone  through  al)()ut  a  sevenfold  increase  in, 
say.  ;>(>()  years.  That  is  the  source  of  the  sort  of  world  explosive  growth 
f)f  })opulation.  X'^ow  1  only  specify  that  to  point  out  that  some  coun- 
tries are  in  one  })osition  on  that  general  transition,  and  others  are  in 
another. 

Xow.  in  the  case  of  such  areas  as  Italy  and  Japan,  which  I  happen 
to  have  selected  out,  that  transitional  growth  is  getting  close  to  pass. 
A  generation  ago,  two  decades  ago,  Italy  was  still  growing  with  a 
rather  wide  margin  between  these  two,  but  I  suspect  I  sur])rised  a  few 
of  you  when  I  pointed  out  that  as  of  today  Italy's  birth  rate  is  below 
that  of  the  United  States.  There  is  a  rather  good  chance  that  this 
year  Jai)an's  birth  rate  will  be  below  that  of  the  United  States.  I 
may  say  that  in  both  cases  some  economic  pros])erity  would  probably 
bring  those  bii'th  i-ates  back  up  again,  and  oui-  birth  rate  is  a  little 
unusually  high. 

Xevertheless,  the  accommodation  to  a  general  pattern  of  low  birth 
and  death  rate  is  well  under  way  in  this  country;  so,  if  one  views  the 
pro}>lem  of  whether  innnigi'ation  will  helj),  you  ai"e  not  fishing  out  of 


7 


208  COMMISSIOX    ox    IMMIGRATIOX    AXD    XATIRALIZATIOX 

an  endless  stream.  If  we  try  to  absorb  immigration  from  India  today 
it  wonkl  be  like  trying  to  empty  a  stream  with  a  dipper — the  more 
you  took,  the  more  there  Avonld  lie,  and  yon  soh'e  no  very  long-rmi 
problems  for  those  countries.  In  the  case  of  Italy  and  Japan  and  other 
countries  of  this  sort,  it  is  not  an  endless  gi-owth.  Now,  it  just  so 
happens  that  the  past  events  have  left  them  pretty  heavily  concentrated 
in  the  j'oung  ages,  and  that  their  economies  and  resource  bases  aren't 
in  sorts  of  situations  that  permit  a  very  effective  us  of  those  people.  It 
would  help  if  Me  could  take  over  some  of  the  crest  of  this  transitional 
groM'th  by  utilizing  some  of  their  younger  workers,  and  that  would 
happen  to  fit  into  a  notch  that  is  in  our  age  distribution  produced  by 
the  shortage  of  births  in  the  depression  years.  We  have  a  gap  in  there 
that  w411  produce  a  secondai'y  gap  a  generation  hence. 

I  think  it  would  help  tliem  to  some  extent,  and  it  would  help  us  to 
some  extent.  I  think  it  w-ould  help  them,  because  this  is  a  matter  of 
two  or  three  decades,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  peculiar  urgency  when  the 
world  economy  is  not  in  a  position  to  function  effecti\e]y. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  ver}'  much. 

Is  Mr.  Emmet  here  ? 

STATEMENT  OE  CHEISTOPHEE  EMMET.  EXECUTIVE  VICE  CHAIR- 
MAN, AID  REFUGEE  CHINESE  INTELLECTUALS,  INC. 

Mr.  Emmet.  I  am  Christopher  Emmet,  executive  secretary  of  Aid 
Refugee  Chinese  Intellectuals,  537  Fifth  Avenue,  Ncav  York  City.  I 
represent  that  organization  at  this  hearing. 

I  have  a  statement  I  wish  to  read. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

Mr.  Emmet.  Aid  Refugee  Chinese  Intellectuals  was  organized  last 
February  to  help  relieve  the  terrible  problems  caused  by  the  gi'eat 
flood  or  refugees  from  Chinese  communism  now  in  Hong  Kong.  Our 
chairman  is  Congi'essman  AValter  H.  Judd  of  Minnesota,  who  for  10 
years  was  a  medical  missionary  in  China.  Ours  is  a  strictly  non- 
partisan committee.  Among  our  sponsors  are  General  Marshall,  Gen- 
eral Chennault,  Senator  Douglas,  Senator  Taft,  Senator  Duff,  former 
Governor  Edison  of  New  Jersey,  Admiral  Nimitz,  and  President 
Green  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  I  am  the  executive  vice 
chairman.     Our  aims  are  set  forth  in  the  following  memorandum : 

Statement  of  PiTiPiJSics  of  Am  Refugee  Chinese  Inteilectuals.  Inc. 

Tlie  Committee  to  Aid  Chinese  Intellectuals  is  a  nonprofit,  nonpolltical.  uou- 
partisan,  nonsectarian  voluntary  relief  agency,  organized  for  the  following  pur- 
poses : 

1.  To  provide  material  aid  and  arrange  resettlement  and  rehabiliration  of 
Chinese  intellectuals  who  are  destitute,  ill,  or  in  danger  as  refugees  from  totali- 
tarian oppression. 

2.  To  administer  such  relief  within  the  framework  of  this  very  broad  criterion 
without  discrimination  or  preference  among  the  numerous  legitimate  varieties 
of  democratic  and  non-Communist  views. 

8.  To  direct  public  attenticm  to  the  plight  of  all  such  oppressed  and  imperiled 
people  in  Asia  with  a  view  toward  mobilizing  aid. 

4.  To  receive  funds  for  the  promotion  of  the  above-enumerated  purix>s»^s  and 
to  exi>end,  contribute,  and  disburse  funds  for  such  puriwses  either  dire«'tly  o^ 
through  other  agencies,  organizations,  or  institutions. 


(,()-M-M18S10.\    (tX     IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  209 

May  I  call  to  your  attention  a  pamphlet  containing;  a  message  on 
tlie  problems  of  the  refup;ee  Chinese  intellectuals  '  and  these  two  clip- 
pings fi'oin  the  New  York  Times. 

(Tlie  two  New  York  Times  articles  referred  to  are  as  follows:) 

[The  New  York  Times,  August  5, 1952] 

Formosa  To  s^udy  Refugee  Problem — Committee  Is  Formed  To  Help  U.NrrEu 
States  Grovp  Find  Jobs  kou  l'O.OOO  Now  in  Hong  Kong 

Hong  Kong.  August  4. — A  committee  headed  by  Dr.  Han  Lih-wu,  the  former 
Minist(>r  of  F^dueation,  has  been  establislied  in  Nationalist  Formosa  to  survey 
employment  ixjssibilities  there  with  a  view  to  resettling  at  least  some  of  the 
thousands  of  (Miinese  intollertuals  stranded  in  Hong  Kong  as  refugees  from  the 
('ommunist-held  mainland.  Dr.  IIan"s  group  consists  of  l.j  Chinese  and  .Ameri- 
can members. 

Announcement  of  the  formation  of  the  committee  was  made  here  today  by 
Harold  L.  Oram,  a  special  representative  of  Aid  Refugee  Chinese  Intellectuals, 
Inc.  Tlie  refugee  group,  which  is  headed  by  Dr.  Walter  II.  Judd,  a  Republican 
Representative  from  Minnesota,  is  a  nonpartisan  volunteer  agency  that  was  es- 
tablished in  the  I'nited  States  in  February  for  the  relief,  resettlement,  and  re- 
liabiiitation  of  the  hard-pressed  Chinese  intellectuals. 

.Mr.  Oram,  who  had  just  returned  from  a  visit  to  Formosa,  said  he  was  en- 
couraged by  the  sympathetic  attitude  of  the  Chinese  Nationalist  officials  in 
Taii>ei.  He  expressed  hope  that  the  intellectual  refugees  for  whom  job  openings 
are  found  in  Formosa  would  get  entry  permits  quickly  once  they  passed  a  secu- 
rity check. 

more  than  20,000  registered 

More  than  '20,000  displaced  Chinese  intellectuals  now  are  registered  with  the 
rtfugee  gToup's  Hong  Kong  office.  According  to  an  organization  spokesman 
lie.-e.  indications  are  that  "not  more  than  10  percent"  are  employed. 

Exiled  from  the  mainland  for  various  reasons,  including  revolutionary  n\> 
hea>'-il.  personal  danger,  fear  and  distaste  for  the  new  regime,  many  of  them 
Cither  are  huddling  with  friends  and  relatives  or  living  in  squatters'  shacks  in 
this  overcrowded  British  colony.  A  number  of  university  graduates  and  their 
familicii  are  doing  embroidery  work  for  26  cents  a  person  a  day.  Others  are 
scratching  for  wolfram  (manganese  ore)  in  the  New  Territories  area  of  the 
colony  and  some  are  taking  casual  jobs  as  coolies. 

When  the  refugee  group  first  began  registering  displaced  Intel hM-tuals  here 
hisT  February,  it  defined  him  as  a  displaced  Chinese,  who  had  had  at  least  2 
years  of  college  or  its  eipiivalent.  At  first  the  intellectuals  held  bark  partly — 
as  the  group's  office  here  explains  it — for  reasons  of  fear,  and  partly  for  reas(ms 
of  dignity.     Then  came  a  flood  of  applications. 

Since  February,  11.000  out  of  20,000  applications  have  been  jTOcessed.  Among 
Tlie  first  10.00(1  applicants  whose  forms  were  processed.  14.8S  percent  were  listed 
as  educators  and  writers;  4.61  percent  as  technicians;  36.4  i>ercent  as  profes- 
sionals: 40.16  percent  as  former  military  men,  and  3.69  percent  as  former  i)olice 

ofl^cr'rs. 

The  United  States  has  only  a  .<!mall  quota  of  Chinese  immigrants.  The 
American  aid  group  is  seeking  to  S(  t  up  various  local  projects  to  help  rehabilitate 
the  intellectual  lefugees.  but  the  projects  promise  to  absorb  only  a  small  per- 
centage of  them.  Meanwhile,  after  .5  months,  applicants  for  resettlement  have 
started  to  become  disillusioned  over  their  i)rospects. 

An  .\mericari  uiiiversity  professor  who  has  just  finished  investigating  their 
]ilight  observed  : 

"These  people  no  longer  care  about  being  intellectuals.  They  ju-^^t  want  to 
live." 


1  Messapp   on    Refugeo    DiiiiPRP    Intellectuals.    AU\    Refugee    Chinese    Intellectuals,    Inc. 
5.^7  rifth  Avenue.  New  York  17,  N.  Y. 


210  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

[The  New  Ymk  Times,  August  6,  1952] 

pEiPiXG  Eyeing  Jons  for  Educated,  Idle — Red  China  Plans  for  Central  Allo- 
cation OF  Labor.  To  Attain  Goal  of  "Full  Employjcent"' 

Hong  Kong,  August  5. — Unemployed  workers,  intellectuals,  former  Nation- 
iilist  militiiry  men,  and  vagrants  are  scheduled  to  be  registered  in  Communist 
(Tuna  and  assigned  to  jobs  through  a  network  of  labor-placement  committees  to 
help  achieve  "centralized  allocation  of  the  labor  force''  under  a  policy  of  "full 
employment."  Preparations  for  the  registration  project  were  disclosed  today 
l)y  rlic  1 'piping  Government's  Hsinhua  News  Agency. 

The  centralized  placement  of  personnel  already  is  operating  in  China  with 
regard  to  college  graduates.  Distribution  committees  have  been  organized  in 
institutions  of  higher  learning  to  conduct  "ideological  education"  among  gradu- 
ates and  assign  them  to  jobs  in  which  they  will  be  most  useful. 

The  unemployment  registration  plan  calls  for  setting  up  labor  placement  com- 
niirtees  in  administrative  regions,  provinces,  and  nmiiicipalities  throughout  the 
country,  according  to  the  Peiping  repcn-t.  A  national  committee  to  supervise  the 
project  has  been  established  in  Peiping,  under  the  chairmanship  of  Li  Wei-han, 
Secretary  General  of  the  Cabinet  and  head  of  the  Communist  Party's  united-front 
department. 

The  plan  was  endorsed  by  Premier  Chou  En-lai's  Cabinet  July  25  following 
the  submission  of  an  unemployment  report  by  the  Minister  of  Personnel,  An  Tse- 
wen.  who  was  said  to  have  estimated  that  3,0(MX00O  persons  were  out  of  work  in 
China  but  contended  that  the  number  of  employed  was  higher  than  at  any  time 
in  Chinese  history. 

The  Personnel  Minister  reported  that  during  the  last  3  years  1.000. 000  unem- 
ployed workers  had  been  reemployed,  aliout  half  of  them  in  state  industries  and 
mines,  while  another  1,000,(M)()  intellectuals  had  found  work  through  Government 
assistance.  He  attributed  contiiuiing  unemployment  to  such  factors  as  inade- 
(piale  technical  knowledge  among  intellectuals,  elimination  of  •'speculation  and 
decadent  living,"  and  lack  of  suthcient  rural  land  after  the  carrying  out  of 
land  reform. 

The  Minister  called  for  "absorption,  education,  refdrm.  and  utilization"  of 
intellectuals  still  without  employment  to  help  meet  the  needs  of  e:'onomic  devel- 
opment. He  sai<l  that  even  tho.se  whose  "historical  background"  was  "more  or 
less  questionable"  would  be  accepted  provided  they  "admit  their  past." 

Mr.  Emmet.  The  normal  ])opnlation  in  Hong  Kong  of  SOO.OOO  has 
now  been  swollen  to  2,01)0,000  by  refugees  from  Comnnmist  ]ierseeution. 
Among  these  refugees  are  approximately  15,000  of  the  former  leading 
intellectuals  of  China — educators,  scientists,  writers,  law-yers,  doctors, 
engineers,  and  other  technicians.  They  represent  a  pool  of  talent 
and  experience  ^Yhich  is  the  future  hope  of  a  free  and  democratic 
China,  a  pool  which  is  now  rotting  away  in  Hong  Kong  in  terrible 
destitution.  They  constitute  the  most  neglected  and  ignored  group  of 
refugees  in  the  world.  The  only  haven  where  some  of  them  are 
welcome  is  in  Formosa,  which  takes  as  many  as  it  can,  but  it  is  already 
overcroAvded. 

The  purpose  of  our  committee  is  to  move  these  intellectuals  to  places 
where  they  will  have  a  chance  to  use  their  skills  and  experience  in 
the  interest  of  the  Free  World.  Among  them  are  thousands  of  stu- 
dents  who  have  no  chance  to  coin])lete  their  education  mdess  they 
return  to  Communist  China.  For  that  reason  alone,  many  of  them  do 
so,  and  are  lost  to  us. 

Now,  as  to  my  recommendations  on  behalf  of  our  organization  : 

(1)  The  interest  of  our  committee  in  these  hearings  is  threefold. 
First,  we  would  like  to  appeal  for  a  more  lenient  apj^lication  of  the 
provisions  of  the  ]:)resent  laws  set  forth  in  paragra])hs  F  and  H  of 
section  101.  under  title  T  of  the  new  immigration  law.  These  para- 
gra])hs  concern  the  circumstances  under  ^Yhich  foreign  students  may 
enter  for  study  in  America,  and  under  which  technicians  of  distin- 


COMMISSION    OX     1M.MI(;I;A1I()X     and    XATIHALIZATION  211 

ouislu'd  merit  may  come  to  take  temporary  jol)s  in  this  count  ly.  oi- 
technicians  who  may  t-ome  as  in(histrial  trainees. 

Our  committee  feels  tliat  the  interpretation  and  enforcement  of  the 
innnigration  law  in  regard  to  these  categories  of  temi)orary  visitors 
lias  in  many  cases  l)eeniin(hily  severe  as  regards  Chinese  now  in  Hong 
Kong.  It  is  often  assumed  i)y  the  consular  officials  that  the  visitor 
inteiuls  to  misuse  his  temporary  entry  permit  to  stay  pernumently 
in  the  United  States,  even  when  the  evidence  does  not  justify  that 
assumption.     I  cite  one  example  here  of  the  many  in  our  liles. 

The  example  I  submit  to  you  in  writing  sets  forth  the  corresp<mdence 
C(mcerning  a  15-year-old  girl  who  has  been  given  a  scholarship  in  a 
reliii-ious  school  in  New  Jersey.  Most  of  her  family,  her  parents,  are 
in  Hong  Kong,  hut  because  of  the  fact  that  this  girl  has  two  sisters  in 
this  c(nintrv — I  don't  know  for  what  reason — it  is  assumed  1)y  the 
officials  that  this  gii'l  of  15  is  not  going  to  return  to  her  parents  in 
Hong  Kong. 

It  is  a  ({uestion  of  interpreting,  in  other  words,  tlie  law.  and  we  feel, 
in  some  cases,  far  from  giving  the  benefit  of  doubt  to  the  lumesty  of 
the  applicant.  They  usually  seem  to  assume  the  most  suspicious 
attitude. 

We  have  had  some  improvement  in  Hong  Kong  lately  in  some  of 
these  cases,  so  1  don't  want  to  api)ear  to  be  ci'itici/ing  the  local  officials 
in  Hong  Kong.  It  is  a  (luestion  of  wdiether  the  directives  from  Wash- 
ington uiuler  which  they  are  operating  could  not  be  somewhat  relaxed 
in  regards  to  interjn-etation  of  this  law. 

(The  example  above  cited  by  INlr.  Emmet  is  as  follows:) 

Hong  Kong,  July  W.  ]!)52. 
Si.ster  .Jane  Patricia,  C.  S.  .T.  B., 

Secret firii  to  the  Sifiter  Superior,  St.  John  Tiaptixt  School, 

Dear  Madam  :  Many  thanks  for  your  letter  of  .Tune  'PA).  llt.",L>.  (Miclosins  a  letter 
of  iidniission  for  .Tean. 

Your  fir.st  letter  of  adnii.ssiDn.  together  with  Jean'.s  visa  iipplicatioii  anl  other 
documents,  was  sent  to  the  Hon.i:  Kons  American  consulate  general  on  .lune  2o. 
lU.lU.  On  .Tnly  10  .Tean  was  notilicil  to  see  a  vice  consul,  so  I  accompanied  her 
to  the  consulate.  We  were  informed  that  the  consulate  was  not  prepared  to 
i.ssue  .Tean  a  visa  to  the  United  States  because  he  suspected  that  she  probably 
would  permanently  stay  in  America.  How  can  we  prove  that  our  intention  is 
otherwise?  I  have  known  many  similar  cases.  The  consulate  decided  that  such 
cases  belong  to  innnifjration  cases  I'ather  than  those  of  students.  It  seems  that 
by  lumpinji  all  such  cases  as  inmdsiratiou  ones  tiie  consulate  can  prevent  youns 
people  to  study  in  the  United  States.  But  I  do  not  think  this  is  the  policy  of 
United  States  Government. 

Yesterday  the  Aid  Refuffee  ('hines(>  Intellectuals,  Inc..  advertised  that  they 
Avould  help  people  who  have  scholarships  to  the  TTnited  States  to  get  their  visas. 
I  am  now  depending  on  their  intercession  on  .Tean's  behalf  with  the  American 
consulate.  We  earnestly  hope  that  the  organization  will  be  successful  on  her 
behalf,  and  not  only  .Tean  can  join  your  school  very  soon  but  many  ftther  young 
Chinese  have  the  same  iirivilege  to  study  in  American  schools.  1  am  eager  to 
send  .Tean  over  to  the  United  States  because  T  want  her  to  have  a  good  and 
Christian  education,  which  she  cannot  luive  now  in  China  or  Hong  Kong. 
Enclosed  herewith  is  a  copy  of  my  letter  to  Aid  Refugee  Chinese  Intelh^'iuals, 
Inc. 

Jean  and  I  are  very  grateful  to  yon  for  promising  to  grant  her  a  scholarship 
at  your  school.  In  order  that  we  may  ai)pi'oach  the  consulate  better  armed  with 
documents,  would  you  send  us  by  air  mail  a  letter  addressed  to  the  American 
consul  general  In  Hong  Kong,  informing  him  that  .Tean  has  been  granted  a 
scholarship. 

I  shall  write  you  again  about  the  i)rogress  of  .lean's  application  from  time  to 
time. 

Yours  sincerely, 

(Signed)     Tsinforn  C.  Wong. 


212  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

TnE  FORKiox  Sekvick  of  thf.  Ignited  States  of  America 

American  Coxsilate  Ge.xeiial, 

Hong  Kong,  Align  fit  27,  11*62. 
Mr.  TsixFORN  C.  Wong, 

16A  Mount  Davis  Road,  Hong  Kong. 

Dear  Mr.  Wong  :  I  have  received  your  letter  of  August  22.  19r>2.  concern ing  the 
visa  case  of  your  tlaugliter,  Miss  Jean  May  Woug. 

Tbe  eonsulate  general  does  not  feel  that  the  facts  in  this  case  have  materially 
changed  since  it  was  forced  to  refuse  your  daughter's  application,  and  therefore 
does  not  agree  that  the  case  should  be  reopened. 

Please  be  assured  that  every  considerati<jn  was  given  your  daugliter's  applica- 
tion. 


Very  truly  yours. 


(Sgd)   Robert  J.  Baixantyne, 

Ai)irric(tii  Vice  Co)ii>nl 
(For  the  Consul  General), 


Hong  Kong,  S^cpteinher  6,  19.52. 
Sister  Jane  Patricia,  C.  S.  J.  B., 

Secretary  to  the  Sister  Superior,  St.  -John  llaptist  School, 
Mendham,  N.  J.,  U.  8.  A. 

Dear  Madam  :  Thank  you  for  your  kind  letter  of  July  2'>.  1!>.V2.  togethef  with 
your  notification  to  the  American  consul  general,  Hong  Kong,  of  :i  scholarship 
grant  for  Jean. 

Upon  receipt  of  your  letter,  I  wrote  to  the  American  consulate  here  and  handed 
in  the  scholarship-grant  certification  letter,  and  asked  them  to  reconsider  Jean's 
application  for  visa.    They  turned  it  down  again  in  writing  on  August  27.  W~t2. 

Then  I  visited  Mr.  W.  J.  Howard,  assistant  director  of  Aid  Refugee  Chinese 
Intellectuals,  Inc.,  here.  He  told  me  that  he  had  contacted  many  times  with  the 
consulate  here  on  account  of  this  problem  and  that  the  American  consulate  here 
is  tied  down  by  regulations  from  the  State  Department.  The  Aid  Refugee 
Chinese  Inielleetuals,  Inc..  here  have  sent  all  similar  cases  to  their  New  York 
office  for  appeal  to  the  State  Department  in  Washington.  We  have  to  wait  for 
good  news. 

I  have  asked  my  friend.  Dr.  IMilton  T.  Stauffer.  general  secretary  of  John 
Milton  Society  for  Blind  in  New  York,  who  is  a  personal  friend  of  Congressman 
Walter  Judd.  the  chief  sponsor  of  ARCI.  to  find  out  from  ARCI  New  York 
office  whether  he  could  give  some  help  in  Jean's  case. 

I  should  be  much  obliged  to  you  if  you  could  write  to  ARCI,  o.'iT  Fifth  Avenue. 
New  York  17,  or  to  Senators.  Congressmen,  or  any  one  who  has  influence  with 
the  State  r>epartment.  to  explain  Jean's  case  to  them,  so  that  not  only  my  disugh- 
ter  but  a's(p  many  young  Chinese  may  have  a  chance  to  get  a  good  education  in 
your  country,  which  in  later  days  they  can  help  the  reconstruction  of  our  countiy 
along  democratic  lines.  Words  cannot  express  my  gratitude  for  this  additional 
favor. 

The  vice  consul  in  charge  of  Jean's  case  verbally  told  us  that  he  could  not  give 
Jean  a  visa  because,  he  said.  Jean  would  stay  permanently  in  America.  This  is 
rather  a  sweeping  and  unreasonable  assumption  on  his  part.  But  in  his  letter 
turning  down  the  application  he  did  not  mention  any  reason  for  his  decision. 
I  am  sending  you  a  copy  of  his  letter. 

Thanking  you  so  much  for  the  trouble.  I  remain. 
Yours  resi)ectfully, 

(Signed)     Tsixforx  C.  Wong. 


Hong  Koxg,  ScjttouJxv  S,  lf>.32. 
Sister  Jane  Patricia,  C.  S.  J.  B., 

Secretary  to  the  Sister  Superior,  St  .John  Baptist  ScJlooI, 
Mendham,  N.  J.,  United  States  of  Anieiica. 
Dear  Madam  :  It  was  so  kind  of  you  to  admit  me  in  your  school  and  to  grant 
me  a  scholarship.     I  cannot  use  any  words  to  express  m.V  gratitude. 

I  eagerly  wish  that  I  could  come  to  your  school  at  this  fall.  It  is  impossible 
now,  as  I  still  haven't  got  my  student  visa  to  United  States  of  America.  Yet,  I  do 
anxiously  hope  that  I  can  come  at  the  spring  term  of  1953.    I  hope  you  will  still 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMiCHATlON    AND    NATURALIZATION  213 

resiTv.'  n   vacancy  for  mo.     I  sliall  coiitiauc  tn  study  in  St.  Clare's  Schotil  this 
fall.     I  i^iiclose  lierewirli  my  photostatic  copy  of  my  school  report  for  r.lol-.")2. 

The  American  con.sulate  here  refu.sed  to  give  me  a  student  visa  simply  because 
they  tliiiik  I  am  liniiisr  to  stay  in  llie  rnited  >>tates  all  my  life,  \vhi(h  has  already 
lieen  stated  in  my  faihei's  letter  to  you. 

Their  reason  is  not  true.  I  come  to  the  States  to  learn  and  to  ;;et  jiond  educa- 
tion, not  to  stay  for  life.  As  I  am  a  student.  I  have  no  desire  to  stay  in  tlie 
J^tates  all  my  life.  After  all,  there  is  no  one  who  wished  to  stay  in  a  foreitrn 
<'ountry  ail  liis  life.     Every  one  wants  to  worlc  for  liis  own  country,  and  so  am  I. 

Certainly  I  shall  stay  in  the  States  4  or  ."i  years  lonsi.  until  I  am  ^Maduated. 
Then  I  am  sure  to  return  back  to  the  mainland  of  Hei)ul>lic  of  China,  or  'I'aiwan. 
As  China  is  so  backward,  she  needs  our  work.  She  needs  lliose  who  ^ain  knowl- 
^-dge  from  the  bij;  civilized  country. 

I  sinceiely  Iiojh'  you  will  urant  me  a  reply. 
Yours  respect  fully. 

(Signed)     Jeax   M.  Wong. 

^fr.  K^tMET.  i'2)  Tlie  second  iiiteivst  of  our  coiiniiitteo  does  not  con- 
cern tlie  eiifoi'ceinent  of  tlie  ])i'eseiit  law  l)iit  would  involve  new  leois- 
latioii.  AVe  believe  that,  just  as  the  Tnited  States  passed  special  lea'is- 
lation  under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  to  admit  a  certain  ninnber  of 
homeless  victims  of  Xazi  and  Comimmist  ])erseciiti()n  in  Europe,  so 
we  should  now  adopt  special  leoislatiou  to  admit  a  limited  numbei-  of 
lefuoees  from  Chinese  coinnniuism.  Failure  to  do  so  can  only  be 
rejrartled  as  discriminatory,  and  is  so  regarded  in  Asia.  It  conHrms 
the  suspicion  of  racial  prejudice  aptinst  orientals  by  the  white  man, 
a  sus])icion  which  is  constantly  ex])loited  by  the  Couuinmists  throuirh- 
oiit  Asia.  This  constitutes  tlie  oreatest  sinole  obstacle  to  united  resist- 
ance to  ( "ommunist  ajrgression  in  that  vast  area  of  the  world. 

Our  committee  realizes  that,  because  of  the  greater  ditl'erences  of 
htnoiiaoe,  culture,  relio-ion,  and  economic  standards  of  livino-,  we 
jnioht  not  expect  to  a.bsorb  and  assimilate  refuo-ees  from  the  Orient 
quite  as  easily  as  we  absorbed  refugees  from  Europe,  althouoh  the  dif- 
ficidties  and  ditl'erences  tend  to  be  greatly  exaoo-erated.  But  we  feel 
very  strongly  that  at  l(\ast  several  thousands  of  scholars  and  technicians 
could  easily  be  absorbed  and  would  immensely  enrich  America's  cul- 
tural life,  and  contribute  both  to  our  economv  and  defense  eti'ort.  We 
believe  that  for  ])olitical  and  moral  reasons  such  a  gesture — even  if  it 
Avere  oidy  a  token  gesture  in  terms  of  the  vast  number  of  refugees 
seeking  asylmu — would  inunensely  strengthen  America's  j)olitical  aiul 
moral  ]»osition  in  Asia.  Moreover,  if  the  United  States  were  Avilling 
to  make  such  a  ge.sture,  it  would  greatly  strengthen  the  al)ility  of  our 
committee  to  tin<l  asylum  for  these  refugees  in  other  countries.  In 
this  case,  as  in  that  of  Euro[)eau  rerugees,  America  as  the  most  poAver- 
ful  countiy  nuist  set  the  example  if  these  ])eople  are  to  be  saved. 

(8)  For  the  same  general  rea.sons  which  ])rompt  the  above  recom- 
mendation, we  inge  the  enlargement  of  regular  immigration  (|uotas 
for  friendly  oriental  countries,  which  are  now  frankly  discriminatory 
on  racial  grounds.  Even  on  the  basis  of  the  "national  origins"  prin- 
ciple, which  is  (juestionable  in  itself,  the  Chinese  and  Japanese  o.uotas 
should  be  considerabh'  larger  than  thev  are. 

(4)  Finally.  1  would  like  to  endorse  the  proposal  made  this  morn- 
ing by  Mr.  Sterling  Spero  of  the  International  Rescue  Connnittee  (of 
which  I  am  a  director),  calling  for  stronger  provisions  to  guarantee 
the  right  of  asyliun  against  deportation  to  totalitarian  countries.  The 
terrible  jjersecutions  now  taking  place  in  Conuniinist  China  exceed  in 
horror  even  those  in  other  Conuuunist  countries. 


214  COMMISSION    ox    IMAIIGRATIOX    AND    XATURALIZATION 

Commissioner  Fisher.  What  is  the  view  of  your  oroanization  with 
respect  to  that  provision  in  the  new  law  which  charges  to  the  Asia- 
Pacific  trianrrle  quota  area  persons  born  in  other  countries  wlio  are 
one-half  or  more  oriental  in  ancestiy  ? 

Mr.  Emmet.  We  would  like  to  see  that  provision  chanoed.  If  it 
would  be  possible  fqr  us  to  submit  additional  recommendations,  I 
would  like  the  opportunity  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  We  would  be  glad  to  receive  them.  Thank  you 
very  much,  sir. 

Statement  SrrmiTTED  by  Walter  Gai.iax.  ExECfxivE  Director,  United 
Ukraixiax  American  Relief  Committee 

Mr.  EosENFiELD.  I  would  like  to  read  into  the  record  a  telegram 
received  from  Dr.  Walter  Gallan.  executive  director,  United  Ukrainian 
American  Relief  Committee,  who  is  unable  to  appear  personally  owing 
to  illness. 

The  Chair:\[an.  You  may  do  so. 

(The  telegram  is  as  follows:) 

OCTOBEK     1.     I'Xt-. 

Due  to  illness,  unable  to  appear  at  the  hearing-.  The  full  membership  of 
the  United  Ukrainian  American  Relief  Committee  and  its  Ixiard  of  dirertnrs 
wishes  to  go  on  record  as  to  supporting  fully  President  Truman's  message  to 
Congress  of  ]March  24.  1!).")2.  re  current  necessity  of  supplementing  immigration 
law. 

Respectfully, 

Walter  Gallan. 
Executive  Diratur. 

Statement   Suumitted  by  Merwin   K.   Hart,   President,  National  Economic 

Cot'NCiL,  Inc. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would  like  permission  to  read 
another  telegram  into  the  record  from  Merwin  K.  Hart,  president, 
Xational  Econoinic  Council,  Inc.,  Empire  State  Building,  New  York. 

The  Chairman.  You  ma}'  do  so. 

(The  telegram  is  as  follows :) 

September  30,  1952. 

Your  invitation  to  appear  before  your  Commission  today  or  tomorrow  was 
duly  received,  and  I  acknowledge  also  Mr.  Shirk's  telephone  message  this  after- 
noon. It  will  be  inipossilile  for  me  to  ai»pear,  and  I  can  tell  you  my  view  as  well 
by  telegraph.  This  view  is  that  the  study  of  the  immigration  problem  by  the 
McCarran  committee  was  one  of  the  most  thorough  ever  carried  on  l)y  a  con- 
gressional committee,  lasting  nearly  3  years.  The  Congress  passed  the  bill  the 
McCarran  committee  recommended,  and  then  repassed  it  over  the  President's 
veto.  I  believe  the  ]\IcCarran  Act  should  be  given  full  trial  before  any  change 
is  made  in  it.  If  not.  why  have  a  subject  exhaustively  investigared  l)y  a 
congressional  committee'/     Will  you  kindly  enter  this  telegram  in  the  rei^u-d? 

Merwin  K.  Hart, 
President.  National  Economic  Council,  Inc.. 

Empire  State  Building,  Ncir  York.  \.  Y. 

Statement  Sltbmitted  by  Corliss  Lamont 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Mr.  Chairman,  ma}"  I  ask  also  for  inclusion  in 
the  record  of  a  statement  submitted  by  Mr.  Corliss  Lamont  and  a 
statement  by  Mr.  John  Lenow,  vice  president  of  the  Latvian  Relief, 
Inc. 

The  Chairman.  Both  may  be  inserted  in  the  record  at  this  point. 


COMMISSIOX    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  215 

(  Sinit'iiit'iit  siil)iiiilt('il  by  Mr.  Coi'liss  TiMmont  is  ns  follows:) 

Xi;\v  YoKK,  N.  Y.,  Nt'p/c//; />(•/•  2.9,  1952. 
11(111.  I'm  LIP  I>.  1'eki.m.\n, 

t '  h  (I  i  nnon ,  I'rcxitlciit's  Com  mission  on  liiiiiiiiirotio)i  and  \(ttuntli:(ilioii, 
Federal  Court  House,  Foley  Square,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sib:  As  candidate  foi*  United  States  Senator  from  New  Yoik  State  on  the 
Americjin  I.ahor  Party  ticket,  1  wisli  to  iiifdiiii  you  <>f  my  ohjections  to  the  Mc- 
("al•ran-^^■alter  Iniiiii.m-ation  Act. 

The  McCarran-Walter  Immigration  Act,  lilce  tiie  McCarran  Internal  Security 
Act  of  l'.K")().  8ets  ui)  rnles  and  re.milations  clearly  violative  of  the  Bill  of  Risiiits 
and  the  .ureat  American  tradition  of  democracy.  While  eliminating-  the  Oriental 
K.\clii.-<ion  Act  of  lUlil.  this  new  act  imts  into  el'liect  other  discrimination.s  against 
person.^  of  A.^iatic  ancestry  entering  the  United  States  and  again.st  Negroes  horn 
in  Carrihean  colonies.  At  the  same  time  the  act  perpetuates  the  discriminatory 
quotas  against  immigrants  from  southern  and  eastern  p]urope,  in  effect  treating 
the  iiihahitants  of  these  areas  as  inferior  persons. 

This  1!».";2  Imiiiigration  Act  gives  to  the  United  States  Attorney  General  such 
wide  and  sweeping  powers  in  deportation  and  exclusion  cases  that  he  is  able  to 
become  virtually  a  dictator  in  this  field.  For  example,  the  Attorney  General  is 
emixiwered  to  deport  any  alien  who  has  engaged  or  has  a  purpose  to  engage  in 
activities  "pi-ejudicial  to  the  public  interest"  or  "subversive  to  the  national 
security."  The.se  vague  provisions,  as  President  Truman  pointed  out  in  his  veto 
message  depart  "•from  traditional  American  insistence  on  established  standards 
of  guilt."  Embodied  tirmly  in  the  act  is  the  spirit  of  the  present  United  States 
Government  witchhunt  against  Communists  and  other  alleged  subversives.  Pro- 
visions along  this  line  are  so  drastic  that  the  sort  of  dissenter  who  has  been 
the  glory  of  America  is  barred  from  entering  our  country  or  becomes  deportable 
if  he  is  an  alien. 

The  McCarran-Walter  Immigration  Act  is  in  fact,  so  bad  that  amendments 
cannot  possibly  suffice  to  correct  it.    The  whole  act  should  be  repealed. 
Wry  truly  yours, 

Corliss  Lamont. 

Statement  Sibmitted  by  John  Lenow,  Vice  President,  Latvian  Relief,  Inc. 

(The  statement  submitted  by  John  Lenow,  vice  president,  Latvian 
Relief,  Inc.,  is  as  follows :) 

Latvian  Relief.  Inc., 
Neiv  York,  N.  Y.,  Octoher  1,  1952. 

Latvian  Relief,  Inc.,  deeply  appreciates  the  establishment  of  the  President's 
Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization  to  study  the  current  United 
States  policies,  law,  and  procedures  of  immigration  and  naturalization. 

Let  me  mention  first  the  present  (piota  system  and  its  limiting  effects  on 
Latvian  emigration  to  the  United  States. 

The  immigration  law  of  1924  established  a  Latvian  yearly  quota  of  236,  and 
the  newly  enacted  McCarran-Walter  Immigration  Act  of  last  June  27  does  not 
increase  tliis  quota. 

Moreover,  the  displaced  persons  who  arrived  under  the  Displaced  Persons 
Act  (Public  Law  774)  have  mortgaged  .10  percent  of  this  quota  far  into  the  next 
millennium.  This  means  that  only  118  visas  are  available  for  Latvians  each 
year  at  present. 

P>ecause  of  this  situation  many  Latvians  who  tied  the'Communists  are  not 
able  to  join  tlieir  families  and  relatives  in  the  United  States. 

The  L'lsplaced  I'crsons  Act  has  eased  very  much  the  situation  in  the  displaced 
persons'  camps  in  West  Germany,  Austria,  and  Italy.  Some  40,000  Latvians  who 
tied  the  Communist  invaders  were  admitted  under  this  generous  law  and  have 
been  successfully  resettled  in  the  United  States. 

But  there  are  aliout  :^0.()00  anti-Communist  Latvians  still  in  Germany,  other 
European  countries,  Australia,  Canada,  and  South  America.  The  majority  of 
these  refugees  are  not  tirmly  resettled,  and  their  hopes  for  resettlement  in  the 
United  States  vanished  with  th(»  expiration  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  on 
De<ember  :n,  19.")1. 

There  are  about  l.-lOO  Tjalviaii  disiilaced  iiersons  in  Kuroi)(>  who  had  received 
home  and  job  assurances  under  the  DP  Act  and  were  in  various  stages  of  process- 
ing.    Many  had  been  cleared  for  immigration — some  had  visas  issued,  only  to 


216  COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATIOX    AND    NATURALIZATION 

have  them  revoked  at  the  hist  moment  because  the  number  allowed  under  the 
DP  Act  had  been  used  up. 

Although  it  is  important  for  the  needs  of  normal  immigration  to  lift  the 
present  Latvian  quota  mortgage  and  at  least  to  double  the  annual  Latvian  quota 
of  236  visas  provided  in  the  McCarran-Walter  Act,  and  although  it  is  important, 
in  addition,  to  pool  the  unused  quotas  and  use  them  for  Latvians  and  other 
nationalities  with  inadequate  quotas,  it  is  even  more  important  to  provide  a 
substantial  remedy  for  the  pressing  problem  of  refugees  from  communism. 

This  problem  is  an  emergency  problem  and  it  can  be  solved  only  by  emergency" 
legislation. 

On  behalf  of  Latvian  Relief,  Inc..  I  respectfully  submit  that  the  emergency" 
problem  of  refugee  resettlement  cannot  be  solved  by  changes  or  amendments 
of  the  basic  quota  provisions  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act. 

This  special  problem  requires  special  legislation,  for  which  the  Public  Law  774, 
as  amended,  provides  in  principle  a  tested  and  most  successful  precedent. 

Therefoi-e,  on  behalf  of  Latvian  Relief,  Inc.,  I  respectfully  submit  that  the 
solution  of  the  refugee  problem  be  sought  at  the  earliest  opportunity  by  special 
legislation  to  admit  100,000  refugees  and  displaced  persons  per  year,  for  a  period 
of  3  years,  as  proposed  by  President  Truman. 

The  problem  is  urgent.  At  the  present  the  doors  of  our  great  and  glorious 
country  are  practically  closed  to  the  victims  of  the  Communist  conspirators 
in  the  Kremlin. 

Our  struggle  against  the  enemies  of  mankind  will  be  strengthened  and  our 
moral  leadership  of  the  free  world  will  be  measurably  increased  if  we  reopen 
our  doors  to  these  confirmed  opponents  of  communism  and  all  its  works. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

John  Lenow. 
Vice  President,  Latvian  Relief,  Inc. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  George  A.  Polos  is  our  next  witness  this  after- 
noon. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  A.  POLOS,  REPRESENTING  THE  ORDER 
OF  AMERICAN  HELLENIC  EDUCATIONAL  PROGRESSIVE  ASSOCIA- 
TION 

Mr.  Polos.  I  am  George  A.  Polos,  85  John  Street,  New  York  City, 
and  I  am  here  to  represent  the  Order  of  AHEPA,  which  is  the  Ameri- 
can Hellenic  Educational  Progressive  Association,  with  headquarters 
at  1420  K  Street  NW.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

I  wish  to  submit  for  the  record  a  prepared  statement  on  behalf  of 
AHEPA  and  then  make  a  few  remarks. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

(The  statement  submitted  by  Mr.  George  A.  Polos  in  behalf  of  the 
Order  of  AHEPA  is  as  follows:) 

In  his  several  messages  to  Congress,  President  Truman  has  treated  our  immi- 
gration and  naturalization  policies  so  thoroughly  and  so  clearly  that  it  is  very 
difficult  and  hardly  possible  for  anybody  else  to  say  anything  new  on  any  phase  of 
these  subjects. 

Our  present  laws  and  policies  appear  to  be  based  on  the  assumption  that  no 
honest,  hardworking,  freedom-loving  person  in  the  world  would  attempt  to  enter 
the  United  States  for  permanent  residence. 

The  American  consulates,  everywhere,  are  required  to  presume  that  anyone 
applying  for  an  immigration  visa  has  some  evil  design  for  the  destruction  of  the 
Government,  industry,  and  morality  of  the  American  people.  Every  applicant 
is  immediately  shouldered  with  the  burden  of  proving — to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  consul,  to  the  Attorney  General,  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  the  Secretary  of 
Labor,  and  to  the  President  of  the  United  States — that  he  does  not  plan  any 
harm  to  the  American  people  and  Government,  and  that  he  is  not  likely  to  acquire 
any  habits  or  notions,  or  to  make  any  mistakes  which  may  reduce  him  to  a  state 
of  poverty  and  want. 

After  the  prospective  immigrant  complies  with  these  requirements  and  is;  ad- 
mitted, his  conduct  here  is  not  judged  by  the  regularly  established  system  of 


COMMISSION    OX    TMMK.RATIOX    AND    NATURALIZATION  217 

cleti'imiuiug  ju.stice  boforo  the  open  courts  of  the  Republic,  but  he  is  subject  to  tlie 
rules,  re};ulations,  and  discretionary  sensibilities  ol"  the  Attorney  General.  This 
does  not  mean  that  the  Attorney  (Jeneral,  or  the  Secretaries  of  State.  Labor,  or 
Coinnierce,  ai'e  personally  cofrnizant  of  how  the  alien's  case  is  ha)iilled  and  de- 
cided. The  alien's  accusers,  prosecutors,  judges,  juries,  and  exocuters  of  the 
sentence  passed  against  him  are  the  agents  and  employees  of  the  Immigration  and 
Xaturaliz;Uiou  Service.  It  often  happens  that  all  of  these  functions  are  per- 
formed by  one  and  the  same  iierson. 

Even  after  the  alien  is  admitted  to  citizenship,  he  is  immediately  subjected  to 
spe<'ial  laws  whicli  operate  to  his  special  disadvantaue  and  to  the  disadvantage 
of  his  American-born  children.  These  laws  do  not  apply  to  all  citizens — only  to 
naturalized  citizens  and  to  their  children. 

There  is  only  one  way  to  equality  under  the  law,  and  that  is  to  have  one 
standard,  one  .system  of  disjieiising  justice  and  meting  out  pvinishment  to  all 
persons  alike  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  Likewise,  there  is 
only  one  way  to  avoid  the  stigma  of  having  .second-cliiss  citizens  in  America,  and 
that  is  to  have  no  laws  which  do  not  apply  to  all  citizens  alike. 

The  basis  for  immigration  quotas  should  be  brought  up  to  date  and  should  be 
automatically  adjustable  after  specified  intervals  of  time.  It  is  wrong  to  assume 
that  present-day  conditions  and  facilities  for  the  assimilation  of  certain  nationals 
into  American  ways  of  life  are  the  same  as  they  were  in  11)00  or  1920.  Not  only 
the  condition,  but  the  character  and  status  of  nationalities  have  changed — have 
greatly  improved — since  those  years. 

While  I  cannot  speak  with  authority  regarding  the  needs  of  all  countries  and 
peoples  of  the  world,  I  can  speak  about  the  needs  of  Greece  and  her  people  who 
fought  so  valiantly  and  suffered  so  long  and  so  much  for  the  same  principles  of 
freedom  and  justice  as  our  own.  I  know  a  great  deal  about  the  Greek  people 
because  I  was  born  th(>re,  have  followed  their  progress  and  their  injuries,  and 
have  visted  Greece  before  and  after  the  catastrophes  of  war. 

Greece  is  a  small,  rough,  ruggeil.  and  dry  couinry,  smaller  than  Arizona,  trying 
to  supjwrt  7.000.0(H)  more  people  than  live  in  that  rich  and  prosperous  State  of 
the  American  Union. 

The  soil  of  Greece,  due  to  erosion,  unpreventable  because  it  is  stony,  and  due 
to  lack  of  rain  dui-ing  the  growing  season,  is  not  fertile.  It  produces  little  with 
great  labor.  It  hardly  produces  enough  to  keep  the  farmers  themselves  in  food 
for  more  than  6  months  of  the  year. 

This  condition  has  grown  worse  since  the  war  against  the  Communists  which 
the  Greek  people  were  compelled  to  fight  immediately  after  their  heroic  struggle 
against  the  invasion  of  their  country  by  the  Axis  Powers. 

These  wars,  especially  the  (me  against  the  Communists,  compelled  the  evacua- 
tion of  whole  towns  and  districts.  This  was  done  under  the  advice  and  com- 
mand of  the  American  strategists  with  the  American  ^lission  for  Aid  to  Greece. 
Their  homes,  farms,  and  villages  became  the  battlefields  of  all-out  war  and 
extermination.  When  it  was  over,  there  was  nothing  left  to  which  the  jwople 
could  return,  and  they  had  no  materials,  no  tools,  and  no  money  with  which  to 
rebuild.  They  remained  in  the  larger  cities  to  which  they  were  taken,  living 
from  hand  to  mouth,  in  makeshift  tents  and  shanties,  constituting  a  grave  and 
dangerous  menace  to  the  health,  morals,  and  freedom  of  the  entire  country — 
if  not  of  the  world. 

The  conditions  of  human  mi.sery  existing  in  Greece,  as  I  know  them,  and  in 
other  countries,  as  I  am  reliably  informed,  are  neither  right  nor  natural.  They 
are  the  direct  pr(»duct  of  our  common  fight  for  freedom.  These  people  are  casual- 
ties of  the  war  which  the  American  soldiers  fought  for  the  protection  of  our  own 
homes  and  ways  of  life  here. 

The  state  of  mind  created  by  the  hajiless  plight  of  the.se  people^our  allies  of 
.yesterday — is  a  fertile  field  for  communism  and  other  subversive  teaching.?. 
When  the  average  American  thinks  of  communism,  he  thinks  of  what  he  would 
lose  if  such  a  calamit.v  overcame  this  countr.v.  The  more  he  has  to  lose,  the 
more  vigilant  he  is.  Other  people  in  other  countries  are  not  different  in  this 
respect.  They.  too.  weigh  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  political  changes 
in  terms  of  relative  benefits — prosiK'ctive  gains  and  losse.-; — to  them.  When  a 
person  has  nothing  to  lose  by  submilting  to  bright  and  rich  promises,  he  is  more 
than  likely  ro  accept  the  ]ir<in)ise  of  something  for  the  nothing  that  he  has. 

Aside  from  the  good  that  the  admission  of  a  substantial  number  of  selected 
immigrants  will  d<i  to  them,  their  services  are  sorely  needed  by  America.  The 
help-wantel  ads  of  every  paper  in  the  country  are  daily  testimonials  of  the 
scarcity  of  labor — skilled  and  unskilled.     Despite  the  special  inducements  offered 


218  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

by  large  and  reliable  lirms — bigh  wages,  good  conditions,  sick  and  vacation  leaves 
with  pay,  free  medical  services,  group  insurance,  and  any  number  of  special 
inducements — they  are  not  able  to  attract  the  numlier  and  quality  of  workers 
needed  in  the  business. 

The  admission  into  the  United  States  of  a  substantial  imnibpr  of  able-liodied. 
honest,  and  industrious  people,  yearning  for  a  chance  to  establish  their  homes 
and  families  in  America,  will  help  everybody  and  everything,  and  will  hurt  no  one. 

Mr.  Polos.  I  want  to  thank  the  Commission  for  giving  our  or- 
ganization the  opportunity  of  appearing  before  you  for  a  few  re- 
marks. I  will  confine  myself  only  in  reference  to  Greek  cases  be- 
cause I  happen  to  have  been  born  in  Greece.  I  came  to  this  country 
about  49  3^ears  ago. 

I  was  also  the  chairman  of  a  displaced  persons  committee  that  was 
created  by  the  Order  of  the  Ahepa  to  handle  the  small  traffic  that 
Congress  "has  allotted  on  the  amendment  of  the  DP  bill  of  1950. 
In  spite  of  the  fact  that  we  did  not  come  under  the  IRO  we  handled 
this  work  practically  exclusively  at  the  expense  of  our  organization 
and  thus  we  know  how  many  we  have  brought  into  this  country. 

They  have  given  us  7,500  and  something  about  1,700  orphans  to 
bring  into  this  country. 

Now,  because  of  lacking  of  funds,  I  presume,  the  consulate  serv- 
ices abroad  have  received  approximately  better  than  40,000  applica- 
tions of  what  is  known  as  the  displaced  persons  in  Greece  to  come  to 
America.  When  they  stop  to  take  stock  they  find  out  they  have 
issued  something  about  3,500  additional,  what  is  knov,n  as,  |)ro  visas. 
Tlie  peasants,  of  course,  not  understanding  the  meaning  of  '"pro  visa" 
felt  that  all  they  needed  now  was  to  document  themselves  with  Greek 
l)assports  and  Greek  documents  and  they  will  be  given  visas  to  come 
to  United  States.  When  they  arrive  at  the  consulate's  office  they 
find  out  the  number  is  filled  and  they  were  left  in  the  streets. 

Of  course,  prior  to  going  to  the  American  consulate — there  are 
two,  one  in  Athens  and  one  in  Salonika — they  had  liquidated  every- 
thinl<:  in  the  world  they  possessed  to  raise  the  amount  of  money  neces- 
sary for  their  docmnentation.  It  created  a  serious  problem,  especial- 
ly in  the  city  of  Athens,  because  those  people  have  no  place  to  go. 

I  went  to  Greece  myself  and  visited.  I  examined  the  situation  and 
it  was  a  pitiful  case.  You  understand,  gentlemen,  that  Greece  has 
suffered  a  lot,  not  only  during  the  Axis  power,  but  Greece  has  nearly 
three-quarters  of  its  borders  with  the  countries  that  are  behind  the 
iron  curtain.  At  the  recommendation  of  the  American  jNIilitary  Mis- 
sion to  Greece  those  borders  and  those  villages  were  evacuated.  The 
evacuation  amounted  to  close  to  800,000  people  and  when  these  vil- 
lages were  visited  by  the  Communists  or  the  guerrillas  they  were 
])ractically  ruined,  everything  the  ])easants  had  was  practically  ruined. 
They  were  promised  that  they  will  be  helped  by  the  Government  to 
reestablish  themselves.  These  promises  were  not  complied  with  and 
conditions  in  Greece  are  serious,  as  far  as  not  only  the  overpopulation 
but  the  ruination  that  was  caused  by  the  war,  during  the  Second  World 
War  as  well  as  the  Communist  war. 

As  to  communism  in  Greece — from  my  own  observation,  I  don't 
think  there  were  actually  more  than  fi^  percent  of  the  people  who 
actually  believed  in  communism.  We  were  led  on  this  side  to  believe 
tliat  there  was  a  much  greater  number  than  that,  but  that  was  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  villages  or  the  towns  that  were  near  the  border  where 
the  Communists  were  would  roll  over  from  the  Axis.     Some  of  these 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         219 

people  were  compelled  to  even  pretend  thiit  they  were  with  the  com- 
munistic movement  in  order  to  try  to  save  their  necks. 

I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  the  President's  recommendation  of  a  spe- 
cial bill  or  a  special  migration  to  relieve  the  situation  in  Greece  as 
well  as  in  some  other  countries  in  Europe. 

The  CiiAiKMAN.  Thank  you,  very  much. 

Is  Mr.  D'Agostino  here? 

STATEMENT  OF  AMERIGO  D'AGOSTINO,  LEGISLATIVE  COUNSEL, 
REPRESENTING  FORTUNE  POPE,  EDITOR  AND  PUBLISHER,  IL 
PROGRESSO  ITALO-AMERICANO 

i\Ir.  D'Agostino.  My  name  is  Amerigo  D'Agostino,  and  I  am  rep- 
resenting Mr.  Fortune  Pope  individually  and  as  editor  and  publisher 
of  II  Progresso  Italo-Americano,  the  largest  publication  in  the  United 
States  for  Italians  with  readership  of  over  1  million  people. 

We  thank  this  Commission  for  the  opportunity  of  appearing  before 
you  so  that  we  may  ])reKent  some  bi'ief  remarks  with  respect  to  immi- 
gration and  naturalization  legislation  now  under  study  by  your  re- 
spectful Commission. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  wish  to  submit  for  the  record, 
and  then  I  wish  to  make  some  brief  remarks. 

The  Chairman.  Your  statement  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  prepared  statement  submitted  by  Mr.  Amerigo  D'Agostino 
is  as  follows:) 

Statement  of  Fortune  Pope,  Editor  and  Publisher  of  II  Progresso 

Italo-Americano 

(By  Amerigo  O'Agostino,  legislative  counsel) 

The  Italian  population  at  present  numbers  over  46,500,000  persons,  in  a  country 
of  which  two-thii'ds  is  virtually  unproductive  and  in  which  mineral  resources  and 
raw  materials  are  almost  completely  lacking.  Owing  to  the  very  low  ratio  of 
natural  resources  to  pcjpulatiou,  the  per  capita  income  in  1950  was  only  $276, 
and  food  consumption  amounted  to  only  2,443  calories  per  day. 

As  a  result  of  the  relative  freedom  of  trade  and  the  movement  of  capital  and 
men  in  the  pre-1914  era,  Italy  was  able,  from  the  time  of  its  unification  (1870) 
at  one  and  the  same  time  to  increase  its  industrial  and  agricultural  production, 
to  expand  its  external  trade  and  to  organize  migratory  movements,  which  fol- 
lowed those  of  the  countries  of  Northern  and  Western  Europe  and  reached  their 
peak  in  1913,  with  853,000  emigrants.  As  a  result,  however,  of  the  First  World 
War  and  the  restrictive  legislation  adopted  by  some  of  the  i)rincipal  immigraticm 
countries  and  further  intensified  during  the  great  crisis  of  1929-33,  emigration 
was  substantially  reduced  and  no  longer  made  its  contribution  to  the  solution 
of  the  problem  of  surplus  population  in  Italy. 

The  Second  World  War  completely  brouglit  to  an  end  the  flow  of  emigrants. 
It  was  resumed  again  after  the  War  but  without  attaining  the  same  proiiortious 
as  in  the  past  (1949:  170,000  migrants;  1950:  approximately  150,000  migrants). 

Although  Italy  allocated  20  percent  of  its  gross  national  income  to  capital  in- 
vesrment — a  very  high  proportion  in  view  of  the  very  moderate  per  capita 
income — and  although  very  considei-able  efforts  have  been  and  are  being  made 
by  the  Government  in  the  field  of  economic  development  (import  of  macliine 
tools  with  the  help  of  Marshall  Aid,  agrarian  reform,  the  "Fanfani  Plan"  for 
housing,  the  "('assa  Mezzogiorno"  providing  for  an  annual  expenditure,  spread 
over  10  years,  of  100  billion  lires  for  the  complete  exploitation  of  the  under- 
developed regions  of  the  south  and  the  islands),  the  unemployment  figure  stands 
at  1,792,000,  while  the  figure  for  latent  unemployed  is  estimated  at  2,000,000,  suflS- 
cient  proof  that  the  overpopulation  problem  in  Italy  remains  as  serious  and 
tragic  as  ever. 

25356—52 15 


220  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


About  480,000  refufiees  from  the  former  colonies  in  Africa  and  the  Aegean 
islands,  from  Venezia  Giulia  and  from  Dalmatia  have  come  to  a.tigravate  further 
this  extremely  unhealth.v  situation.  To  point  out  the  political  and  social  danjjers 
which  are  inherent  in  these  conditions  would  be  superlluons,  but  it  may  be  noted 
that  they  impede  the  efforts  to  solve  the  country's  economic  and  production 
problems,  make  it  more  difficult  to  reduce  prices  and  lead  to  an  unfavorable 
balance  of  payments,  which  is  Italy's  bottleneck  and  the  vicious  circle  which 
tlireatens  to  stifle  its  economy. 

In  relation  to  the  national  area  the  number  of  inhabitants  is  154  persons  per 
square  kilometer,  and  this  figure  is  further  augmented  if  the  proportion  is 
restricted  to  the  workable  land  area  alone,  in  which  case  the  ratio  is  285  inhabit- 
ants i>er  square  Idlometer. 

This  disproportion  is  still  more  notable  when  compared  with  the  situation 
in  other  countries;  e.  g.,  France,  75  inhabitants  for  square  kilometer;  Spain, 
56  inhabitants  for  square  kilometer;  Czechoslovakia,  U7 ;  United  States,  19; 
Canada,  1.4;  Argentina,  6;  Brazil,  5.9;  China,  47.0. 

The  demographic  situation  has  become  progressively  worse  in  recent  years 
with  the  increase  of  births  over  deaths,  and  the  increase  caused  by  the  war 
added  to  the  regular  yearly  growth  of  442,000. 

Tlie  war  brought  large  numbers  of  refugees  from  the  metropolitan  and  colonial 
territories  severed  from  the  national  soverei.gnty  and  ended  the  flow  of  emigration. 

Italy  lost  approximately  liOO,000  hectares  of  metropolitan  territory  in  Venezia 
Ciulia  and  Dalmatia  and  approximately  ;:ir)0,000,000  hectares  in  colonies.  And 
the  population  in  these  areas  did  not  remain,  but  instead  returned  almost  in 
its  entirety  to  Italy,  creating  the  serious  refugee  problem  already  aggravated 
by  the  large  number  of  citizens  homeless  from  the  war  and  obliged  to  flee  to 
other  towns. 

The  folhm-ing  figures  are  by  way  of  illustration  : 

(a)  Refugees  from  Africa,  approximately 225,000. 

(ft)  Refugees  from  the  Dodecannese  Islands,  iipproximately 5,000 

(c)  Refugees  from  Venezia  Giulia  and  Dalmatia,  approximately 155,  (KK) 

(d)  Refugees  from  abroad,  approximately 125,000 

The  above-listed  refugees  are  in  addition  to  those  compelled  to  leave  their  own 
town  because  destroyed.  Of  the  more  than  3.500,0<)0  homeless,  more  than 
2,000,000  moved  to  other  towns.  This  brings  the  total  number  of  displaced 
persons  in  Italy  to  more  than  2,000.000,  of  whom  500,000  are  refugees. 

The  problem  of  the  increase  in  population  in  Italy  has  assumed,  consequently, 
a  considerable  gravity,  all  the  more  when  it  i'^  consid -red  that  during  the  war 
the  normal  flow  of  emigration  reprsenting  an  average  of  150,000  persons  per 
year  stopped  entirely. 

Italy  has  been  consequently  obliged  to  confront  immense  difficulties  to  give 
work  and  living  conditions  to  all  these  citizens,  while  compelled  to  provide 
simultaneously  for  the  war  widows,  orphans,  disabled,  tubercular  and  others 
in.iured  in  the  war. 

As  a  result,  the  Italian  economy  from  before  the  war  until  today  has  been 
obliged  to  exert  tremendous  efforts  to  maintain  these  additional  millions  of 
persons  despite  the  destruction  of  the  war,  the  loss  of  territories,  etc. 

The  efforts  made  can  be  summarized  in  the  following  figures : 

Employment  in  the  various  sectors  of  production 

[In  thousands] 


1938 

1949 

Laborers 

Office 
workers 

Total 

Laborers 

Office 
workers 

Tot-il 

A?ric'ilture  .-          . 

2,319 

3,672 

183 

0 

582 
784 

17 
257 
222 

98 
447 
144 

2,  336 

3.929 

40.') 

104 

1.0->9 

928 

?.  335 

3.  fi78 

201 

8 

788 
785 

20 
333 
249 
138 
732 
147 

2.355 

Industry  and  transport          

4.011 

Commerce.  

450 

Credit,  etc    

146 

Public  administration       

1,520 

Various .  

932 

Total 

7,546 

1,185 

S,731           7.795 

1,619  1          9.414 

COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


221 


TlH-se  li.uuris  show  thai  fiuiii  I'.t.'iS  to  ILtlU  more  than  700,t)UU  lulditioiiul  workers 
were  employed.    In  19."il  the  figures  are  certainly  hijjher. 

The  iiuli'x  oi"  farm  prodiutictii,  which  fell  from  100  in  10:58  to  fil  in  1045, 
elimhed  in  1!M!)  to  !)U  and  in  V.)~>0  to  Of).  For  many  products,  tlie  index  of 
10;5>S  lias  heen  notably  exeeeiled. 

Today  the  index  of  industrial  production  has  not  only  reached  the  total  of 
1938  but  has  notal)ly  exceeded  it,  arrivins  at  128  in  December  lOHO. 

In  addition,  the  index  of  production  in  the  individual  industrial  sectors  in- 
dicates that  in  every  field  the  pi'ewar  index  has  been  reached  and  surpassed 
despite  many  ditiiculties  and  the  high  cost  of  i)roduction,  especially  of  labor. 

Il  is  true  that  more  millions  of  workers  have  been  absorbed  than  before  the 
war,  but  this  increa.se  has  forced  upon  business  and  government  an  antieconomic 
burden  of  labor  and  imposed  as  a  result  reduced  waji^es  and  income. 

If  the  relationship  between  the  farm  population  and  the  workable  land  in 
the  more  important  communities  is  considered,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  Italy  has 
a  coefficient  (tiS)  superior  to  all  other  countries,  which  is  to  say  that  Itlay  has 
a  farm  population  of  68  persons  per  100  hectares  of  arable  land,  while  Germany 
has  no.  En.uland  23,  Australia  5. 

For  example,  the  number  of  workers  per  square  kilometer  of  productive  land 
area  is  in — 


Italy 2.^),  50 

Germany 12,  70 

France 8,  56 


Enii-land 5,*00 

I'nited    States 1,87 


Tlie  number  of  calories  per  inhabitant  in  Italy  is  very  low 


Countries :  Colorics 

Argentina 3, 190 

Australia 3, 165 

United  States 3,128 

Switzerland 3,  096 

Sweden 3,  070 

Finland 3,  070 

Denmark 3,  064 

Canada 3,  062 

England 3,  030 

France 2,  740 


Countries:  Calories 

Czechoslovakia 2,  689 

Austria 2,  636 

Poland 2,  622 

Western  Germany 2,528 

Greece 2,  468 

East  Germany 2,410 

Italy 2,  343 

Pakistan 2,  028 

Japan 1,  834 

India 1.  621 


The  situation  is  further  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  the  population  in  the  south 
of  Italy  consumes  much  less  than  that  in  the  north.    For  example: 


Percent  of  tlie 

consumptioTi 

in  Italy 


Nortlieni  It-.ily 
Central  Italy.. 
Southprn  Italy 
Insular  Italy. 

Total    .. 


CO,  1» 

20,67 

12.85 

6,29 


ion,(K) 


These  facts  demonstrate  that  northern  Italy,  with  40  percent  of  the  population, 
consumes  (JO  percent  of  the  foodstuffs,  which  is  to  say  that  the  calory  index 
in  the  southern  and  insular  re;,'ions  is  nun  h  lower  than  the  national  average. 

The  folhjwiuLC  examples  further  illustrate  the  above  data: 

Consumption  of  .sugar  in  Italy  is  below  16  kilograms  per  person  per  year 
(Colombia,  over  48  kiloqrrams). 

Consuniption  of  potatoes  in  Italy  is  under  65  kilograms  per  person  i)er  year 
(Germany  and  Poland,  over  1,845  kilot:ranis) . 

Consunii)tion  of  fats  in  Italy  's  under  12  kilograms  per  person  per  year  (Nor- 
way, Belgium.  Canada,  exceed  18  kilograms). 

Consuniption  of  meat  in  Italy  is  under  17  kilograms  per  person  (Australia, 
over  1"2  kilo'-M-aiiis ). 

Consuinption  of  milk  in  Italy  is  nnder  80  kilograms  per  person  per  year  (Fin- 
land. Xoi  way.  over  240  kilograms). 

Reviewing  the  above  facts,  it  is  olivious  that  the  Italian  demographic  problem 
cannot  be  resolved  with  only  the  means  at  the  disposal  of  the  Italian  (X'onomy. 


222         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  - 

Few  countries  in  the  world  have  succeeded  without  raw  materials,  without 
extensive  territory,  or  without  colonies  to  maintain  such  a  large  number  of 
inhabitants  as  there  are  in  Italy. 

To  meet  these  obligations  every  effort  has  been  made,  recourse  has  been  had 
to  every  legislative  expedient,  and  every  possible  economic  initiative  has  been 
taken  with  the  support  of  EGA  and  MSA. 

All  the  ingenuity  of  the  Italian  people  has  gone  into  this  effort,  with  first  credit 
going  to  their  spirit  of  sacrifice  and  the  modest  standard  of  living  they  sustain. 
Surplus  labor  has  been  imposed  on  business,  and  wages  have  been  restricted  to 
maintain  more  workers  and  similar  measures  have  been  resorted  to,  but  this 
process  has  gone  to  the  very  limit  and  cannot  be  further  exploited  by  the  country. 
The  condition  of  the  Italian  population  must  not  be  judged  by  the  kind  of  life 
lived  in  some  circles  of  the  large  cities.  This  group  of  citizenry  is  but  a  small 
minority.  The  great  mass  of  the  Italian  people  live  in  very  modest  circumstances, 
especially  in  the  central,  southern,  and  insular  regions. 

It  is  absolutely  necessary  for  Italy  that  her  citizens  have  the  liberty  to  emi- 
grate, because  only  by  this  expedient  can  such  a  great  number  of  people  be  settled. 
These  people,  by  reason  of  their  present  miserable  living  conditions,  constitute  a 
great  danger,  and  the  desirable  economic  and  social  equilibrium  which  is  funda- 
menal  to  prosperity  and  peace  can  be  got  only  by  emigration. 

The  settlement  of  a  considerable  number  of  these  dislocated  persons  would 
-considerably  relieve  the  situation  in  Italy  because,  granted  that  it  is  already  im- 
possible to  absorb  the  normal  population  increase  by  internal  production  and  free 
■emigration  to  various  countries,  it  is  absolutely  precluded  that  the  internal 
Italian  market  can  provide  labor  for  all  the  persons  displaced  by  the  war. 

THE  ITALIAN  DEMOGRAPHIC   SITUATION 

The  already  high  population  density  is  continually  on  the  increase;  from  91 
inhabitants  per  square  kilometer  since  1871  it  rose  to  130.2  in  1928 ;  from  141.8 
in  1938  it  has  reached  154.4  inhabitants  per  square  kilometer  today.  (The  world 
average  is  18. )  The  last  figure  applied  to  the  entire  national  territory  results  to 
167.5  inhabitants  per  square  kilometer  of  arable  land  (world  average,  34.6)  and 
285  per  square  kilometer  for  usable  land  (world  average.  195.4). 

Furthermore,  while  the  density  ratio  rose  in  all  three  fields  and  the  possibility 
is  scant  for  increasing  the  percentage  for  arable  land,  agriculture  and  forestal 
area  in  general,  other  countries  have  considerable  opportunity  for  lowering  their 
density  proportion. 

At  any  rate,  confining  ourselves  to  the  density  in  the  total  national  area,  it  is 
obvious  that  Italy  has  a  density  among  the  highest  in  the  world,  with  154.4  in- 
habitants per  square  kilometer.  The  European  average  is  78  (excluding  Russia 
with  a  density  of  8  inhabitants  per  square  kilometer)  ;  average  for  Asia,  47; 
America,  S;  Africa,  7;  Oceania,  1.  Among  the  great  European  nations,  France 
has  75.4  inhabitants  per  square  kilometer;  Spain  has  57.2  :  Portugal,  94 ;  Switzer- 
land 112.4  ;  Czechoslovakia,  97.5  ;  Yugoslavia,  63.3  ;  Poland,  78.4  ;  Rumania,  67.4 ; 
Hungary,  99.2  ;  Sweden,  15.6 ;  Norway,  10 ;  Iceland,  1.4.  On  other  continents,  the 
United  States  has  19.3  inhabitants  per  square  kilometer ;  Canada  has  1.4 ;  Argen- 
tina, 6;  Brazil,  5.9;  Chile,  7.8;  Colombia,  9.7;  Peru,  6.7;  Venezuela,  5.1;  Egypt, 
20;  Ethiopia,  18.4;  South  Africa,  9.9;  Tunisia,  20.9;  India,  109.9;  China,  47.6. 

Naturally,  the  demographic  density  is  not  the  same  in  all  the  regions  of  Italy. 
The  most  densely  populated  region  is  Campania  (331  inhabitants  per  square 
kilometer),  followed  by  Liguria  (282)  and  by  Lombardy  (263).  The  less  popu- 
lated regions  are  Sardinia  (51  inhabitants  per  square  kilometer),  Lucania  (62), 
Umbria  (94). 

More  than  half  the  Italian  population  lives  in  towns  with  more  than  10,000 
inhabitants.  Eighty-one  cities  have  a  population  of  from  30.000  to  50,000  inhabi- 
tants ;  25  cities  have  a  population  of  50,000  to  100,000 ;  25  cities  have  more  than 
100,000  inhabitants,  and  of  these  3  exceed  1,000,000  population.  The  total  num- 
ber of  municipalities  is  7,764. 

In  Italy  there  are  11,000,000  families,  of  which  7,500,000  have  children  living 
at  home.  On  the  average,  these  latter  families  have  2.7  children  per  family,  with 
a  minimum  of  2.2  in  the  families  of  office  workers  and  3.3  in  the  families  of 
agricultural  communities. 

In  the  distribution  of  the  sexes,  the  women  markedly  exceed  men  in  the  Italian 
population.  This  excess,  which  was  797,000  on  April  21,  1936,  had  risen  to 
1.167,000  by  December  31.  1949. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         223 
The  ajre  distribution  of  the  Italian  population  can  be  tabulated  as  follows: 


Age  groups 


0  to9    

10  to  20 

15  to  20 

21  to  34 

35  to  44 

45  to  54 

65  to  64 

65  and  over 

Total 


Apr.  21,  1936 


Thousands  of 

inhabitants 


8.  567 
4.326 
3.750 
9.745 
5.114 
4.186 
3.202 
3.131 


42. 021 


Percent 


20.4 

10.3 

8.9 

23.2 

12.1 

10.0 

7.6 

7.5 


100.0 


Dec.  31,  1949 


Thousands  of 
inhabitants 


8.127 
4.170 
4.899 
9.786 
6.756 
.5.116 
3.  863 
3.704 


46.  421 


Percent 


17.5 

9.0 

10.6 

21.1 

14.5 

11.0 

8.3 

8.0 


100.0 


In  the  period  under  study  then  there  has  been  an  increase  of  the  active  popu- 
lation (15  to  65  years  of  age)  which  rose  from  26,997  to  30,420,  and  from  61.8 
percent  of  the  total  to  65.5  percent. 

Approximately  48  percent  of  the  working  population  are  males. 

About  48  percent  of  the  working  population  (persons  from  10  years  old  and 
up  who  exercise  a  profession  or  other  known  activity)  is  devoted  to  agriculture 
(of  which  28  percent  are  day  laborers  or  otherwise  hired),  29  percent  is  in 
industry  (of  which  77  percent  are  employees),  8  percent  are  in  commerce  (of 
which  about  36  percent  are  employees),  and  the  remainder  are  in  the  free  pro- 
fessions, on  the  public  payroll,  and  in  other  activities. 

Altogether,  about  52  percent  are  employed  (manual  workers,  38  percent; 
office  workers,  8  percent;  service  personnel,  6  percent)  and  the  remainder  is 
composed  of  independent  producers  (farmers,  farm  renters,  merchants,  artisans, 
professional  men), 

THE  MOVEMENT  OF  THE  ITALIAN  POPULATION 

We  have  already  seen  how  the  period  of  1936-50  the  Italian  population  grew  bj 
approximately  41/2  million,  of  whom  2,800,000  are  in  the  working  population.. 
We  will  now  examine  the  causes  of  this  increase. 

Approximately  the  marriage  rate  varies  from  7  to  8  per  thousand  except  ii% 
exceptional  periods  (war  years  and  postwar  years). 

The  birth  rate  dropped  gradually  from  about  37  percent  in  the  period  of  1872- 
75  to  19.2  percent  in  1950.  In  general,  in  these  recent  years  it  has  stabilized 
at  20  percent. 

The  mortality  rate  has  dropped  rapidly  and  more  quickly  than  the  birth  rate. 
From  30.5  percent  in  the  period  1872-75  it  has  dropped  from  9.7  percent  in  1950, 
which  was  one  of  the  lowest  percentages  in  Europe. 

This  rapid  decline  in  mortality  is  yerified  in  almost  all  the  causes  of  death 
except  tumors,  for  which  the  average  per  year  rose  from  427  percent  in  the 
period  1887-92  to  1.022  i)ercent  in  1949,  and  diseases  of  the  circulatory  system, 
for  which  the  figures  are  respectively  1.57  percent-2.08  percent.  That  for 
tuberculosis  from  an  average  in  1887-92  of  2.061  percent  to  492  percent  in  1949 ; 
for  malaria  567  percent  and  002  percent ;  for  infections  and  parasitic  diseases 
in  general,  from  6466  percent  to  .939  percent ;  for  pneumonia  and  bronchitis, 
2.351  percent  and  .969  percent. 

The  net  increase  in  the  Italian  population  (number  of  births  minus  deaths) 
is  about  10  percent  per  year  and  was  precisely  442,000  in  1950.  An  increase 
of  this  size  corresponds  to  a  labor  levy  of  at  least  200,000  persons  annually  that 
burden  the  national  economy,  whose  deficiency  of  capital  makes  very  difficult 
an  expansion  corresponding  to  the  arrival  of  new  workers  and  new  consumers, 
but  which  despite  this  makes  the  greatest  possible  effort  to  solve  this  problem 
which  is  one  of  the  serious  social  and  economic  problems  in  the  country.  From 
1939  until  today  the  problem  of  the  increasing  population  has  become  progres- 
sively worse  for  many  reasons,  chief  of  which  are  the  following: 

(a)  Shrinkage  of  total  national  territory  caused  by  the  losses  imposed  by 
the  peace  treaty ; 

(b)  the  loss  of  the  colonial  territories  and  empire; 

(c)  the  influx  to  Italy  of  refugees ; 


224 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


id)  the  creation  of  a  large  class  of  persons  obliged  by  the  war  to  abandon  their 
homes  and  their  country  of  ori.uin  to  move  into  another  zone  of  the  country; 

(e)  the  stoppage  and  subsequent  insufiicient  rate  of  emigration. 

The  persons  in  the  classes  referred  to  in  (c)  and  (d)  can  be  classified  as  dis- 
located persons. 

Dr.  Donald  R.  Taft,  in  Human  .Migration,  says  :  "Under  conditions  of  over- 
population men  do  not  migrate;  they  lie  down  and  die."  The  people  of  Italy 
aie  not  characterized  by  an  absence  of  hope  and  energy ;  they  are  among  the 
most  active  migrants  in  recent  history. 

According  to  statistics  released  by  the  Istituto  Centrale  di  Statistica  Italiana, 
emigration  by  sea  during  the  year  1951  amounted  to  143,480  persons,  of  which 
88,915  were  males  and  54,465  were  females.  In  1950  the  number  of  emigrants 
were  145.169,  of  which  94,666  were  males  and  50,503  were  females. 

The  total  number  from  the  various  regions  for  1951  were  as  follows : 


Destination  and  Ntjmrkr 


Region 

Piemonte 3,  521 

Val  d'Aosta 53 

Lombardia 4,  728 

Trentino,  Alto  Adige 854 

Veneto 9,  471 

Friuli-Venezia  Giulia 6,  268 

Liguiia 3,  334 

Emilia-Romagna 4,  354 

Toscana 4,  943 

Umbria 701 

Marche 3,  039 

Lazio 7,  322 

Abruzzi  e  Molise 17,  418 

Campania 16,  621 

Puglia 6, 271 

Basilicata 4, 110 

Calabria 23,  571 

Sicilia 17,  85S 

Sardegna 675 

Unspecified 8,  307 

1  It  should  be  explained  that  3,991  of  this  figure  represents  nonquota  immigration  to 
the  U.  S.  A.,  and  that  this  number  is  over  and  above  the  5,677  total  quota  allowed  to 
Italy  under  the  1924  Immigration  Act  as  amended. 

LOSSES  ON   NATIONAL  TERRITORY 

April  21,  1936,  the  territorial  extent  of  Italy  was  31,019,000  hectares  of  which 
28,549,700  hectares  were  agricultural  and  forestal  area.  June  30,  1950  the  two 
figures  were  respectively  reduced  to  30,103,088  hectares  and  27,758,306  hectares 
with  a  decrease  of  approximately  916,000  hectares  for  the  national  territory  and 
approximately  791,400  hectares  for  the  agricultural  and  forestal  area.  The 
populations  of  these  zones  taken  from  the  motherland  (mostly  in  Venezia  Giulia 
and  Dalmatia)  subsequently  took  refuge  in  Italy  as  will  be  seen  below. 


France j. 

Yugoslavia 

Great  Britain 

Spain 

Mediterranean  countries 

Continental  countries 

Canada 

U.  S.  A 

Central  America 

Argentina 

Brazil 

Bolivia 

Colombia 

Chile 

Other  South  American  countries. 

Eritrea 

Somalia 

Kenya 

Asia 

Australia 


2,633 

1 

26 

338 

8,755 

394 

21,  277 

'  9,  668 

331 

55,  261 

8,936 

&4 

228 

2,094 

70 

650 

641 

81 

190 

17, 454 


THE  LOSS  OF  COLONIES  AND  POSSESSIONS 

Before  the  war  Italy  had  the  following  possessions  and  colonies :  ^^.^^  ^^ 

Italian   Provinces   of   Libya    (considered   a   part   of   the   national  hectares 

territory) 55,  394,  000 

Libyan  Desert 120,  560,  000 

Italian  Islands  in  Aegean  Sea 268,200 

Italian  East  Africa  (Eritrea,  Ethiopia,  Italian  Somaliland) 172,533,000 

Total 348,  755,  OOO 

Approximately  500,000  hectares  were  in  full  process  of  cultivation  in  Libya, 
Eritrea,  and  Somaliland  alone,  and  extraordinary  possibilities  for  colonization 
existed  in  these  lands,  of  which  Italy  retains  now  only  the  trustee.ship  of  Somali- 
land with  some  10,000  hectares  under  cultivation  and  with  the  greater  part  of 
the  installations  destroyed. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMKiRATlON    .WD    NATURALIZATION 


225 


More  will  he  said  below  of  the  <!(iiniime  of  f!  e  Italians  who  had  made  these 
countries  fertlh'  with  their  s/icrifiee  and  their  toil. 

At  this  point  it  is  suflioient  to  consider  the  obstacle  that  the  loss  of  these 
territories  place  in  the  wa.v  of  the  Itnlian  ixipulati*  n  expansion  and  the  char- 
acteristics of  Italian  colonizition  which  was  never  a  colonization  of  exploita- 
tion, bnt  always  colonization  which  had  work  for  its  scope. 

THE  CATFXiORIES   OF  DISLOCATED  PERSONS  IN   ITALY 

Under  the  name  of  'dislocated  persons"  at  least  the  following  categories  should 
be  included  in  Italy  : 

(c)   Refugees  from  Africa  (Libya,  Clrenaica,  Eritrea,  Somaliland,  Ethiopia)  ; 
(6)   Refugees  from  Dodecannese  Islands  ; 

(c)  Refugees  from  Venezia  Giulia  and  Dalmatia ; 

(d)  Refugees  from  abroad. 

Persons  who.  because  of  the  war,  remained  homeless  and  were  obliged  to 
abandon  their  dwellings  and  native  towns  to  take  refuge  in  other  parts  of  Italy 
are  also  to  h^  included  in  this  category. 

THE  REFUGEE  PROBLEM 

Refugees  from  Africa  (Italian  colonies) 

It  is  difficult  to  give  an  exact  figure  on  the  statistics  of  this  group  insofar  as 
their  exodus  took  place  during  and  after  the  war  without  the  possibility  of  a 
precise  computation.  At  any  rate,  the  official  figures  do  not  differ  widely  from 
the  actual  number  of  this  group  of  refugees. 

According  to  the  U.  N.,  estimate  for  1939  to  1948,  the  number  of  Italians  who 
are  residents  in  Italian  Africa  was  the  following : 


1939 

1948 

Difference 

Libya                                                        -  -         

118,  718 

72,  .500 

19,000 

.    58.500 

45,  000 

25,  000 

5,000 

.  73,  718 

Eritrea                                            - 

47,500 

Somaliland                   .      -  -  - ' .    -- 

14,000 

Ethiopia              -  - -  -. 

58,500 

Total                                           

268,  718 

75,000 

193,  718 

If  consideration  is  given  to  the  net  population  increase  of  those  fleeing  to  other 
countries  and  of  other  elements  of  obvious  importance  the  number  of  these 
refugees  would  probably  exceed  200,000. 

Actually,  according  to  official  sources  the  figure  is  218,713  of  whom  98,000 
came  from  Libya  and  the  remainder  from  Eritrea,  Ethiopia  and  Italian  Somali- 
land. Another  official  source  puts  the  figure  at  a  maximum  of  225,000  in  1946. 
In  1951  an  additional  70,000  refugees  arrived,  mostly  from  Libya. 

According  to  the  sources  mentioned  above,  the  total  influx  of  refugees  year 
by  year  is  the  following: 


Year — Continued 

1948 

1949 

1950 

1951 


Number  of 
rcjuyees 

_  7, 432 

_  5, 652 

_  1, 629 

_  7,000 


Total 225,  713 


Number  of 
Year :  refucjres 

1941 34, 000 

1942 30,000 

1943 35, 000 

1944 3,  000 

1945 15, 000 

1946 52.  000 

1947 35,  000 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  refugees  from  Africa  had  for  the  greater  part  families 
with  relatives  in  Italy  and  frequently  had  recoui'se  to  them  for  lodging  and  hoard 
so  that  on  .Tune  30,  1951,  the  refugees  from  Africa  assisted  in  camps  amounted  to 
3,023  while  1,075  were  assisted  outside  the  camps.  These  figures  refer  to  cases 
which  are  really  pitiful  and  despei'ate  to  such  an  extent  that  the  public-welfare 
agency  has  been  obliged  to  give  them  priority  of  attention. 

The  percentage  of  able-bodied  men  and  hence  a  potential  worker  is  particularly 
high  among  these  refugees  as  likewise  is  the  percentage  of  sjecialized  workers, 
especially  in  the  field  of  agriculture.     The  reasons  are  obvious  as  these  people 


226  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

were  chosen  either  by  reason  of  good  health  or  professional  ability  from  the 
moment  they  departed  for  the  colonies  where  they  subsequently  developed  these 
capacities  in  the  process  of  colonization. 

Refugees  from  Dodeca7inese  Islands 

As  is  known,  the  Dodecannese  Islands  were  given  by  the  peace  treaty  to  Greece. 
There  were  living  in  the  islands,  in  1943,  about  10,000  Italian  citizens.  At 
the  present  time  there  remain  only  three  persons  with  Italian  citizenship.  How- 
ever, since  several  thousand  of  these  people  took  Greek  citizenship  and  since 
others  went  to  other  countries  the  number  of  those  refugees  can  be  estimateri 
at  5,000. 

Refugees  from  Venezia  Giulia  and  Dalmatia 

It  is  difficult  to  make  an  exact  estimate  of  the  refugees  in  this  category 
because  their  evodus  began  in  noteworthy  numbers  in  September,  1943,  while 
the  official  statistics,  which  are  only  approximate  because  incomplete  began 
with  May  6,  1945.  Therefore,  the  official  figures  of  115,000  should  be  increased 
to  170,000-190,000  to  be  closer  to  the  facts. 

With  the  territorial  loss  suffered  by  Italy  and  with  the  Yugoslav  policy 
of  expelling  the  Italians  to  replace  them  with  persons  of  Slavic  origin  it  is 
difficult  to  estimate  the  measure  of  migration  by  the  difference  in  population 
between  1938  and  1948.  It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that  from  the  zone  of  Pola 
alone  not  less  than  30,000  were  expelled. 

However,  as  has  been  said,  about  115,000  of  these  refugees  have  obtained  from 
the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  the  official  recognition  of  refugee  status.  Of  these 
115,000,  a  total  of  103,000  have  already  obtained  Italian  citizenship,  and  it  is 
hoped  that  also  the  others  can  obtain  it  soon. 

The  Ministry  of  Interior  from  February  1947  to  May  31,  1951,  has  assisted 
73,875  refugees  from  Venezia  Giulia  of  whom  27,151  were  in  camps.  Until 
June  30,  1951,  a  total  of  29,519  refugees  from  Venezia  Giulia  were  assisted  of 
which  14,979  were  in  camps  and  14,540  were  outside  of  camps. 

The  refugees  from  Venezia  Giulia  and  Dalmatia  constitute  a  category  with  a 
high  percentage  of  specialized  workers,  especially  in  the  field  of  industry.  It  is 
enough  to  mention  the  large  number  of  workers  coming  from  the  shipyards 
of  Pola,  from  the  torpedo  works  of  Fiume,  the  mines  of  Arsa  and  the  canning  and 
liquor  industries  of  Dalmatia. 

The  number  of  able-bodied  men  is  40,000  of  which  the  greater  part  is  unem- 
ployed. 

Refugees  from,  ahroad 

With  the  war  a  large  number  of  Italians  living  abroad  were  obliged  to  repa- 
triate, swelling  the  ranks  of  dislocated  persons.  They  came  to  Italy,  sometimes 
in  groups  and  sometimes  singly.  They  were  never  counted  accurately  and  often 
it  was  impossible  to  count  them  at  all.  Hence,  it  is  difficult  to  give  precise 
figures :  their  number  varies  between  100,000  and  150,000,  with  the  figure  of 
125,000  being  a  reliable  estimate. 

Their  origins  differ  widely  :  Bulgaria,  Czechoslovakia,  Egypt,  Eastern  Germany, 
Greece,  Rumania,  Tunisia,  Hungary. 

It  has  not  been  possible  to  determine  the  percentage  of  able-bodied  men,  their 
degree  of  specialization  or  other  data  because  of  the  heterogeneous  nature  of 
this  group. 

A  summary  review  of  the  situation  is  outlined  in  the  following  figures : 

(a)  Refugees  from  Africa 225,000 

(6)  Refugees  from  the  Dodecannese  Islands 5,  000 

(c)  Refugees  from  Venezia  Giulia  and  Dalmatia 155,  000 

(d)  Refugees  from  abroad 125,000 

Total 510,000 

As  stated  above  only  a  limited  number  were  accommodated  in  camps  or  about 
28,000  of  whom  3,000  were  refugees  from  Africa  and  15,000  from  Venezia  Giulia 
and  Dalmatia. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         227 

In  1047,  approxiiimti'ly  .".".000  Ttnlinn  rofiijict's  were  iiiiiintiiiiicd  in  10S  camps. 
Sub.st'quently,  tlif  niovi'iiu'iil  in  thi'  caiiiits  was  the  fdUowiiig : 


Admitted 

Dismissed 

1947                                                   

10, 149 
14.  883 
12.864 

7,487 

14,529 

1948                                         - 

20,624 

1949     - 

24,  622 

1950 

9,826 

June  30,  irSl,  a  total  of  28,585  of  these  persons  were  supported  iu  42  camps. 
In  April  1951,  the  Italian  administration  was  assigned   the  four  following 
additional  camps  IRO. : 


Locality 

Total  number  of  refu- 
gees accommodated 

Number  of  Oiulian 
refugees 

Aversa -_.  

1,319 
966 
434 
324 

818 

Capua                                        _             ......  

514 

PontecagTiano  (S.  Antonio) .  

86 

Mercatello 

163 

Total - - 

3,043 

1,158 

All  in  all,  there  is  an  additional  40,000  assisted  by  the  Italian  Government  out- 
side the  camps. 

Assistance  to  refugees 

The  Government  public  welfare  agencies  and  many  private  institutions  among 
which  are  many  American  relief  agencies  in  Italy  (the  chief  American  relief 
agencies  are  W.  R.  S. — N.  C.  W.  C,  A.  J.  D.  C.)  are  now  dedicated  to  the  assist- 
ance of  refugee.  Placement  services,  unemployment  assistance,  miscellaneous 
aid,  relief  distribution  (for  example,  on  the  occasion  of  the  arrival  in  Italy 
of  the  Friendship  Train,  the  National  Organization  for  Relief  Distribution 
(ENDSI)  in  Italy  distributed  approximately  9,000  food  parcels  in  the  refugee 
tamps)  and  other  assistance  have  amounted  only  to  a  momentary  alleviation  of 
the  tragic  situation  without  resolving  the  radical  problem  of  the  resettlement  of 
these  refugees  which  remains  a  very  serious  problem. 

Excluding  other  entries  which  refer  in  various  ways  to  this  assistance  In  the 
Federal  budget,  in  the  budget  of  independent  regional  agencies  and  various  wel- 
fare agencies  and  excluding  the  Italian  contribution  to  IRO,  it  is  worthy  of  note 
that  the  Italian  Government  has  appropriations  in  the  budget  for  refugee  assist- 
ance in  the  following  figures : 

Period :  Lire 

1946-^7 . 5,  957, 143, 165 

1947-48 9,  404,  5G3,  714 

1948-49 8,  9.51,  .580,  940 

1949-50 8,  454,  248,  039 


PERSONS  DISPLACED  BY  THE  WAR    (EXCLUDING  REFUGEES  FROM  NONMETROPOLITAN 

TERKITOEY) 

It  is  not  easy  to  give  even  a  broad  e.stimate  of  this  category  of  persons  for 
obvious  rea.sons  :  for  example,  the  examination  of  a  condition  of  such  proportions 
and  fluidity,  especially  during  the  war  years,  presented  practically  insurmount- 
able difficulties  at  that  time.  However,  it  is  possible  to  form  a  fairly  exact  idea 
of  the  proportion  of  the  problem  on  the  basis  of  the  several  following  con- 
siderations. 

From  a  joint  study  made  in  September,  1944,  by  the  Cabinet  Council,  the  Cen- 
tral Institute  of  Statistics  and  the  Allied  Mission  in  Italy,  the  majority  of  the 
municipalities  c(mtained  in  the  3S  provinces  of  central,  southern,  and  insular 
Italy  covered  approximately  48  percent  of  the  territorial  surface  of  Italy,  43 
percent  of  the  total  population,  48  percent  of  the  dwellings,  35  percent  of  resident 


228  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

rooms  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  at  that  time  there  was  the  following  destruction 
of  the  war  to  dwellings  (rooms  unoccupied)  : . 

Number  of  rooms  destroyed 484,222 

Number  of  rooms  seriously  damaged 145,002 

Number  of  rooms  damaged 181,005 

Number  of  rooms  lightly  damaged 436,082 

Total 1, 196,  311 

If  to  these  are  added  the  undamaged  rooms  in  apartments  where  some  rooms 
were  destroyed  and  which  certainly  received  some  light  damage  (broken  windows 
and  fixtures  and  other  losses)  and  because  they  were  part  of  an  apartment  par- 
tially destroyed  they  were  consequently  only  partly  habitable — the  number  of 
which  amounted  to  179,030 — the  total  of  rooms  destroyed  or  damaged  in  the  war 
at  that  time  and  in  the  towns  ix)lled  rises  to  1,375,341,  or  approximately  13  per- 
cent of  prewar  rooms  and  approximately  300,000  dwellings  of  which  about 
130,000  had  been  cleared  of  occupants.  Of  these  300,000  dwellings  a  little  more 
than  105,000  were  in  provincial  capitals  and  the  remainder  in  other  towns. 

With  the  average  occupancy  of  dwellings  (at  least  1  to  7  persons  per  room 
in  the  zone  of  Italy  under  examination)  the  number  of  persons  who  lost  their 
homes  as  a  result  of  the  war  was  no  less  than  2.300,000  at  that  time  and  in  the 
zone  under  examination. 

Many  of  these  persons  who  lost  their  homes  in  the  war  increased  the  already 
considerable  number  of  those  who  had  previously  left  their  home  and  native  town 
for  various  practical  reasons.  All  of  this  population  moved  to  those  regions 
which  were  more  out  of  the  way,  thus  evading  enumeration  and  often  the  num- 
bering made  for  ration  cards,  living  crowded  in  schools,  homes  of  relatives  and 
temporary  shelters.  The  greater  part  of  these  people  lost  their  jobs  and  all 
contact  with  their  native  town  and  remain  today  in  the  towns  in  which  they 
took  refuge,  increasing  sharply  the  numlier  of  those  forced  by  circumstances  to 
live  on  the  outskirts  of  the  cities  and  apart  from  the  city  life. 

As  explained,  there  was  never  any  successful  count  made  of  these  people ;  the 
count  referred  above  amounts  to  364,706  persons  (of  whom  203,013  were  women) 
as  displaced  from  other  towns,  but  it  is  certain  that  at  that  time  and  in  that 
zone,  in  order  to  be  close  to  the  facts  the  total  should  be  doubled. 

To  attempt  a  safe  estimate  of  all  those  in  Italy  who  lost  their  home  tlie  figure 
would  be  approximately  3,500,000  to  4,000,000,  of  whom  2.000,000  to  2,500,000  are 
displaced  in  other  towns.  Of  these  latter  from  1  million  to  1^2  million  can  be 
considered  as  dislocated  persons. 

EMIGRATION 

As  has  already  been  said  the  Italian  population  increases  by  approximately 
400,000  to  450,000  persons  annually  and  every  year  200,000  additional  citizens 
seek  employment. 

A  considerable  outlet  for  the  Italian  demographic  increase  in  the  past  was 
emigration,  which  some  years  actually  exceeded  the  natural  population  increase ; 
e.  g.,  in  1930  there  was  a  total  of  872,598  emigrants  (which  amounted  to  2.5  per- 
cent of  the  entire  population).  It  is  calculated  that  in  this  century  alone  ap- 
proximately 7  million  Italians  emigrated  to  countries  overseas  and  that  about 
one-half  of  these  emigrants  were  permanent  emigrants.  Of  these  latter  3% 
million  persons,  about  2  million  found  residence  in  the  United  States  and  1  mil- 
lion in  Argentina.  The  total  number  of  Italians  abroad  is  estimated  today  at  not 
less  than  8  million. 

During  the  war  emigration  stopped  almost  entirely,  except  for  several  hundred 
thousand  persons  who  emigrated  temporarily  to  Germany  while  the  call  to  arms 
gave  rise  to  the  serious  situation  of  the  veterans  which  was  to  contribute  to 
disorganizing  the  Italian  economy,  already  sorely  tried  by  the  war. 

At  the  end  of  the  war,  with  the  return  of  the  prisoners  and  veterans,  with  the 
loss  of  possessions,  the  gi'eat  number  of  persons  who  would  have  been  able  to 
emigrate  and  which  had  been  absorbed  in  the  aforementioned  employments  was 
thrown  on  the  Italian  labor  market. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


229 


The  number  of  would-be-einigrants  to  which  reference  was  made  above  may  be 
computed  as  follows,  on  the  basis  of  a  yearly  average  of  150,000  (including 
repatriated)  : 

Emigi-ation  l)acldog— period  1925-50  (25  x  150,000) 3,750,000 

Actual  emigration,  approximately 750,000 

3, 000, 000 

or  about  3,000,000  persons  who  could  have  emigrated  abroad  but  who  instead 
were  left  to  ag,i?ravate  the  national  economic  situation. 

In  the  years  following  the  war  the  emigration  rate  has  begun  to  recover  the 
different  characteristics,  but  at  a  pace  irreiiular  and  inadequate  to  absorb  the 
considerable  backlog  as  will  be  seen  better  below.  According  to  latest  data  tlie 
ditt'erence  between  emigrants  and  refugees  is  around  150,000  annually. 

For  a  correct  inttn-pretation  of  the  tables  furnishing  data  on  the  emigration 
movement  abroad,  the  two  following  facts  are  to  be  borne  in  mind : 

(a)  The  concept  of  emigrant  from  the  statistical  point  of  view  has  not  been 
the  same.  Until  1927  only  manual  workers  who  emigrated  temporarily  or  per- 
manently were  considered  emigrants.  From  1928  to  1946  there  were  included 
in  the  emigrant  category  manual  and  intellectual  workers  who  emigrated  for 
reasons  of  employment.  Finally,  since  1947  there  have  been  included  those  who 
emigrated  for  reasons  of  employment  or  to  establish  their  residence  abroad. 
As  a  re.sult  the  statistics  of  the  various  periods  are  not  strictly  comparable,  but 
they  are  always  useful,  especially  as  an  indication  of  trends ; 

(6)  The  computation  of  emigrants  and  repatriates  traveling  overland  has  been 
suspended  in  recent  years  because  of  the  lack  of  an  adequate  system  for  exam- 
ining the  situation.  At  the  present  time  coupons  are  being  attached  to  passports 
to  be  removed  at  the  moment  of  emigration  or  repatriation  of  the  emigrant  and 
until  they  are  applied  to  all  passports  the  relevant  data  cannot  be  computed  with 
sufficient  precision  and  elaborated.  Complete  figures  are  available,  therefore, 
only  for  emigrants  travelling  by  sea.  However,  on  the  basis  of  data  obtained 
from  various  sources  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  the  approximate  rate  of  emigra- 
tion movement  into  Europe  in  the  last  5  years.  In  the  absence  of  figures  on  the 
repatriates  from  Switzerland  we  have  estimated  their  number  on  the  samei 
percentage  of  these  expatriates  for  the  previous  2  years. 


Proportion  between  farm 

population  and 

arable  land 

Country 

Farm  population 

Arable  land 

Farm  pop- 
ulation per 
100  hectares 
of  arable 
land 

Year 

Thousands 

of 
inhabitants 

Year 

Hundreds 
of  hectares 

Italy. 

1936 
1933 
1931 
1926 
1920 
1930 
1931 
1920 
1937 

8,843 

10,  612 

7,710 

71,  735 

4,538 

1,041 

1,175 

10,  753 

667 

1936 
1937 
1936 
1934 
1935 
1936 
1936 
1926 
1935-36 

12,  947 
21,381 
21, 134 

223,916 

15,  770 

3,  739 

5.  213 

129,  43S 
11,  875 

f^ 

Oermany 

50 

France 

36 

Russia _  ...  

32 

Spain 

-. 

9Q 

Sweden.. 

28 

England.. 

23 

TT.  S.  A_- 

Australia 

8 
5 

UNEMPLOYMENT 

Unemployment  in  Italy  has  followed  the  course  summarized  for  the  last  28  years 
in  the  table  appearing  below.  These  data  show  that  unemployment  from  a 
minimum  of  a  little  less  than  tliree  per  thousand  of  the  population  in  1925  and 
1926  reached  a  maximum  in  1948  of  47  per  thousand. 

Unemployment  in  the  last  2  years  has  decreased  slightly.  It  is  especially  note- 
worthy that  the  considerable  increase  in  unemployment  immediately  after  the 
war  brought  the  percentage  in  194G  to  about  148  percent  of  that  iii  the  worst 
preceding  year  (1933)  and  to  about  268  percent  of  that  for  the  period  of  1940-41. 
The  situation  became  progressively  worse  until  1948.  The  explanation  of  this 
phenomenon  has  been  adequately  presented  in  the  preceding  paragraph. 

The  statistics  given  in  this  report  are  the  official  figures,  lower  than  the  actual 
facts  insofar  as  only  those  persons  registered  in  placement  offices  are  considered. 


230 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 


and  because  of  the  technical  difficulty  of  enumerating  them  the  following  groups 
are  passed  over  (as  was  also  observed  in  the  "Survey  on  Italy's  Economy" 
published  by  the  UNRRS  mission  in  1947)  : 

(a)  Those  thinl<ing  it  useless  to  register  and  preferring  to  seek  work  on  their 
own; 

(&)  Those  not  registered  through  ignorance,  material  impossibility  (distance 
from  the  office  or  other  reasons)  or  through  lack  of  confidence  in  the  usefulness 
of  registering. 

In  addition  the  statistics  do  not  include : 

(1)  Those  not  engaged  in  an  independent  activity  who  are  nevertheless 
unemployed ; 

(2)  A  large  part  of  those  partially  unemployed  and  of  those  practically  unem- 
ployed who  are  engaged  in  some  occasional  gainful  activity ; 

(3)  Overemployment  or  the  situation  in  which  in  a  determined  productive 
activity  (and  this  happens  often  in  agriculture  and  industry)  thei'e  are  normally 
and  by  mutual  agreement  a  larger  number  of  persons  employed  than  are  tech- 
nically necessary ; 

(4)  Obligatory  employment,  not  technically,  necessary,  i.  e.,  the  high  rate  of 
labor  imposed  by  the  Government  or  by  mayors  in  certain  regions  and  at  certain 
times  of  the  year. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  that  the  above  figures  could  include  duplicatie 
registrations  of  persons  not  completely  unemployed,  but  the  present  system  of 
strict  and  repeated  checking  renders  this  possibility  very  unlikely.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  a  recent  estimate  published  by  the  Economic  Commission  for  Europe 
(ECE)  puts  the  total  number  of  unemployed  Italians  to  abou  4  million.  There- 
fore, even  if  a  more  modest  estimate  was  given,  the  figures  for  Italian  postwar 
unemployment  issued  in  the  official  statistics  can  be  increased  at  least  60  to  70 
percent. 

In  the  absence,  therefore,  of  more  precise  data,  the  official  statistics,  which  are 
certainly  a  good  indication  of  the  trend  of  the  situation,  will  be  employed  in  the 
considerations  that  follows. 

First  of  all,  according  to  the  latest  international  surveys,  it  is  observed  that 
Italian  unemployment  is  among  the  highest  in  the  world  in  the  absolute  sense  and 
the  highest  if  related  to  the  resident  population  or  the  productive  population. 
By  way  of  illustration  the  following  table,  on  the  basis  of  official  figures,  with 
reference  to  the  productive  population,  is  adduced,  as  this  relationship  seems  to 
be  the  more  significant. 

This  table  shows  that  even  though  Italy  succeeds  in  some  degree  in  containing 
her  unemployment  it  continually  increases  in  the  majority  of  other  countries. 
The  table  follows  without  further  explanation. 

The  distribution  of  unemployed  in  the  various  groups  is  broadly  the  following : 

Percen  t 

Manual  workers  generally 20-25 

Employed  in  agriculture 15-20 

Employed   in   industr.y 50-55 

Other   groups 5-15 

The  following  data  are  for  1950 : 


Registered 


Percent 


Agriculture 

Industry 

Transport  and  communications 

Commerce 

Credit  and  insurance 

Manual  workers  generally 

Office  workers. 

Total.. 


346,  368 

966. 046 
18,853 
45,  611 

613 

404. 047 
58,  571 


1,  860, 109 


18.7 

52.0 

1.0 

2.4 


21.7 
4.2 


100.0 


Another  significant  classification  of  the  unemployed  is  that  by  classes.  As  of 
January,  1950,  the  division  is  the  following : 

Class  1 :  Unemployed  workers  through  loss  of  previous  employment. 

Class  2 :  Those  under  20  years  of  age  including  those  demobolized  from  mili- 
tary service  seeking  first  employment. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         231 

Class- 3:  Hdusewives  seekiiifr  first  oinployiiient. 

Class  4:  I'eiisioners  seeking  eiuploynu'iit. 

Class  5:  Employed  workeis  seekiim"  different  employment. 

For  1949  and  1950  there  is  the  following  approxinuite  division  of  the  same 

classes : 

[Percent] 


Total 

W 

omen 

only 

Class  1                                                               --- 

60-70 

15-25 

8-10 

2-5 

3 

50 

Class  2                                             - 

15-22 

Class  3                                                                                - 

25-30 

Class  4                                                                  

1-2 

Class  5                                                               --- 

1 

Altogether  women  represent  one-third  of  all  Italian  unemployed. 

In  conclusion  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  extraordinary  effort  put  forth  by  Italy' 
with  the  generous  assistance  of  UNKKA  and  with  the  interim  aid  of  ERP  has 
succeeded  in  redeeming  for  the  most  part  the  gra\e  social  and  economic  situation 
resulting  fi-om  the  war,  which  was  a  war  lost,  and  in  supporting  the  greater  part 
of  the  social  and  demographic  problem.  However,  there  still  remains  the  settle- 
ments of  at  least  2  or  3  million  persons  which  the  labor  market  cannot  com- 
pletely absorb  as  it  is  already  pressed  to  meet  new  demands  for  employment  by 
those  coming  of  working  age. 

At  least  2  million  persons  belonging  to  class  1  must  find  permanent  employment 
outside  Italy  to  prevent  the  already  serious  social  and  economic  situation  from 
becoming  more  grave.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Italian  agriculture  no 
longer  has  any  capacity  for  abscrbing  additional  labor  and  that  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  persons  would  l>e  forced  to  accept  the  wretched  life  of  the  agricul- 
tural day  laborer  in  Italy — the  tragic  human  and  social  consequences  of  which 
are  related  so  frequently  in  the  press — if  other  vast  and  generous  lands  will 
not  demonstrate  that  they  have  governments  and  peoples  equally  generous  and 
vast  in  vision  capable  of  sparing  Italy,  Europe,  and  the  world  the  tragic  conse- 
quences that  would  be  the  fatal  conclusion  of  the  wounded  brotherhood  of  man. 

CONCLUSION 

Europe  and  particularly  Italy  cannot  recover  so  long  as  millions  of  Europeans 
are  decaying  in  a  demoralizing  idleness  for  lack  of  opportunity  to  work  and  the 
chance  to  build  normal  family  life.  Europe  cannot  find  peace  so  long  as  these 
millions,  called  into  being  by  violent  and  inhuman  upheavals,  sow  the  seeds  of  dis- 
content, disturbance,  and  revenge.  The  problem  of  overpopulation  is  far  beyond 
the  scope  of  charity,  and  requires  immediate  and  effective  effort  on  the  part  of 
governments,  which  must  go  much  further  in  their  legislative  and  economic 
provisions  for  the  acceptance  of  these  lost  millions. 

When  the  so-called  Marshall  Plan  was  initiated  we  sincerely  tried  to  bolster 
the  civilian  economies  of  the  various  mitions.  Recently,  because  of  the  threats 
of  war,  our  aid  has  changed  its  character.  What  has  happened  to  our  plans  for 
peace — have  we  again  failed  to  penetrate  the  root  of  the  matter'?  Our  Nation, 
which  has  taken  the  lead  in  aid  to  so  many  far-flung  areas  of  the  world,  which 
is  bolstering  the  military  establishments  of  so  many  areas  of  tension,  which  is 
sharing  its  technical  skills  with  countries  that  are  underdeveloped  for  lack  of 
know-h(nv,  should  add  a  fourth  project — a  project  tl'.at  would  show  its  vision  and 
concern  for  the  welfaie  of  the  individual. 

Governments  will  not  act  uidess  they  are  pressed  by  people  who  are  able  to 
measure  the  depths  of  all  the  individual  tragedies  which  befell  these  bewildered 
mlllion.s.  Will  we  silence  the  voice  of  our  conscience  and  refuse  to  understand 
the  grief  of  these  victims  of  inhumanity  and  fail  before  ( Jod  and  hi.story  to  provide 
the  leadership  that  will  alleviate  th-ir  fate  ])y  efficient  help? 

(Sources  consulted:  Report,  Council  of  Europe,  19r»l ;  Instituto  Centrale  di 
Slatistica  Italiana ;  Selected  papers,  X.  C.  W.  C. :  Abbott  on  Historical  Aspects  of 
Immigration  ;  Rev.  Aloysius  .1.  Wycislo  on  "Our  Interest  in  Displaced  Persons,, 
etc.,  September  1951",  and  other  authorities.) 

Mr.  D'Agostino,  You  see,  gentlemen,  tlie  })rol)lem  tliat  faces  us 
today  in  tlie  field  of  imiiiiovation  is  essentially  a  problem  in  legisla- 
tion.   We  view  this  Public  Law  414  as  one  of  the  greatest  calamities- 


232  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

that  could  befall  the  people  of  this  country.  We  agree  with  many  of 
the  statements  that  the  President's  veto  message  contained  with  re- 
spect to  its  proposal  and  adoption,  and  we  can  see  in  Public  Law  414 
some  tyrannical  aspects  wdiich  sometimes  would  escape  us. 

The  proponents  of  Public  Law  414  and  the  sponsors,  together  with 
the  testimony  that  was  presented  before  them  at  the  public  hearings 
and  at  committee  hearings,  heard  both  sides  of  the  story  and  on  the 
basis  of  the  testimony  presented,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  whicli 
was  in  favor  of  a  less  restrictive  and  more  liberal  approach  to  immi- 
gration, the  law  was  passed.  But  it  is  fantastic  to  many  of  us  to  un- 
derstand how  it  is  possible  that  such  a  restrictive  piece  of  legislation 
came  forth. 

For  example,  we  take  it  for  granted  that  when  a  piece  of  legishition 
is  adopted  by  Congress  that  that  is  the  law,  but  amazing  enough  with 
the  growth  of  administrative  law  sometimes  we  fail  to  appreciate 
that  the  administrative  rules  enunciated  on  the  basis  of  legislation 
enacted  by  the  heads  of  departments  can  sometimes  thwart  or  destroy 
the  very  intent  of  the  law.    I  want  to  give  you  several  illustrations. 

Public  Law  414  specifically  provides  that  there  is  no  appeal  from 
the  consul's  position  denying  a  visa  or  passport  overseas.  We  have 
thought  and  we  contend  that  that  is  wrong;  that  there  should  be  an 
administrative  way  of  reviewing  these  positions  of  denial  of  passport 
and  visa.  A  young  man  whose  visa  petition  has  been  approved  by 
the  Justice  Department  appears  before  the  American  consulate  and 
lequires  a  nonquota  visa.  Tlie  American  consulate  says,  "I  deny  it." 
There  is  no  appeal. 

Pure  and  simple  tyrannical  thought  control  was  embodied  in  Pub- 
lic Law  414  in  which  there  is  denied  the  review  of  a  consular's  posi- 
tion. I  want  to  read  that  part  of  the  law  to  you :  "Aliens  who  the 
consular  officer  or  Attorney  General  knows  or  has  reason  to  believe 
seek  to  enter  the  United  States  *  *  *  to  engage  in  activities 
which  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  public  interest  *  *  *"  shall  be 
denied  visas.  There  is  no  appeal  from  such  a  decision.  In  other 
words,  the  decision  of  the  Attorney  General  or  of  the  consulate  that 
he  believes  the  alien  probably  will  engage  in  certain  activities — there 
is  no  appeal  from  that.  We  recommend  that  mandatory  legislation 
be  considered  in  that  field. 

We  also  recommend  that  a  full  and  complete  and  adequate  appeal 
and  review  procedure  be  adopted  in  exclusion  and  deportation  provi- 
sion under  Public  Law  414. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  a  farce,  the  optional  instructions  issuing  out  of 
Washington  from  the  Justice  Department  which  are  confidential  and 
cannot  be  seen.  The  rules  and  regulations  admitted  by  the  Immigra- 
tion Service  of  the  Department  of  Justice  which  can  be  seen  embody 
conflicting  rules,  changing  rules,  which  deflate  the  law,  which  thwart 
the  hiAv.  Therefore,  whichever  legislation  be  adopted  in  the  field  of 
immigration  and  naturalization  we  sincerely  hope  that  the  provision 
and  one  of  the  laudable  provisions  be  included  providing  for  a  joint 
congressional  committee  looking  into  rules  and  operations  and  regu- 
lations and  restrictions  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Serv- 
ice and  be  maintained  so  rules  and  regulations  and  operational  in- 
structions can  be  removed  by  a  congressional  body  before  being  placed 
into  effect. 


CO]V[MISSIOX    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  233 

Under  the  present  provision  the  Attomey  General  can  issne  a  regu- 
lation and  rules  which  are  })ublished  in  the  Federal  Register  and 
witliin  20  days  you  can  object  and  after  that  it  becomes  an  absolute 
applicable  rule. 

We  would  like  to  point  it  out.  the  intolerable  distinctions  of  natural- 
ized aiul  foreign-born  citizens,  especially  with  respect  to  those  in 
voluntary  military  service  and  those  who  have  voted  in  elections.  To 
give  you  an  ilhistration.  again  with  respect  to  administrative  pro- 
cedure :  There  was  quite  a  bit  of  much  ado  last  year  in  the  Eighty-first 
and  Eighty-second  Congress  wdth  respect  to  those  people  in  Italy  who 
voted  in  the  political  elections  because  of  the  terrific  impact  from  the 
State  Department  and  from  many  distinguished  citizens  in  the  United 
States  inviting  them  to  vote  against  the  Communists  in  the  elections 
of  June  2,  1946.  Those  people  voted  in  those  elections.  They  were 
constrained  and  compelled  under  duress  of  all  types,  even  to  the  extent 
of  luiving  been  deprived  of  ration  cards  if  they  didn't  vote,  and  there 
were  dozens  and  hundreds  of  American  citizens  who  were  temporarily 
in  Italy  and  Avho  were  compelled  to  vote.  Fortunately,  a  law  was 
enacted  in  the  Eighty-second  Congress,  Public  Law  414,  permitting 
these  people  to  be  naturalized  again,  not  repatriated  again  but  to  be 
naturalized.    The  effect  was  to  be  repatriated. 

Gentlemen,  I  want  to  show  you  what  happens  with  administrative 
procedure.  Public  Law  414  provided  that  any  American  citizen  who 
voted  in  the  political  elections  of  June  2,  1946,  or  March  2,  1948,  could 
by  going  before  an  American  consulate  swear  an  oath  of  allegiance  to 
the  United  States.  When  this  law  was  enacted  I  was  in  Italy,  the 
day  it  was  enacted  in  Congress.  The  wires  came  through  to  the 
consulate  that  the  law  had  been  enacted.  The  American  consulate  at 
Naples  told  me,  "We  cannot  admit  to  the  United  States  anybody  who 
voted  in  both  elections,"  and  yet  all  of  the  congressional  discussion 
and  intent  embodied  both  the  elections,  1946  and  1948,  and  the  word 
"or"  standing  between  1946  and  1948  was  an  inclusive  rather  than 
exclusive  "or."  Because  it  said  1946  or  1948  it  took  6  months  before 
the  State  Department  could  issue  mandatory  instructions,  during 
which  time  people  in  Italy  stood  by  waiting  to  be  repatriated  and 
analyzed.  But  that  isn't  the  end  of  it.  Some  of  them  did  come  through 
with  Italian  passports  and  Avhen  they  came  liere  they  had  to  apply 
to  the  Immigration  Service  and  make  application  for  oath  of  alle- 
giance. The  law  says  nothing  about  this.  They  must  swear  to  the 
American  consulate  or  other  duly  authorized  officers.  They  had  to 
present  evidence  of  having  voted.  It  is  acknowledged  that  you  did 
vote,  but  you  have  to  produce  evidence  from  the  Italian  authorities 
that  you  did  vote.  In  addition  you  must  present  evidence  that  you 
did  not  vote  in  any  other  elections.  This  applies  to  an  individual  who 
is  here  today. 

If  this  Commission  will  check  with  the  Immigration  Service  it  will 
find  that  of  the  tw^o  or  three  hundred  who  have  been  admitted  under 
this  law,  less  than  10  or  15  have  actually  been  sworn  and  made  Ameri- 
can citizens  again.  The  evil  of  today's  paradox  lies  in  the  admin- 
istration of  a  law  which  individuals  in  the  top  at  the  State  Depart- 
ment and  the  Justice  Department  do  not  consider  binding  upon 
them — Public  Law  414 — until  they  have  issued  rules  and  regulations 
pertaining  to  the  enforcement  thereof  provided  therefor  in  the  law 


234  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

itself.  Consequently,  an  American  consulate  is  not  governed  by 
Public  Law  414  overseas.  He  is  governed  in  the  rules  and  regulations 
proclaimed  or  admitted  for  him. 

Mr.  Fortune  Pope  and  the  progressive  organization  and  the  many 
Italian  civic  American  groups  in  the  United  States  have  fought 
desperately  for  liberal  approach  to  this  immigration  problem,  in- 
cluding the  question  of  utilizing  unused  quotas.  The  problem  is 
helped  in  the  Humphrey-Lehman  and  Celler  bills  and  others,  which, 
of  course,  were  discarded.  It  is  a  travesty  of  justice  to  see  the  United 
States  Senate  present  and  adopt  a  piece  of  legislation  offered  by  a 
man  who  refuses  to  answer  questions  put  to  him  explaining  the  law 
by  Senator  Lehman.  The  Congressional  Record  exemplifies  an  at- 
titude and  procedure  which  is  totally  unlike  the  American  way. 
Wlien  Senator  Lehman  has  asked  him  question  after  question  after 
question  he  has  refused  an  explanation  of  certain  provisions  or  any 
provisions  of  Public  Law  414.  And  the  Congressional  Eecord  is 
evidence  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  D'Agostino. 

Mr.  D'Agostino.  I  wish  to  thank  you  gentlemen  for  the  opportunity 
you  have  given  us. 

The  Chairman.  Are  Metropolitan  Anastassy,  and  Chancelor 
Grabbe  here  ? 

STATEMENTS  OF  METEOPOLITAN  ANASTASSY  AND  ARCHPRIEST 
GEORGE  GRABBE,  REPRESENTING  THE  RUSSIAN  ORTHODOX 
CHURCH  OUTSIDE  RUSSIA,  INC. 

Metropolitan  Anastassy.  I  am  Metropolitan  Anastassy,  president 
of  the  Bishops'  Synod  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church  Outside  Rus- 
sia, Inc.,  312  West  Seventy-seventh  Street,  New  York  City. 

Archpriest  Grabbe.  I  am  Archpriest  George  Grabbe,  chancelor  to 
the  Private  and  Bishops'  Synod  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church 
Outside  Russia,  Inc. 

Each  of  us  has  a  prepared  statement. 

Metropolitan  Anastassy.  I  ask  permission  to  have  Archpriest 
Grabbe  read  my  statement. 

Tlie  Chairman.  He  may  do  so. 

Metropolitan  Anastassy  (read  by  Archpriest  Grabbe).  We  are 
most  grateful  to  the  President's  Commission  for  granting  us  an  oppor- 
tunity to  present  our  views  on  the  problem  of  legislation  on  immigra- 
tion to  this  country.  We  are  also  very  grateful  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States  for  his  understanding  of  the  plight  of  refugees  and 
all  his  efforts  to  help  them. 

It  is  my  honor  to  be  the  head  and  representative  of  the  Russian 
Orthodox  Church  Outside  Russia,  a  church  functioning  in  all  parts 
of  the  free  world  since  1920,  when  we  all  had  to  leave  Russia  owing 
to  its  being  dominated  by  Communists. 

During  these  32  years  we  have  experienced  many  hardships  but  we 
have  also  seen  many  manifestations  of  understanding  and  help.  The 
countries  that  have  given  refuge  to  multitudes  of  refugees  have 
acquired  generations  of  grateful  Russians  as,  for  instance,  Yugoslavia 
of  King  xVlexander,  Bulgaria  of  King  Boris,  or  France,  and  other 
countries.    Many  Russian  refugees  30  years  ago  entered  this  country 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  235 

and  have  served  i(  truly  and  faidifully,  making  some  precious  con- 
tributions to  its  culture  and  development. 

"We  are  especially  grateful  to  the  United  States  and  other  countries 
who  opened  their  borders  for  refugees  after  the  last  World  War.  If 
some  of  these  refugees  should  leturn  some  day  to  (heir  native  coun- 
tries, they  will  be  an  instrument  working  for  peace  and  closest  rela- 
tions with  the  nations  which  helped  them  in  the  time  of  a  most  dread- 
ful crisis. 

Russian  people  ma}'  often  forget  injuries  but  they  never  forget  kind- 
ness and  acts  of  assistance  rendered  to  them  in  a  day  of  suffering. 
Therefore,  a  liberal  innnigration  bill  in  i-egard  to  Russian  refugees 
may  have  in  the  future  a  far-reaching  political  significance. 

The  present  situation  in  the  world,  when  we  can  alwa_ys  expect  com- 
plications in  different  countries,  owing  to  subversive  activities  of 
Communists  and  when  there  is  a  constant  flow  of  anti-Communists 
from  behind  the  iron  curtain,  countries  which  are  defending  the  world 
from  that  dreadful  danger,  menacing  mankind  would  serve  these 
unfortunate  people  by  more  flexible  immigration  laws  and  regulations. 

Precautions  of  course  are  necessary  and  no  real  security  risks  should 
be  taken.  But  the  apprehension  of  the  danger  of  elements  that  may 
be  subversive  entering  the  country  should  not  be  allowed  to  prevail  to 
an  extent  barring  the  entrance  of  authentic  refugees,  who  are  seeking 
safety  from  communism  and  can  often  be  a  valuable  element  for  con- 
tending it  if  properly  used. 

We  also  are  glad  to  state  that  the  legislation  that  existed  until  now, 
having  made  it  possible  for  more  than  40,000  Russians  to  enter  the 
United  States,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  has  not  created  any  com- 
plications. All  these  refugees  have  acquired  employment  although 
sometimes  not  those  that  were  stated  in  their  assurances.  Very  few 
of  the  immigrants  have  needed  welfare  assistance  and  if  they  did 
need  it,  it  was  usually  due  to  unexpected  illness  or  death  of  the  prin- 
cipal worker  in  the  family.  I  am  also  happy  to  mention  that  the 
criminal  record  in  regard  to  Russian  refugees  is  extremely  low. 

For  this  reason  I  believe  that  the  experience  with  the  former  Dis- 
placed Persons  Act  can  safely  be  taken  as  a  sound  basis  for  future 
legislation. 

May  I  add  a  word  of  appreciation  with  reference  to  the  statement 
made  to  the  House  of  Representatives  by  President  Ti'uman  on  June 
25,  1952,  in  regard  to  aliens  from  Communist-dominated  countries 
who  have  made  some  misrepresentations  in  securing  visas :  Actually 
in  many  cases  it  was  done  by  those  feeling  themselves  in  a  desperate 
situation.  If  deportation  on  such  technical  grounds  will  follow  and 
genuine  anti-Communists  will  suffer,  it  will  make  a  dreadful  impres- 
sion on  refugees,  and  may  have  a  repercussion  with  those  who  wish  to 
seek  refuge  on  the  west  side  from  behind  the  iron  curtain.  Here  again 
in  a  time  like  ours  a  flexibility  of  (he  law  is  needed  to  make  it  possible 
to  open  the  way  for  a  free  life  to  those  who  were  forced  to  make  some 
misrepresentations  having  a  justified  fear  for  their  relatives  still  being 
in  a  Communist-dominated  country,  but  bai'ring  all  cases  in  which 
tliere  may  be  an  actual  evidence  of  ill  will  or  fraud. 

A  legislation  bearing  evidence  of  an  undei-standing  as  deep  as  the 
President  has  shown  in  his  message  would  be  Christian,  human  and 
wise  at  the  same  time. 

2C.S56 — 52 in 


236  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Archpriest  George  Grabbe  (reading  his  own  statement) .  May  I  add 
some  observations  to  the  statement  of  His  Eminence  Metropolitan 
Anastassy. 

Due  to  my  position  I  have  been  very  close  to  resettlement  work 
which  was  entrusted  to  me  on  behalf  of  the  Synod  of  Bishops.  I 
closely  cooperated  in  that  field  with  the  Chuich  World  Service  and 
Tolstoy  Foundation  as  chairman  of  a  United  Orthodox  Kesettlement 
Committee  in  Germany. 

First,  I  wish  to  stress  the  point  that  about  7,500  refugees  were  still 
in  the  pipeline  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Commission  when  it  stopped 
its  activities.  Many  of  these  people  may  still  be  eligible  and  useful  in 
this  country,  but  very  few  of  them  have  friends  who  would  possess 
wealth  enough  to  send  them  regular  affidavits.  On  the  other  hand, 
their  friends  and  church  communities  would  be  able  and  willing  to 
help  in  their  reception  and  find  employment  for  them. 

We  can  make  that  statement  with  full  responsibility  on  the  ground 
of  experience. 

The  procedure  of  resettlement,  on  the  basis  of  the  DP  Act,  required 
so  great  a  time  for  clearance  that  few  of  the  positions  stated  in  the 
assurances  could  be  kept  open  for  the  arrival  of  refugees.  Sponsoring 
agencies  and  religious  communities  often  found  new  ])Ositions  of 
employment  for  these  people.  And  we  may  say,  that  this  work  was 
done  with  satisfactory  success.  With  tliis  experience  we  can  look 
forward  with«)ut  concern  to  the  arrival  of  thousands  more,  being  con- 
fident that  they  could  be  absorbed  by  this  country  and  would  not 
become  a  public  charge.  The  assurance  system  has  proved  to  be  secure 
and  flexible  at  the  same  time  as  far  as  it  is  operated  through  respon- 
sible agencies.  As  to  the  affidavits  of  support  the  requirements  with 
respect  to  the  wealth  of  the  issuing  person  would  make  it  practically 
impossible  for  refugees  to  find  qualified  sponsors.  Especially  the 
assurance  system  being  more  flexible  is  needed  in  regard  to  the  escapees 
from  countries  behind  the  iron  curtain  who  have  no  friends  to  sponsor 
them  in  the  United  States, 

As  to  this  category  of  refugees  His  Eminence,  Metropolitan  Ana- 
stassy, has  pointed  out  the  moral  implications  of  their  problem  as  well 
as  its  political  aspects.  I  wish  to  add  that  as  far  as  we  can  judge  on 
the  ground  of  contacts  of  these  refugees  with  our  church  until  now, 
they  are  the  most  convinced  anti-Communists  and  a  safe  element  in 
regard  to  security. 

Of  course  some  Communist  agents  may  try  to  infiltrate,  but  their 
percentage  among  these  people  will  always  be  lower  than  among  immi- 
grants from  countries  who  have  not  experienced  a  Communist  rule. 
Refugees  now  in  Iran  and  those  coming  from  Yugoslavia  or  China  as 
Avell  as  escapees  from  Eastern  Europe,  will  always  be  the  strongest 
witnesses  against  comnnuiism.  Among  these  refugees  there  will  never 
be  earnest  sympathizers  with  communism,  as  can  often  be  met  among 
people  without  their  painful  experience.  The  security  risk  will  not 
be  too  jrreat  and  the  balance  between  it  and  the  a"ain  for  the  cause  of 
anti-Communist  warfare  will  always  be  in  favor  of  the  latter. 

No  propaganda  is  as  strong  as  statements  of  witnesses  who  have  a 
personal  experience.  As  a  ])roof,  may  I  cite  the  example  of  prewar 
Yugoslavia  where  the  goAernment  outlawed  the  Communist  Party 
and  refused  to  have  any  diplomatic  relations  with  the  Soviets  until 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  237 

11>3J»,  largely  owing  to  correct  information  about  the  Soviets  furnislied 
to  tlie  nation  by  Eussian  refuo;ees. 

It  would  therefore  be  in  the  interest  of  this  country  to  have  a  law 
flexible  enouo:h  to  make  possible  the  entrance  of  escapees  as  well  as 
Russian  refu<2:ees  now  in  Trieste,  Iran,  and  China.  We  can  never 
know  what  moves  on  the  part  of  Communists  may  follow  and  where 
in  the  world  a  crisis  may  arise  making  it  necessary  for  anti-Commu- 
nists to  seek  refuge.  The  United  States  should  be  able  to  rally  these 
people  and  use  them  in  the  fight  against  communism  meeting  all  sorts 
of  emergenc)"  conditions. 

The  final  report  of  the  United  States  Displaced  Persons  Commission 
bears  evidence  that  such  policy  would  not  bring  any  dangerous  impli- 
cation to  the  economic  life  of  the  United  States  because  immigrants 
are  easily  absorbed  by  this  country.  On  the  other  hand  we  all  know 
that  Germany  during  the  last  war  could  not  have  stood  out  so  long  if 
foreign  workers  were  not  imported.  The  crueltj'  of  that  action  must 
be  condemned  but  it  i)roves  that  manjiower  was  a  very  important  factor. 
The  growing  umest  in  the  world  will  make  it  necessary  to  develop  war 
industry  more  and  more  elHciently.  Therefore  immigrants  as  a  man- 
power will  be  the  more  useful,  the  more  critical  will  the  situation  in 
the  world  grow  owing  to  the  global  Comnumist  plot. 

May  I  also  speak  freely  about  misrepresentations  by  some  immi- 
grants from  countries  behind  the  iron  curtain  with  respect  to  certain 
facts,  such  as  their  place  of  birth  when  visas  were  secured  for  them. 
It  reall}'  is  a  painf id  situation  and  it  would  be  difficult  for  any  of  us 
to  approve  such  misrepresentations.  But  on  the  other  hand  Presi- 
dent Truman  is  fully  right  when  he  expresses  an  understanding  of  the 
plight  of  persons  who  felt  themselves  forced  to  make  them.  I  have 
met  many  of  them  in  Germany,  and  I  was  able  to  persuade  some  of 
them  to  state  the  truth  about  themselves.  But  in  some  cases  the  fear  of 
the  long-reaching  hand  of  ^Moscow  was  too  strong  and  perhaps  justified. 

We  should  understand  the  state  of  mind  of  persons  who  have  some- 
times had  to  change  their  names  in  their  native  countries;  who  had  to 
conceal  many  facts  about  themselves  or  their  ]>arents;  persons  who 
have  witnessed  the  ])ersecution  of  wdiole  families  because  one  of  its 
members  or  friends  was  convicted  by  an  unjust  court  or  proved  to  be  a 
refugee  abroad;  people  who  were  scared  by  forcible  repatriations  and 
who  were  sometimes  still  uncertain  that  such  action  wnll  not  be 
repeated  in  case  of  a  change  in  the  policy  of  Western  Powers.  We 
often  experienced  difficulties  in  our  resettlement  work,  because  these 
])eople  were  afraid  of  registrations.  When  they  heard  rumors  of  a 
possible  attack  by  the  Soviets  and  an  occupation  of  Western  Germany 
they  trembled  at  the  thought  tintt  IRQ  and  other  files  could  fall  in  the 
hands  of  the  Soviets.  We  also  should  understand  that  these  people 
feared  a  possible  infilti'ation  of  Connnunist  agents  in  every  office  and 
found  grounds  for  their  mistrust  in  the  action  of  some  UNRRA  and 
IRQ  officials  and  rumoi-s  i-aised  by  newspaper  re))orts  about  Amerasia, 
etc.  Some  of  them  would  not  consent  to  speak  the  truth  about  them- 
selves to  the  IRO,  but  were  ready  to  make  an  eai'uest  statement  to  the 
CIC  or  the  American  consul.  Others  thought  that  even  this  was  a  risk 
that  they  could  not  affoi'd.  But  if  they  did  decide  to  speak  the  truth, 
you  should  see  how^  glad  they  were  to  ease  their  mind. 

It  is  my  belief  that,  owning  to  the  advice  that  we  and  the  agencies 
used  to  give  them,  the  great  majority  actually  entered  this  country 


238  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

without  a  misrepresentation  of  facts.  But,  even  about  the  niinority 
that  could  not  decide  to  do  it,  I  may  say  that,  as  far  as  I  can  judge 
on  the  ground  of  my  experience,  it  was  often  the  most  convinced  anti- 
Communists  that  used  to  assume  new  names  and  misrepresent  some 
data  about  the  pkice  or  time  of  their  birth,  especially  if  they  had 
relatives  or  friends  still  in  Russia.  We  must  also  be  aware  of  the  fact 
that  even  before  the  AVorld  War  II  some  Russian  emigrants  abstained 
from  any  activity  in  the  political  or  public  life,  fearing  that  otherwise 
their  families  could  suffer  in  Soviet  Russia.  For  that  same  reason^ 
many  displaced  persons  think  that  they  may  be  active  in  public  and 
political  life  only  under  an  assumed  name. 

May  I  add  that  at  the  time  of  forcible  repatriations  people  ofter 
made  some  misrepresentations  on  the  hint  or  direct  advice  of  some 
Allied  officers.  And  when  they  had  passed  numerous  registration  and 
IRO  screenings  giving  such  data  it  sometimes  seemed  to  them  that 
there  is  no  way  other  than  to  stick  to  their  earlier  statements  in  order 
to  spare  themselves  different  complications,  which  really  did  arise 
sometimes  if  they  chose  to  change  their  statements  at  some  given 
moment. 

These  people  need  understanding  as  expressed  by  President  Tru- 
man :  if  any  of  them  have  entered  the  United  States  with  a  misrep- 
resentation of  their  place  of  birth  or  with  some  change  in  their  name, 
they  sincerely  thought  that  no  harm  was  done  to  the  country  that  ac- 
cepted them.  Whatever  be  their  name  now,  the  main  thing  is  that 
they  Avould  be  genuine  anti-Comnnmists  and  a  morally  healthy  ele- 
ment. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  We  appreciate  your  com- 
ing here  and  giving  the  Commission  the  benefit  of  your  views. 

Congressman  Javits  is  scheduled  to  be  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JACOB  K.  JAVITS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN^ 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF    NEW  YORK 

Representative  Javits.  I  am  Jacob  K.  Javits,  a  Representative  in 
the  United  States  Congress  from  the  Twenty-first  Congressional  Dis- 
trict, New  York  City.  My  address  in  New  York  is  600  West  One 
hundred  and  eighty-iirst  Street,  New  York  City. 

Representative  Javits.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  my 
views  on  this  subject  are  fairly  well  known,  but  I  am  sure  it  would  be 
proper  to  record  them  with  the  Commission,  and  I  shall  take  very  few 
minutes. 

First,  I  want  to  compliment  the  Commission  on  })roceeding  with  its 
work.  Despite  the  fact  that  this  is  a  campaign  period  and  speaking 
solely  as  Americans  when  one  doesn't  know  who  will  be  the  next 
President  or  which  will  be  the  next  administration,  I  think  it  is 
splendid  that  the  governmental  processes  in  a  field  as  critical  as  this 
one  are  being  carried  on.     I  am  glad  I  am  able  to  testify. 

As  everyone  knows,  I  am  a  Republican  elected  with  Liberal  support, 
and  I  think  that  makes  it  even  more  important  that  I  testify  and  lend 
my  own  support  to  the  fact  that  this  critical  effort  should  be  carried 
on.  I  am  sure  the  findings  of  the  Commission  and  the  work  it  will 
do  will  be  of  inestimable  A'alue,  no  matter  how  the  campaign  ends.  I 
compliment  you  and  the  Commission,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  persevering 
in  this  very  effective  and  diligent  way. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  239 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  T  have  a  tliree-point  profrram  tliat  I  wouhl  like 
to  suogest  for  the  Coimiiissioii  as  a  pro<;raiii  of  action  with  respect  to 
onr  immigration  and  naturalization  policies.  I  will  state  the  three 
l)oints  and  then  expand  on  each  of  them. 

First,  I  urge  repeal  of  the  McCarran  omnibus  bill.  Secondly,  I  urge 
the  reconnnendation  for  legislation  to  pool  unused  quotas  on  at  least 
an  annual  carry-over  basis,  with  consideration  by  the  Commission 
as  to  whetlu»r  it  should  not  be  on  a  carry-over  basis  of  more  than 
1  year.  Third,  the  change  in  our  immigration  jiolicy  to  provide  for 
the  next  5  years  for  the  admission  of  100,000  additional  immigrants 
per  3'ear  based  upon  skill. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  develop  those  points.  First,  as  to 
the  repeal  of  the  McCarran  Act.  I  believe  that  the  act  has  three  major 
imperfections  and,  though  it  was  passed  by  large  majorities  in  both 
Houses  and  the  oljjections  of  the  President  were  overridden  in  his 
veto  message,  I  believe  that  these  disadvantages  are  becoming  con- 
stantly more  apparent  to  the  American  people  and  that  there  is  a  real 
chance  that  a  reconnnendation  of  the  Commission  for  rej^eal  of  the 
act  will  not  be  sterile. 

The  three  major  objections  are  (1)  discrimination  against  Negi'oes 
and  those  of  Asiatic  blood.  The  Commission  is  well  aware  of  the 
details  of  that,  so  I  won't  stop  to  analyze  that.  I  think  you  know 
there  is  discrimination  in  the  law.  (2)  Change  in  the  preference  set 
up  in  the  existing  law  providing  50  percent  of  the  quotas  for  people 
who  have  certain  particular  skills  needed  in  the  United  States,  which 
again,  I  believe,  will  militate  against  the  nations  of  south  and  south- 
eastern Europe  who  are  already  militated  against  very  seriously  by 
the  construction  of  the  quota  system.  Much  as  I  favor  selective  immi- 
gration, for  reasons  which  I  will  explain  in  a  moment,  I  do  not  favor 
it  at  the  cost  of  deserving  immigrants  from  areas  of  Europe  which 
are  now  beins;  discriminated  against  in  our  existing  quota  ssytem. 
The  third  difficulty  with  the  McCarran  law  is  its  procedural  disad- 
vantages, particidarly  with  immigi'ants  whom  we  receive  and  because 
of  some  slight  imperfections  in  their  papers  or  slight  violation  of 
law  undiscovered  until  long  after  they  get  here  are,  under  statutes  of 
limitations  which  would  make  any  lawyer  blush,  subject  to  deporta- 
tion at  the  will  of  an  administrative  official,  which  is  almost  absolute 
in  their  cases. 

Also  the  even  graver  problem,  if  there  can  be  one,  of  denaturaliza- 
tion of  people  who  are  once  naturalized,  again  with  the  statutes  of 
limitations  which  are  so  unrestrictive  as  to  make  a  lawyer  blush  for 
this  law. 

"VVlien  this  point  was  raised  in  Congress,  the  advocates  of  the  law 
stated  on  the  record  that  it  was  a  package.  Now,  I  happen  to  think 
it  was  a  very  bad  package,  but  that  is  the  justification  for  the  way 
they  proceeded. 

One  of  the  elements  of  this  package  was  the  end  of  the  exclusion 
of  those  of  Asiatic  or  oriental  blood.  Now,  there  was  a  bill  pending 
in  Congress,  including  this,  and  we  didn't  have  to  swallow  any  such 
poisonous  dose  as  the  McCarran  Act  to  rid  us  of  oriental  exchision. 
Secondly,  on  the  pooling  of  quotas:  The  fundamental  policy  of  the 
Immigration  Act  of  1924  was  to  admit  approximately  154,000  immi- 
grants a  year.     Time  and  events  have  resulted  in  making  the  basis 


240  COMMISSIOX    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

upon  \¥hicli  we  originally  planned  to  admit  that  number  quite  invalid. 
These  quota  numbers  are  on  the  average  used  about  50  percent.  The 
fundamental  intention  of  the  American  people,  stressed  as  a  pro- 
found public  policy,  was  to  admit  this  number  in  the  spirit  of  part- 
nership with  the  people  of  the  world,  really  opening  our  doors  to  that 
many.  I  think  in  a  sense  the  will  of  the  people  is  being  frustrated 
by  tile  failure  to  pool  the  numbers  and  make  them  available  where 
they  are  the  most  needed,  without  the  cut-down  arbitrarily  by  50 
percent  because  of  the  adherence  to  these  national  quota  standards. 

I  might  point  out  too,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  that  regard,  that  a  strong 
effort  led  by  a  number  of  us  in  the  House  was  taken,  in  which  Mr. 
Celler,  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  took  a  very  distinguished 
part,  to  change  the  standard  for  determining  quotas  from  1920,  which 
is  the  year  now  in  effect,  to  1940,  which  was  an  available  census  year 
fully  analyzed  so  that  it  could  be  applied,  and  it  was  rejected.  It 
seems  to  me  it  clearly  shows  that  the  idea  of  the  McCarran  Act  was 
not  just  to  refuse  arbitrarily  to  bring  it  up  to  date,  but  the  idea  was 
to  hold  immigration  down  as  much  as  possible.  I  don't  think  that 
was  the  spirit  of  the  quota  origins  law  originally,  which  did  contem- 
plate 154,000  immigrants  could  be  admitted  per  year,  and  the  formula 
for  how  they  could  be  admitted.  I  think  an  appraisal  of  that  would 
be  very  helpful. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  adhere  to  the  figure  of  154,000!' 

Kepresentative  Jax^ts.  If  the  Chairman  be  good  enough  to  bear 
with  me:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  completely  unwedded  to  tliat  figure. 
I  thought  I  nnide  three  points  and  if  the  Chairman  would,  I  would 
like  to  make  it  clear  that  to  me  they  represent  a  package :  Repeal  of 
the  McCarran  Act;  at  least  pooling  quotas  in  respect  to  the  established 
quota  system;  and  the  expansion  of  our  innnigration  policy  to  in- 
clude the  additional  admission  of  100,000  a  year  who  will  be  admitted 
largely  on  the  basis  of  skills  in  addition  to  the  154,000  now  under  the 
regular    quota. 

Commissioner  Pickett.  Are  you  proposing  to  keep  the  present  basis 
of  selection,  the  present  quota  system  ? 

Representative  Javits.  I  don't  like  the  present  quota  system.  I 
would  like  to  see  our  whole  immigration  policy  revised  to  proceed  on 
the  basis  of  relationship  to  citizens  and  residents  of  the  United  States 
and  skill,  with  admission  of  someM'here  in  the  area  of,  say,  300,000 
per  year.  I  think  those  are  certainly  very  conservative  figures.  The 
only  reason  I  suggest  the  package  that  I  do  is  in  terms  of  practicality. 
When  I  come  to  my  third  point  I  think  I  can  make  clear  this  approach 
which  I  consider  a  practical  one. 

There  is  a  great  feeling  for  a  quota  system  in  the  Congress.  I  do 
not  share  that  feeling,  but  there  it  is.  I  think  we  need  not  break  our 
heads  on  a  concrete  wall.  I  think  we  can  present  a  program  which 
can  achieve  a  fundamental  purpose  without  running  head-on  into  a 
fiofht  about  whether  we  should  or  should  not  continue  the  national 
origins  quota  system.  It  gets  to  the  same  point,  but  I  think  it  gets 
there  by  a  more  likely  to  succeed  route. 

The  third  point  is,  as  I  said,  the  admission  of  an  additional  100,000 
immigrants  a  year.  I  am,  myself,  the  author  of  a  bill,  the  Selective 
Immigration  Act  of  1952,  which  proposes  the  admission  of  an  addi- 
tional 100,000  per  year  for  an  experimental  period  of  5  years  and,  gen- 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMICHATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  241 

erally  speaking,  c%nrrying  tlii'oiigli  the  same  system  for  admission, 
sponsorship,  and  Conmiission  jurisdiction,  which  was  contained  in  the 
disphiced  persons  law.  I  believe  that  with  that  5  years'  experience 
under  our  belts  we  will  have  a  much  better  chance  to  change  the  whole 
immigi-ation  policy  and  to  make  i)ermanent  a  much  more  liberalized 
innnigration  policy  in  terms  of  numbers  than  we  would  have  if  we 
just  tried  to  scuttle  the  whole  quota  system  right  now.  I  don't  differ 
with  S.Miator  Tjchnum.  I  think  the  reform  of  innnigration  laws  is  very 
nuich  a  bipartisan  oppoi'tunit}".  I  do  think  we  can  get  a  more  prac- 
tical result  if  we  pursue  the  DP  experience,  which  I  think,  on  the 
whole  was  excellent.  Also,  you  must  remember  that  the  Congress 
voted  for  it  overAvhelmingly. 

Commissioner  O'Gkauy.  Would  not  selecting  people  on  the  basis  of 
skills  as  you  have  suggested  reduce  immigTation  from  those  countries 
which  do  not  have  skilled  people  ? 

Representative  Javits.  Monsignor,  may  I  answer  that  question  with 
two  points.  First,  my  reason  for  urging  the  pooling  of  q^uotas  is  that 
it  does  help  the  prospective  unskilled  immigrant.  That  is  point  1 :  it 
does  help  him.  It  })rovides  for  admission  of  more  than  twice  as  many 
unskilled  as  are  admitted  toda3\ 

Now,  as  to  selective  immigration:  My  plan  is  based  on  experience 
gained  in  the  displaced  persons  program.  You  happen  to  have  a  dis- 
tinguished member  of  the  Displacerl  Persons  Commission  with  you  on 
this  Commission  as  executive  director,  the  Honorable  Harry  N.  Rosen- 
field.  It  was  very  difficult  from  the  first  to  find  a  job  for  a  skilled  DP 
metalworker,  and  then  it  was  very  difficult  to  find  a  skilled  DP  metal- 
worker. What  you  did  Avas  to  essentially  find  a  place  and  then  an 
opportunity  for  a  displaced  person.  Then  he  was  brought  in  and 
even  if  you  had  to  give  him  some  vocational  training  here  that  was 
fine,  just  so  long  as  there  was  somebody  who  was  responsible  for  seeing 
that  he  became  a  useful  skilled  American, 

That  is  why  I  said  in  my  bill,  and  I  copied  it  out  of  the  DP  bill, 
what  I  did  of  the  displaced  persons  system.  I  think  that  system 
worked  admirably  and  I  think  on  the  whole  my  colleagues  are  quite 
satisfied  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  suggesting  that  the  number  of  100,000  a 
year  be  in  addition  to  those  being  provided  under  the  regular  quota  ? 

Representative  Jj^vits.  Exactly,  sir.  I  might  say  that  this  ties  in 
wdth  one  of  the  greatest  efforts  in  the  world  now  being  made  under 
United  Nations  auspices  to  resettle  the  surplus  working  population  of 
free  Europe  in  which  we  are  participating  in  discussions  and  even  by 
putting  up  money.  What  we  are  not  doing,  as  we  did  in  the  DP  prob- 
lem, is  taking  the  leadership.  But  doing  what  I  am  talking  about  is 
taking  the  leadershi])  as  we  did  in  the  DP  problem,  which  resulted  in 
solving  the  DP  problem,  and  I  think  that  is  a  very  persuasive  argu- 
ment for  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  think  should  be  the  Commission's 
ap])roach  to  this  innnigration  problem? 

Rei)resentative  Javits.  I  think  vour  Commission  ought  to  recom- 
mend a  long-range  policy  for  the  United  States  and  give  your  reasons 
for  it.  And  I  think  the  Commission  ought  to  recommend  legislation 
for  the  Congress,  v.-hich  I  think  is  urgently  due.  And  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  think  this,  that  a  lot  of  my  colleagues  have  gone  home  and  they  have 


242  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

been  doing  a  little  campaignino;  and  they  have  been  hearing  about  the 
McCarran  immigration  bill.  I  don't  think  that  is  going  to  fall  on 
deaf  ears,  so  I  don't  think  the  Commission  should  feel  inhibited  by  the 
majorities  piled  up  in  both  Houses  on  the  McCarran  bill  over  the 
President's  veto.     I  hope  it  won't. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  nnich,  Congressman  Javits. 

Miss  Anna  Lord  Straus. 

STATEMENT  OF  ANNA  LORD  STRAUS,  PAST  NATIONAL  PRESIDENT, 

LEAGUE  OF  WOMEN  VOTERS 

Miss  Straus.  I  am  Anna  Lord  Straus,  27  East  Sixty-ninth  Street, 
New  York  City.  I  was  a  past  president  of  the  League  of  Women 
Voters  for  6  years,  and  much  of  my  background  in  this  field  is  because 
of  the  league's  interest  in  the  subject.  However,  I  am  appearing  here 
in  the  role  of  a  private  citizen. 

I  have  a  short  prepared  statement  I  wish  to  read. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  will  be  glad  to  hear  anything  you 
have  to  say. 

Miss  Straus.  Thank  you. 

I  appreciate  the  invitation  which  you  have  extended  to  me  to  appear 
before  you  to  present  my  views  on  our  immigration  policy.  I  am  not 
appearing  as  a  technical  expert.  Nor  in  the  short  time  since  I  received 
your  invitation  have  I  had  an  opportunity  of  writing  a  complete 
statement  of  my  views  on  immigration  and  naturalization.  I  am 
happy,  however,  to  take  this  opportunity  to  deal  with  one  phase  of 
the  immigration  question  that  I  consider  of  paramount  imj^ortance. 
Though  I  speak  only  for  myself,  I  know  because  of  the  opportunity  I 
have  had  in  recent  years  to  travel  widely  throughout  this  country  as 
well  as  abroad,  that  I  express  a  sentiment  which  has  wide  acceptance. 

Our  recent  immigration  policy  is,  I  believe,  contributing  to  an  un- 
tenable situation  which  may  well  be  sowing  the  seeds  of  world  war 
III. 

Daily  there  are  people  leaving  their  homes,  often  their  families, 
their  possessions,  their  country,  because  they  can  no  longer  tolerate 
the  dictatorship  which  gives  them  no  freedom  to  speak  and  to  act 
according  to  their  conscience  within  the  restriction  of  reasonable  law. 
These  are  people  of  courage  and  faith,  people  of  vitality  within  whom 
the  spirit  of  freedom  burns  so  fiercely  that  they  can  no  longer  tolerate 
the  submission  of  the  individual  to  the  state.  They  are  willing  to 
risk  hardship  and  their  very  lives  to  start  a  new  existence,  where  they 
will  be  respect  for  the  individual. 

There  are  also  countries  in  Europe  where  the  population  is  out- 
growing the  means  of  giving  the  people  a  livelihood.  From  many  of 
these  countries  the  quotas  at  present  allowed  are  so  small  that  it  takes 
years  and  years  of  Avaiting  before  a  person  can  emigrate  to  this 
country.  Is  it  not  better  for  them  and  for  us  to  receive  them  when  they 
are  young  and  strong  and  full  of  zeal  to  make  their  way  in  the  land  of 
their  choice  ? 

The  standard  of  living  of  the  European  countries  is  much  lower 
than  ours.  In  Europe  there  is  population  surplus.  Their  arable  land 
is  per  person  only  4'!  percent  of  ours.    Their  capital  for  investment 


COMMISSION   OX    immi(;haii()X  and  naturalization       243 

ill  now  ontei'i)risps  Avliicli  -will  creato  moTp  jobs  is  vory  limited.  Every 
free  European  country  lias  already  <!:iven  ret'u<2;e  to  persons  driven  out 
of  their  own  land.  Added  to  this  some  of  the  countries,  such  as  Hol- 
land, have  already  had  to  absorb  unexpected  numbers  of  people  be- 
cause of  loss  of  colonics.  These  countries  cannot  sujiport  such  a  con- 
tinued increase  in  j)()i)ulatit)n.  Their  peojile  must  look  elsewhere  or 
else  succumb  to  the  hollow  promises  of  communism. 

The  immigration  policy  of  the  United  States  must  be  so  adjusted  as 
to  oli'er  a  haven  to  many  more  of  these  peo])le  who  value  freedom.  The 
I/nited  States  was  built  on  llie  tradition  of  welconiinj^'  to  its  shores 
those  people  who  have  been  willinji;  not  only  to  give  lip  service  to  free- 
dom but  if  necessary  to  suffer  hardships  to  assure  freedom.  Our 
standard  of  living  is  high,  our  growth  of  population  is  decreasing,  we 
have  rich  natural  resources,  we  have  capital  for  investment  in  pro- 
duction which  will  create  new  jobs. 

Why  therefore  should  we  discriminate  against  those  countries  which 
are  in  greatest  need  of  finding  new  homes  for  their  people?  Why 
should  we  discriminate  against  people  who  have  in  their  past  been 
forced  to  live  in  a  conntiy  with  a  political  ideology  with  which  we 
are  not  in  sympathy? 

I  believe  that  our  present  immigration  law  shows  a  lack  of  faith  in 
ourselves.  If  our  citizens  consider,  as  I  do,  that  we  have  the  best 
political  system  and  the  greatest  amount  of  personal  freedom  of  any 
country,  we  should  demonstrate  our  belief  by  convincing  others  of 
the  Tightness  of  our  w^ays.  Does  not  the  present  law  imply  that  for 
fear  of  admitting  a  few  people  that  may  not  be  of  as  high  calibre  or 
high  principle  as  the  best  of  us,  w^e  are  denying  the  privilege  of  free- 
dom to  many  thousands  who  could  contribute  greatly  to  bringing 
new  vigor  to  our  society. 

I  am  certain  that  the  vast  majority  of  our  people,  if  they  had  the 
facts  presented  to  them,  would  welcome  these  exiles  from  fascism  and 
communism — as  our  forebears  were  themselves  welcomed.  For 
myself  I  would  be  sad  indeed  if  I  thought  that  our  society  was  not 
sufficiently  virile  to  benefit  from  the  spirit  of  freedom  and  adventure 
that  made  the  newcomers  face  their  future  in  a  new  country  unafraid, 
and  to  deal  successfully  with  those  few  people  who  might  come  in 
though  they  are  not  worthy  of  our  welcome.  I  believe  that  we  can  well 
afford  a  generous  immigration  policy.  One  that  continues,  as  we  did 
in  our  early  days,  to  hold  open  the  door  to  the  oppressed  and  par- 
ticularly to  those  who  have  had  the  initiative  and  courage  which  it 
takes  to  fight  for  liberty  of  the  individual  under  dictatorship. 

^ye  must  base  our  immigration  policy  on  what  is  good  for  us  in 
the  long  run,  not  what  will  effect  take-home-pay  today  or  what  will 
crowd  our  schools  tomorrow  or  give  more  competition  to  the  present 
housing  situation. 

Both  our  free  European  neighbors  and  the  refugees  hear  constantly 
our  professions  of  freedom  but  they  are  inclined  to  the  bitter  com- 
ment, "freedom  for  whom,"  when  with  our  tremendous  resources 
we  restrict  to  an  insignificant  minimum  our  immigration  quotas  from 
those  most  in  need  of  the  haven  which  we  can  offer  them  to  build  a 
new  life. 

We  are  spending  millions  of  dollars  on  propaganda  exjilaining  to 
other  nations  our  ideals  and  our  way  of  life.    We  lend  or  give  money 


244  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

to  improve  the  economic  status  of  our  European  iieifjlibors.  We  send 
armaments  to  our  allies.  At  the  same  time  we  allow  conditions  to  exist 
in  those  countries  M'hich  ameliorate  the  advantages  of  such  action  by 
turning  our  backs  on  an  intolerable  situation  to  the  solution  of  which 
we  could  so  easily  contribute. 

I  have  spoken  of  this  European  situation  at  some  length  because 
I  consider  it  is  typical  of  much  of  the  short-sighted  action  that  we 
have  taken  in  our  past  immigration  policy.  Such  action  does  not 
affect  Europe  alone.  We  in  the  United  States  live  under  the  glare  of 
the  searchlights  world  wide,  as  does  any  strong  and  rich  power. 

Our  generosity  of  deed  and  acts  in  other  fields  are  largely  negated 
by  our  selfish  and  short-sighted  immigi'ation  policy. 

No  longer  will  people  live  supinely  in  conditions  where  there  is  no 
hope  for  the  future.  If  representative  democratic  government  cannot 
improve  their  opportunities,  they  will  succumb  to  the  promises  of 
communism  or  dictatorship. 

For  our  OA^n  sakes  and  for  those  of  our  free  neighbors  the  world 
over,  we  should  adopt  a  generous  innnigration  policy  to  assist  in  estab- 
lishing conditions  in  other  countries  which  will  be  our  best  assurance 
of  peace  in  the  future. 

Commissioner  O'Gradt.  Miss  Straus,  I  recall  you  have  served  as 
a  representative  of  the  United  States  at  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
United  Nations.  In  that  capacity,  have  you  heard  any  comment  about 
our  immigration  policy,  especially  by  representatives  of  the  Soviet 
Union  and  the  iron-curtain  countries? 

Miss  Straus.  Well,  I  had  the  opportunit}'^  to  learn  something  of 
that  when  I  was  over  in  Paris  at  the  General  Assembly  at  meetings 
with  representatives  formerly  from  countries  that  are  behind  the  iron 
curtain,  who  Avere  living  in  Paris.  We  had  discussions  at  that  time  as 
to  what  the  United  States  might  do  to  be  more  helpful,  and  they  were 
very  open  in  their  criticism  of  some  of  our  actions  because  it  was  so 
hard  for  those  representatives  to  interpret  the  United  States  as  they 
felt  they  saw  it:  and  on  those  occasions  reference  was  made  to  our 
immigration  policy. 

We  had  considerable  discussion  of  the  wnsdom  of  encouraging  people 
to  come  out  from  behind  the  iron-curtain  countries,  because  once  they 
got  out  life  was  so  very  difficult  for  them.  They  had  to  have  working 
permits  to  stay  in  the  European  countries;  they  couldn't  get  working 
X)ermits  until  they  had  a  job,  and  couldn't  get  a  iob  without  working 
permits.  Anyway,  those  countries  w^ere  so  very  limited  in  the  oppor- 
tunity that  they  offered,  and  those  people  were  interested  in  coming 
to  the  United  States  where  they  felt  that  they  had  nnich  more  to  give 
and  also,  those  people  were  concerned  about  helping  to  interpret  their 
countries  and  what  they  believe  the  people  in  the  country — not  the 
government — had  as  ideals  for  themselves,  that  they  were  striving  for. 

In  these  discussions  which  were  very  frequent,  very  frank,  and  quite 
unfavorable  to  some  of  the  actions  of  the  United  States,  there  was  an 
underlying  friendliness  to  us,  but  a  difRculty  in  being  able  to  interpret 
to  their  ])eople  our  country,  and  time  and  time  again  it  was  an  immi- 
gration problem  that  was  at  the  root  of  it,  because,  as  they  kept  saying, 
"no  matter  what  you  say,  if  you  don't  act  according  to  your  professions 
of  faith  and  vour  statements,  they  will  discount  entirely  what  you 
say,"  and  the  immigration  question  came  up  very  frequently  in  quite 
a  variety  of  dircussions  tlint  I  had  with  tliose  people. 


COMMISSION    OX    IM^^IORATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         245 

The  CiiAiK.MAX.  Tlmnlc  you  very  much. 
Is  Mrs.  Koe  liere? 

STATEMENTS  OF  MES.  J.  FREDERICK  ROE.  CHAIRMAN,  THE  NA- 
TIONAL DEFENSE  ROUND  TABLE,  AND  MRS,  HERBERT  G.  NASH. 
CHAIRMAN,  THE  REGENTS  ROUND  TABLE  OF  GREATER  NEW 
YORK,  NEW  YORK  STATE  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  NATIONAL 
SOCIETY  OF  THE  DAUGHTERS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

Mrs.  Rt)E.  I  am  Mrs.  J.  Frederick  lioe^  3323  One  Hundred  and 
Sixty-Niulli  Street,  Fhishiufj^,  Lon^-  Island,  N.  Y. 

Mrs.  Herbert  (i.  Nash  and  I  are  here  as  representatives  of  the  Nevr 
Y^ork  State  oro;anization.  National  Society  of  the  Daughters  of  the 
American  Revolution.  We  liave  a  letter  of  introduction  addressed  to 
the  Chairman  by  Mrs.  Harold  E.  Erb,  the  State  vice  regent,  and  we 
have  a  short  statement  I  wish  to  read. 

The  Chairman.  The  letter  will  be  inserted  in  the  record  and  you 
may  read  your  statement. 

(The  letter  signed  by  Mrs.  Harold  E.  Erb,  State  vice  regent,  is  as 
follows:) 

National  Society,  Daughters  of  the  American  Revoi-ution, 

New  York   State  Organization, 
Garden  City,  Long  Island,  N.  Y.,  October  1,  1952. 
Mr.  Philip  B.  Perlman, 

Chairman,  Prefiiddit's  Coininissiov  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization, 
Federal  Coiirthouae,  Foleg  Square,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Perlman  :  In  repl.v  to  the  invitation  sent  to  Mrs.  Edgar  B.  Cook, 
State  regent  of  the  New  York  State  organization  of  the  NSDAH  to  attend  the 
public  hearings  being  held  in  Foley  Square  at  this  time  on  immigration  and 
naturalization,  and  forwarded  to  me,  as  Mrs.  Cook  is  in  Rochester  at  this  time,  I 
have  asked  the  bearer  of  this  letter,  Mrs.  J.  Frederick  Roe  and  Mrs.  Herbert 
G.  Nash  to  represent  the  State  organization  at  this  particular  liearing. 

Mrs.  Cook  appreciates  the  invitation  to  attend  these  meetings  and  would  be 
interested  in   receiving  any   further   information   regarding   the   work  of   this 
Commission  that  you  might  send  out  for  publication. 
Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     Adele  E.  Eeb 

(Mrs.  Harold  E.  Erb), 

State  Vice  Regent. 

Mrs.  Roe.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  we  express  our  sincere  regret,  due  to 
the  receipt  only  yesterday  of  our  instructions  to  request  the  privilege 
of  appearance  before  your  Commission,  we  have  been  unable  to 
assemble  and  conveniently  organize  for  your  assistance  the  results 
of  our  ])revious  studies  of  the  subjects  which  are  your  immediate 
responsibility. 

We  appreciate,  not  alone  the  general  importance  of  j^our  investiga- 
tion but  its  particular  impact  upon  our  State  and  city.  Especially 
does  it  concern  the  latter,  in  common  with  other  densely  populated 
communities  throughout  the  United  States.  That,  at  your  closing 
hearings  in  Washington,  the  case  from  the  standpoint  of  general  na- 
tional interest  will  be  impressively  expounded,  we  have  little  doubt; 
but  it  is  our  anxiety  that  the  innnediate  interests  of  New  York  shall 
be  brought  vividly  to  the  Commission's  attention. 

The  effects  upon  existing  statutes  that  may  result  from  the  possible 
consummation  of  many  and  varied  international  treaties  currently 


246  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

contemplated  are  one  especial  concern,  and  we  shall  hope  to  illuminate 
this  aspect. 

The  President  has  brought  it  into  focus  by  his  Executive  order  creat- 
ing your  Commission  and  defining  its  prerogatives,  through  his  em- 
phasis upon  (and  we  quote)  : 

the  effect  of  our  immigration  laws  and  their  administration,  including  the 
national  origin  quota  system,  on  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  policies  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  need  for  authority  to  meet  emergency  conditions  such  as  the  pres- 
ent overpopulation  of  parts  of  Western  Europe  and  the  serious  refugee  and 
escapee  problems  in  such  areas. 

We  propose  immediately  to  undertake  the  preparation  of  a  memo- 
randum dealing  with  the  subjects  that  press  upon  us  with  peculiar 
weight  here  in  New  York,  and  at  this  time  request  that  w^e  be  granted 
the  privilege  of  its  formal  submission.  We  request  furthermore,  as  the 
Commission's  convenience  may  admit,  that  we  be  accorded  the  courtesy 
of  appearing  at  its  later  hearings  in  Washington,  D.  C. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you.  You  may  assume  that  you  will  be 
given  a  full  opportunity  to  file  your  more  complete  statement,  and  to 
appear  at  the  hearings  that  will  be  held  in  Washington. 

Mrs.  Roe.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  EosENFiELD.  May  I  ask  one  question,  Mrs.  Roe  ?  You  stated  at 
the  early  part  of  your  statement  that  you  just  yesterday  received  this 
letter  from  Mrs.  Erb.     You  didn't  mean  from  the  Commission  ? 

Mrs.  Roe.  No;  myself,  personally.  It  went  through  the  different 
steps  of  the  organization  which  I  represent. 

Mr.  Rosenfield.  I  just  wanted  the  record  to  be  clear  that  the  Com- 
mission had  invited  you  as  early  as  it  invited  all  the  others. 

Mrs.  Roe.  Yes ;  you  see  our  State  regional  office  is  in  Rochester. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  clear. 

Mrs.  Roe.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Ethelred  Brown  will  be  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  REV.  ETHELRED  BROWN,  MINISTER,  THE  HARLEM 
UNITARIAN  CHURCH,  NEW  YORK,  SECRETARY  OF  THE  JAMAICA 
PROGRESSIVE  LEAGUE 

Mr.  Brown.  I  am  Ethelred  Brown,  minister  of  the  Harlem  Uni- 
tarian Church,  180  West  One  Hundred  and  Thirty-fifth  Street,  New 
York  City.  I  am  also  secretary  of  the  Jamaica  Progressive  League  of 
2286  Seventh  Avenue,  New  York. 

I  have  a  letter  requesting  permission  to  testify  which  I  should  like 
to  submit  for  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  received. 

(The  letter  submitted  by  Mr.  Ethelred  Brown  is  as  follow^s :) 

The  Harlem  Unitarian  Church, 
New  York  29,  N.  Y.,  October  1, 1952. 
To  the  Chairman, 

The  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization, 
Federal  Courthouse,  Foley  Square,  New  York  City. 

Dear  Sir:  As  secretary  of  the  Jamaica  Progressive  League  of  2286  Seventh 
Avenue,  I  respectfully  ask  for  permission  to  appear  at  the  public  hearing  of 
your  Commission  today,  to  speak  in  regard  to  the  section  of  the  McCarran 
immigration  law  which  limits  the  immigration  of  West  Indians  to  this  country 
to  100  persons  per  colony  per  year. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Ethelred  Brown. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         247 

Mr.  Brown.  I  wasn't  here  yesterday  so  I  didn't  hear  Mr.  Walter 
White's  statement.  I  came  in  this  mornin<r.  I  just  wanted  to  add  that 
Jamaica,  from  which  I  come,  is  particuhirly  severely  hit  by  this  law. 

We  have  been  sendin^:  about  a  thousand  Jamaicans  here  every  year, 
then  they  knock  us  *J0  ])ercent  oil  and  only  a  hundred  can  come.  We 
feel  pretty  hard  about  that. 

Of  all  the  West  Indian  colonies,  up  to  1924  as  you  know,  the  West 
Indians  came  into  America  without  any  quota — they  just  came  in. 
In  1924  Ave  came  here  under  the  quota  of  what  we  call  onr  mother 
countiy,  Britain.  And  on  the  whole  the  Indians  have  behaved  very 
well,  I  think,  sir,  and  we  have  added  a  little  bit  to  the  betterment  of 
the  country.  We  are  decent  citizens,  and  we  can't  understand  why 
this  anxiety  to  keep  us  out,  and  we  feel  pretty  bad.  And  I  think  all 
of  the  people  of  the  AVest  Indies  feel  pretty  bad.  But  the  only  people 
in  this  sphere  that  is  put  under  that  special  quota  happens  to  be  the 
people  of  the  Negro  race.  It  may  not  be  that  we  are  Negroes,  but  it 
strikes  us  pretty  badly  that  way.  Nobody  else  would  have  that  kind 
of  discrimination  against  them,  and  all  of  a  sudden. 

As  I  said,  we  feel  we  are  good  people,  and  lots  of  us  are  here,  and 
we  just  feel  that — all  we  are  asking  is  to  at  least  let  us  go  back  to 
where  we  are  now;  let  us  go  back  to  coming  in  under  the  quota  of 
Britain.  Britain  never  uses Jier  quota ;  she  always  has  a  lot  left  over. 
It  is  stopping  us  from  coming  in.  I  have  a  strong  suggestion  to  make, 
to  let  more  of  us  come  in.  We  suggest  at  any  rate,  our  strong  request 
is  that  more  of  us  come  in.  We  have  fought  and  fought  and  we 
thought  we  settled  that  question  that  the  West  Indians  weren't  that 
kind  of  people,  either  by  conduct  or  their  ability  to  be  discriminated 
against. 

Then  Senator  McCarran  takes  it  up  again — and  he  is  so  nice  in  his 
letters  to  us — that  we  never  thought  he  would  be  so  cruel.  He  writes 
very  nice  letters.     Now  it  has  happened,  and  it  is  such  a  drop. 

I  went  to  Jamaica  just  (5  months  ago.  I  went  to  the  consulate. 
Only  2.000  West  Indians  have  been  here  under  this  liberal  way,  and 
the  lad}'  in  Jamaica  as  vice  consul,  she  is  a  strict  screener,  so  you 
needn't  worry  that  too  many  Jamaicans  are  coming  here.  She  keeps 
us  out  for  all  manner  of  reasons. 

So  all  I  ask — and  I  am  glad  I  have  this  opportunity  to  ask  that — 
all  the  West  Indians  are  asking,  and  I  am  a  Jamaican,  but  in  speaking 
for  them  I  speak  for  all ;  all  we  are  asking  is  please  don't  discrnninute 
against  us,  because  whatever  reason  you  give — of  course  it  don't  mat- 
ter to  you — but  we  are  nice  to  you.  We  let  j'ou  have  your  bases  on 
our  island.  We  behaved  nice  to  you  when  you  were  there,  and  all  of  a 
sudden  you  say,  "We  don't  want  you  here." 

But  I  was  telling  you  I  went  to  the  consul  office  and  I  waited  to 
learn  about  a  cripi)led  young  girl.  The  girl  at  the  desk  told  the  girl 
4  years,  the  list  in  Jamaica  is  so  long. 

I  am  just  glad  to  say  that,  sir.  All  we  are  asking,  the  West  In- 
dians, and  especially  the  Jamaicans,  you  can  imagine  the  feeling,  a 
thousand  of  us  came  last  year  and  a  hundred  only  can  come  this  year. 
Let  us  go  back  to  the  present  situation.  AVe  will  be  satisfied  with  that. 
We  were  glad  enough  for  that,  under  the  present  situation  of  coming 
in  under  the  quota  of  Great  Britain. 


248  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

That  is  all  we  ask,  and  we  ask  it  on  our  past  record.  That  is  a  good 
thing  to  do.  I  can't  bother  to  tell  you  some  of  the  things  we  do.  We 
have  done  a  lot  of  things,  and  have  tried  to  do  a  lot. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you  this:  Wlien  did  you  first  come  to 
this  country  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  I  came  in  1920. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  become  a  naturalized  citizen? 

Mr.  Brown.  Yes,  I  did  that  7  yeai-s  after  I  came ;  in  1927. 

The  Chairman.  And  do  you  know  what  the  history  of  most  of  the 
Jamaicans  might  be  that  come  here?  Do  they  become  naturalized 
citizens? 

Mr.  Brown.  Well,  most  of  them  do.  I  am  having  a  little  trouble 
in  getting  some  to  do  it,  but  as  we  say,  "they  saw  the  light." 

Commissioner  O'Gradt.  Have  you  any  comment  to  make  about  the 
importation  of  Jamaicans  to  this  country  temporarily  for  agricul- 
tural purposes  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  Yes,  that  is  very  common.  The}^  have  helped  this 
country  a  great  deal. 

We  feel  kind  of  hard  because  when  the  war  was  on  and  you  wanted 
help,  we  came  and  helped  you.  Now  the  war  is  over,  and  you  say 
''don't  come  in  any  more.''     People  remember  that  in  Jamaica. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  You  have  given  the  Commission  the  figures  that 
a  thousand  people  have  come  in  a  year  until  now  from  Jamaica. 
Would  you  know  or  be  able  to  submit  to  the  Commission  the  figures 
that  have  come  in  from  other  parts  of  the  Caribbean  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  I  can  do  that ;  yes. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  That  will  be  very  helpful. 

Mr,  Brown.  I  will  do  that;  yes. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Thank  you. 

(Additional  material  submitted  by  Mr,  Brown  follows:) 

The  .Jamaica  I'kogressive  League, 

Scir  York  30,  .V.  1'.,  Ociober  S,  l'}51. 
Hon.  Harold  N.  Rosexuelh, 

Executive  Direetor,  The  President's 

Co}}i)iiissio)i  OH  I)iiiitifjration  and  yatiinilizfitioii, 

M'ashinyton,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  The  Jamaica  Progressive  League  of  New  York,  representing  West. 
Indians  in  general,  but  Jamaicans   in  particular,  in  relation   to  the  recently 
enacted  Walter-IMeCarran  bill,  registered  its  objections  to  those  sections  of  the- 
law  which  were  obviously  motivated  by  racial  considerations  to  restrict  immi- 
grants from  colonies  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  to  100  persons  per  year  front 
each  colony. 

In  support  of  its  objections  the  league  submitted  a  memorandum  to  the  authors- 
of  the  act,  to  various  Senators  and  Representatives,  and  to  United  States  officials 
whose  duties  are  concerned  with  immigration  matters,     ("opies  of  the  memoran-^ 
dum  and  of  a  letter  addressed  to  President  Truman  are  herewith  enclo.'^ed. 

Despite  vigorous  objections  to  the  bill  from  various  quarters,  and  the  strong: 
veto  message  of  the  President,  the  law  was  passed  with  its  flagrant,  racially- 
inspired  restrictions.     The  appointment  by  the  President  of  the  Committee  ot 
which  you  are  Cliairman  has  led  us  to  address  you  directly  on  the  subject  of 
immigration  from  colonies  in  the  Western  Hemisphere. 

1.  There  are  about  16,000,000  Negroes  in  the  United  States  and  they  repre.sent 
approximately  10  percent  of  the  population. 

2.  The  only  section  of  the  world  from  which  there  is  any  noticeable  numl)er  of 
Negro  immigrants  is  the  British  West  Indies.  These  people  have  been  entering 
the  United  States  in  small  numbei'S  since  the  founding  of  the  Nation. 

3.  Until  1924,  W^est  Indians,  like  the  other  peoples  of  this  Continent,  entere<l 
the  Unite<l  States  without  quota.  Their  colonial  status  was  not  considered  in 
immigration  matters  until  the  passage  of  the  immigration  law  of  that  year. 


COMMISSION    ON    IAIMK;HAT]0.\     and    NATUKALIZATION  249 

Colonial   West    liidiiins   were   then    jihiced    under    the   quota    of    tlieii'   "mother 
eouutry." 

4.  It  has  loiiiT  been  the  policy  of  the  United  States,  in  the  interest  of  Pan 
America uism,  to  distiuiiiiish  hetween  the  peoples  of  the  Western  and  Eastern, 
Hemispheres.  This  was  expressed  by  not  phu-in^'  any  of  the  peoples  of  this 
hemisphere  on  a  specific  quota. 

5.  Regardless  of  the  explanations  and  the  excuses  offered,  the  inescapable  fact 
is  that  under  the  new  law  the  only  areas  in  the  New  World  with  quotas  are 
those  areas  from  which  any  appreciable  number  of  colored  Immigrants  had  lieen 
coming  to  the  United  States. 

G.  That  this  action  is  rank  discrimination  based  solely  on  the  racial  origin  of 
the  immigrants  was  ix)inted  out  by  Congressman  Adam  Powell  in  his  speech  on 
the  \\'alter  bill  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  xVpi-il  2."i,  1<.)52. 

7.  Wliile  it  is  true  that  all  the  colonial  peoples  of  the  Caribbean  are  affected, 
the  resti'ictiou  inflicts  the  heaviest  hardship  (jn  Jamaican  immigrants  who  have 
been  drastically  reduced  from  approximately  1,000  annually  to  a  mere  100.  No 
other  people  have  been  so  treated,  and  it  is  obvious  that  the  severe  reduction  of 
1)0  percent  is  due  to  the  i-acial  origin  of  the  immigrants. 

8.  As  we  pointed  out  in  the  memoranduiu  and  appeal  sent  to  the  President, 
West  Indians  are  ostensibly  to  be  penalized  because  of  their  colonial  status,  but 
really  it  is  because  they  are  Negroes.  This  penalization  by  the  United  States 
Government,  though  thinly  disguised  as  placing  all  the  colonies  of  the  world  on 
the  same  basis  even  though  all  nations  of  the  world  are  not  on  the  same  basis  for 
innnigration  purposes,  violates  the  prlncij^le  and  policy  of  inter-American  unity 
and  amity,  and  is  calculated  to  create  anti-American  feelings  in  areas  on  which 
United  States  military  bases  are  located.  There  was  considerable  public  resent- 
ment in  the  British  Caribbean  colonies  when  the  McCarran  Act  was  mooted  and 
when  it  was  passed. 

!>.  It  was  a  great  surprise  to  this  league  to  learn  that  the  Walter-McCarran  bill 
had  the  support  of  the  Department  of  Justice  and  the  State  Department,  as  well 
as  the  approval  of  other  responsible  officials  of  the  United  States  Government. 
It  had  been  the  belief  of  the  league  that  officials  charged  with  fostering  unity 
among  nations  and  whose  Government  are  interested  in  promoting  unity  in  the 
Americas  would  be  loath  to  contribute  to  actions  which  reflect  adversely  on  the 
United  States  while  breeding  resentment  and  enmity  against  this  country.  More- 
over, the  support  given  by  United  States  officials  to  racially  inspired  Hitler-like 
laws  in  matters  of  immigration  is  a  departure  from  the  lofty  pronouncements  of 
Secretary  Acheson  and  President  Truman  and  American  representatives  in  the 
United  Nations,  and  a  retreat  from  the  humanitarian  principles  and  traditions 
of  this  Nation. 

Finally,  our  league  api>eals  to  you  to  recommend  to  Congress  that  the  section 
of  the  McCarran  law  which  assigns  special  quotas  for  colonial  peoples  of  this 
hemisphere  be  eliminated.  On  behalf  of  the  Jamaican  people,  we  again  point 
out  that  they  are  the  worst  sufferers  from  the  racial  prejudice  which  has  been 
so  glaringly  expressed  in  the  new  immigration  law. 
Respectfully  yours, 

Etiiklki:d  BitowN,  Secretary. 


The  Jamaica  Pkogukssive  League, 
New  York  iiO,  N.  Y.,  Fehnmrij  18,  195.1. 
Mr.  H.  J.  L'Hf:ureux, 

Chief,  Visa  Ditn^iion,  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  Tlie  directors  of  this  league,  which  was  organized  on  September 
3,  1!K'.(>.  approach  you  not  only  in  tiie  name  of  its  members,  but  also  in  the  name 
of  all  Jamaicans  r(>sident  in  this  city,  a  large  proportion  of  w^hom  are  naturalized 
citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Feeling  great  concern  over  the  McCarran  bill,  S.  2550,  and  the  Walter  bill, 
H.  K.  5078,  which  are  designed  to  limit  the  number  of  iuunigi-ants  from  colonies 
in  the  Western  World  to  100  persons  ihm-  colony  per  year,  tlie  directors  re- 
spectfully beg  to  submit  the  following  ol)servations  on  the  proposed  legislation, 
with  the  request  that  you  forward  the  arguments  presented  and  the  facts  adduced 
to  the  proper  officials  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  the 
end  that  the  views  herein  expressed  may  receive  the  careful  and  sympathetic 
consideration  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  with  the  result  that  the 
si)e<Mfied   clause   in    the   bills    in    qiiestjoii    may    not    be    enacted    into    law. 


250  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Even  before  this  Nation  achieved  its  independence,  immigrants  from  the  West 
Indies  had  been  coming  to  tliese  shores.  Tliough  few  in  number,  these  immigrants 
made  valuable  contributions  to  the  life  and  growth  of  the  I'nited  States.  The 
part  played  by  Alexander  Hamilton  of  Nevis  in  helping  to  establish  this  country 
as  a  free  nation  is  too  well  known  to  require  rehearsal  here.  Mention  must  also 
be  made  of  Alexander  Dallas  of  Jamaica,  who  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from 
1814  to  1816,  and  also  Secretary  of  War  for  a  period  of  time.  Historians  agree 
that  he  was  the  first  man  to  place  tlie  finances  of  this  country  on  a  sound  basis, 
and  that  he  was  a  very  valuable  citizen  during  the  most  difficult  days  of  the 
Republic.  His  son  was  elected  Vice  President  during  the  administration  of 
I'resident  Polk  and  served  from  1845  to  1849. 

Evidence  exists  to  support  the  claim  that  Crispus  Attucks,  the  first  man  to 
shed  his  blood  in  the  cause  of  American  freedom  and  independence,  was  a  colored 
native  of  the  Bahamas.  Jan  Matzeli.^er,  a  colored  citizen  of  Dutch  Guiana, 
invented  the  lasting  machine  which  laid  tlie  foundation  of  the  undisputed  Amer- 
ican supremacy  in  the  manufacturing  of  shoes. 

Immigrants  from  the  Caribbean  area  have  produced  outstanding  men  and 
women  who,  in  many  wallvs  of  life,  have  throughout  the  years  made  substan- 
tial contributions  to  the  progress,  power,  and  greatness  of  their  adopted  country — 
professionals,  public  officials,  scientists,  artists,  authors,  inventors,  business- 
men, actors — and  thus,  by  their  brain  and  brawn  have  lielped  to  make  the  United 
States  of  America  the  Nation  it  is  today. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  United  States  no  attempt  was  made  to  limit  or  exclude 
immigrants  from  the  Caribbean  area.  However,  in  1914,  a  bill  was  introduced 
in  the  Congress  to  place  West  Indians,  l)eeause  of  their  race,  in  the  same  category 
as  the  peoples  of  Asia,  who  were  denied  admission  and  were  not  eligible  for 
American  citizenship.  The  bill  was  disapproved  by  President  Wilson  and  was 
not  pressed  for  passage. 

The  first  time  that  West  Indians  were  placed  on  a  quota  basis  was  when  the 
present  immigration  law  was  passed  in  1924. 

Even  before  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  enunciated,  it  was  the  settled  policy 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  give  prime  consideration  to  the  ijeoples 
of  the  Caribbean  region,  regardless  of  their  political  status.  This  consideration 
derived  from  over-all  hemispheric  interests  involving  questions  of  politics  and 
military  defense.  Concrete  expression  of  this  hemispheric  concern  was  gvien 
in  the  immigration  law  referred  to  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  While  this 
law  operates  to  limit  the  percentage  of  peoples  to  enter  the  United  States  it  also 
accords  to  the  colonials  of  the  Western  World,  as  part  of  the  American  family 
of  peoples,  the  right  to  immigrate  into  the  United  States  under  the  quota  of 
their  particular  "mother  country." 

In  1949,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  ostensibly  to 
liberalize  the  conditions  governing  the  entry  of  Asians  into  the  United  States. 
Included  in  this  bill  was  a  clause  to  limit  the  luimber  of  Caribbeans  entering 
the  United  States  to  100  per  colony  per  year.  Thus  the  bill,  while  proposing 
to  help  the  peoples  of  Asia  struck  a  body  blow  at  the  people  of  the  Caribbean 
who  were  still  colonials.  While  the  clause  was  cleaiiy  an  attempt  to  restrict 
the  trickle  of  West  Indians  entering  the  country  it  also  threatened  to  inter- 
fere with  the  establishment  and  preservation  of  inter-American  vmity  and  amity 
which  underlies  the  present  law.  Immediate  action  on  the  part  of  West  Indians 
and  their  friends  resulted  in  the  nonpassage  of  the  bill. 

Now,  however,  the  McCarran  and  Walter  bills  seek  to  do  the  same  thing  to 
West  Indians  as  was  attempted  by  the  .Tudd  bill  of  1949. 

Unfortunately,  American  citizens  of  West  Indian  birth  or  descent  and  their 
American  friends  did  not  learn  of  the  McCarran  and  Walter  bills  until  both  bills 
had  been  reported  out  of  the  Judiciary  Committees,  and  hence  were  unable  to 
appear  at  the  hearings  that  were  held. 

However,  though  late,  the  directors  of  this  league,  venturing  to  speak  in  behalf 
of  all  those  who  will  be  affected  by  the  provisions  of  both  bills  if  passed  into  law, 
respectfully  present  their  case  in  the  confident  hope  that  after  due  consideration 
the  Congress,  by  refusing  to  pass  the  sections  of  the  bill  intending  to  limit  West 
Indian  immigration,  will  permit  the  present  arrangement  to  remain  in  force 
undisturbed. 

The  directors  submit  the  following : 

1.  The  peoples  of  European  colonies  in  the  western  world  are  Americans  in 
exactly  the  same  continental  sense  as  are  Canadians,  Mexicans,  Cubans,  Argen- 
tines, and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         251 

2.  The  exist iiiy  ari-an^ement«  has  worked  to  promote  aiuieable  iuIer-Americaii 
rehitions. 

'A.  To  phice  West  Indians  on  special  quotas  is  to  sin^lP  them  out  of  all  American 
peoples  for  discriminatory  li'eatment — si  ijiniat  i/.in.i;'  thi-m  because  of  their  politi- 
cal status — which  discriuiinat ion  will  lie  viohitive  of  the  principles  of  inter- 
American  friendship  and   unity  as  expressed   iu  the   inunifii'ation   law  of  11)24. 

4.  Statistics  of  the  Visa  Hureau  show  that  althoutrh  theoretically  the  unused 
British  quota  should  he  available  to  British  AVest  Indians,  only  a  very  small  luim- 
her  has  entered  the  United  States  annually  because  of  the  control  exercis(>d  by 
the  Division  of  Visas. 

The  fores'oiufi;  arficuments  are  based  on  the  principle  of  inter-American  unity  and 
friendship  and  are  a  plea  for  its  continuance  by  allowing  the  1924  immigration 
law  to  continue  to  operate  insofar  as  the  peoples  of  the  Americas  are  concerned. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  the  directors  subinit  the  f<dlowing  which  are 
based  on  other  grounds  : 

{(I)  Vv'est  Indian  innnigrants  to  the  United  States  have  been  useful  and  valu- 
able assets  to  this  Nation. 

(ft)  Through  the  opi)ortunities  enjoyed  by  West  Indian  immigrants  they 
have  secured  skills  and  knowledge  which  helped  them  to  improve  themselves 
as  individuals  and  to  return  to  their  homelands  as  leaders  and  as  friends  of 
the  United  States  in  those  areas. 

(c)  The  economic  plight  of  the  island  is  desperate,  and  the  few  who  enter 
this  country,  apart  from  contributing  their  varied  abilities  to  the  United  States, 
have  sent  dollars  to  their  native  countries  which  have  helped  to  relieve  the  dollar 
shortage  of  Great  Britfiin. 

(d)  The  I'nited  States  ci'eated  the  Caribbean  Commission,  and  that  organi- 
zation, familiar  with  conditions  in  the  West  Indies,  declared  in  a  resolution 
passed  at  one  of  its  recent  conferences,  that  Great  Britain.  France,  the  Nether- 
lands, and  the  United  States  should  recognize  and  encourage  emigration  from 
the  Caribbean  as  a  means  of  i-elieving  the  distressing  economic  and  social 
conditions  in  the  area. 

(e)  It  is  in  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  in  keeping  with  its  present 
policy,  to  relieve  distress  all  over  the  world,  especially  in  the  backward  regions; 
thei'efore  any  reduction  in  the  number  of  West  Indian  immigrants  into  the 
I'liited  States  will  tend  only  to  worsen  the  conditions  in  those  islands. 

The  above  is  respectfully  and  earnestly  submitted  iii  the  hope  that  the  Congress 
will  be  pleased  to  permit  the  present  immigration  law  to  stand  insofar  as  West 
Indians  are  concerned. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Ethelred  Brow^n,  Secretary 

(For  the  Directors). 


The  Jamaica  1'roghessive  League, 

Neiv  Ywk  30,  N.  Y. 
Hon.  ?Iarry  S.  Tkumax, 

President  of  the  United  States, 

Wasliivgto7i,  D.  C. 

Dear  Mr.  President  :  Noting  with  deep  sorrow  that  the  McCarran  bill  (  S.  2550) 
has  been  passed  by  the  Senate  and  will  soon  be  placed  before  you  f<ir  signature, 
the  .Jamaica  Progressive  League,  whose  membership  is  largely  composed  of 
American  citizens  of  West  Indian  birth  and  descent,  most  earnestly  and  i-espect- 
fully  appeals  to  you  to  exercise  your  constitutional  authority  and  veto  said  bill. 

The  league  is  aware  that  there  will  be  many  other  requests  made  to  you  to  veto 
the  bill  because  of  several  of  its  provisions.  In  view  of  this,  this  league  has 
decided  to  confine  its  objections  to  the  features  of  the  proposed  law  which  will 
directly  affect  the  welfare  of  the  West  Indian  peoples. 

In  asking  you  to  veto  the  bill,  we  beg  to  reemphasize  the  points  contained  in  a 
memorandum  which  we  presented  to  the  author  of  the  bill,  to  Senators  and 
Representatives,  and  to  the  State  Department,  a  copy  of  which  is  her«>to  attached. 

1.  The  McCarran  bill,  while  puri)orting  to  liberalize  the  eidry  of  Asian  imnu- 
grants,  at  the  same  time  aims  drastically  to  reduce  the  small  number  of  West 
Indians  who  enter  this  country  annually  under  the  British  quota.  It  has  been 
estimated  that  the  reduction  from  .Tamaica  will  be  00  percent  of  the  niunl)(>r 
of  .Jamaicans  now  entering  the  United  States.     In  other  words,  the  McCarran 

25.3.'j6— 52 17 


252         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

bill  takes  away  with  one  baud  from  colored  West  Indians  more  tliau  it  gives  to 
Asians  with  the  other. 

2.  It  is  quite  obvious  that  the  section  of  the  bill  which  is  designed  to  reduce 
West  Indian  immigration  is  inspired  by  considerations  of  race.  Proponents  of 
the  bill  claim  that  the  reason  for  fixing  a  quota  of  100  persons  per  colony  annu- 
ally for  European  colonies  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  is  to  equalize  all  colonies 
for  immigration  purposes.  It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  under  the 
1924  immigration  law  none  of  the  peoples  of  this  hemisphere,  whether  inde- 
pendent or  colonial,  is  on  a  fixed  quota,  for  in  conformity  with  the  policj-  estab- 
lished by  this  country,  even  before  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  officially  announced, 
they  are  all  regarded  as  Americans  in  the  continental  or  hemispheric  sense  and 
treated  as  such  in  the  interest  of  Pan  American  unity,  and  to  cement  inter- 
American  relations  for  security  and  to  promote  the  good  neighbor  policy  of  the 
Tuited  States  Government.  If,  as  is  intended  by  the  McCarran  bill,  there  is  to 
be  a  change  in  the  good  neighbor  policy  by  placing  tlie  colonial  peoples  of  the 
Western  Hemisphere  on  par  with  the  colonial  peoples  in  the  rest  of  the  world, 
it  would  appear  that  consistency  and  fair  play  would  require  that  a  similar 
equality  be  also  established  for  all  independent  nations  as  well.  This  would 
effectively  indicate  an  absence  of  any  intent  to  discriminate. 

By  limiting  the  change  in  policy  to  colonies,  and  to  thehi  only,  it  is  clear  tliat 
there  is  a  special  reason  for  doing  so.  It  must  further  be  noted  that  the  West 
Indies  is  the  only  area  from  which  a  small  number  of  immigrants  of  African 
descent  enter  this  country,  and  it  is  significant  that  it  is  precisely  these  people 
who  have  been  singled  out  for  a  severe  reduction  in  the  number  to  be  allowed 
to  enter  the  United  States;  and  to  achieve  this  end  there  is  to  be  a  complete 
reversal  of  the  policy  and  practice  of  the  good  neighbor  in  inter-Americau 
relations. 

It  is  only  natural  that  West  Indians  in  the  United  States  as  well  as  their 
kinsmen  in  the  Caribbean  deduce  that  the  real  motive  and  purpose  is  to  discrim- 
inate against  colored  West  Indians  as  they  constitute  the  largest  numljer  of 
the  few  Negroes  who  immigrate  into  tlie  United  States.  We  are  not  alone  in 
arriving  at  this  conclusion,  for  the  discrimination  was  fully  revealed  at  the 
hearings  held  by  the  Judiciary  Committees,  according  to  press  reports. 

3.  The  bill  will  produce  a  condition  contrary  to  the  recommendations  of  the 
Caribbean  Commission,  an  organization  which  was  founded  at  the  instance 
of  the  United  States  Government,  and  of  which  the  United  States  is  the  most 
iufiuential  member.  The  Commission  in  two  instances  recently  recommended 
that  there  should  be  no  racial  barriers  against  immigration  of  West  Indians 
to  the  mainland  countries. 

It  is  the  feeling  of  the  Jamaica  Progressive  League  and  its  supporters  tliat 
the  passage  of  the  McCarran  bill  constitutes  a  retrograde  step  in  the  relations 
of  the  United  States  with  the  colored  peoples  of  the  A\'estern  Hemisphere, 
especially  in  areas  which  are  essential  for  hemispheric  security  and  defense. 

Hundreds  of  West  Indians  have  returned  to  their  homelands  after  residing 
in  the  United  States  and  these  men  and  women  have  done  yeoman  service  in 
trying  to  remove  false  concepts  as  to  racial  conditions  in  this  country.  The 
McCarran  bill  tends  to  undo  their  work  and  will  convince  West  Indians  and 
the  entire  world  that  despite  its  pronouncements  over  the  Voice  of  America, 
despite  your  own  democratic  utterances  which  were  broadcast  to  all  humanity 
and  despite  the  great  democratic  traditions  of  this  country,  the  United  States 
intends  deliberately  and  openly  to  attach  a  stigma  to  certain  sections  of  the 
human  family  because  of  their  race  and  their  color. 

Finally,  Mr.  President,  the  McCarran  bill  contravenes  the  democratic  and 
humane  principles  of  civil  rights  and  the  Fair  Deal  in  human  relations  for  which 
you  have  consistently  fought  and  is  in  violent  contrast  to  the  principles  and 
ideals  contained  in  the  declaration  of  human  lights  which  was  recently  enun- 
ciated to  the  world  by  the  United  Nations. 

Because   of  the   foregoing   reasons,   the   Jamaica   Progressive   League   again 
earnestly  urges  you  to  veto  the  McCarran  bill. 
Respectfully  yours, 

Etheleed  Brown,  Secretary. 

The  Chairman.  Father  Gibbons,  you  may  testify. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         253 

STATEMENT  OF  EEV.  WILLIAM  J.  GIBBONS,  S.  J.,  INFORMATION 
OFFICER  AND  MEMBER  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMITTEE,  NA- 
TIONAL CATHOLIC  RURAL  LIFE  CONFERENCE 

Father  Gibbons.  I  am  Rev.  William  J.  Gibbons,  information  officer 
and  a  member  of  the  executive  committee  of  National  Catholic  Rural 
Life  Conference,  which  I  represent.  My  address  is  30  West  Sixteenth 
Street,  New  York  City. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  I  wish  to  submit  for  the  record,  and 
have  some  comments  to  make. 

The  Chairman.  Your  statement  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  statement  of  Rev.  William  J.  Gibbons,  information  officer  and 
member  of  the  exectuive  committee.  National  Catholic  Rural  Life 
Conference,  follows:) 

The  item  listed  under  section  2  (c)  of  tlie  President's  order  establisliing  this 
Commission  is  the  one  on  which  I  wisli  to  comment.  It  has  to  do  with  the  effect 
of  our  immigration  and  naturalization  laws,  and  of  their  administration,  on  the 
conduct  of  foreign  policy,  and  with  the  need  for  authority  to  meet  emergency 
conditions. 

Admission  of  aliens  into  the  United  States,  and  their  integration  through  the 
process  of  naturalization,  are  not  solely  a  matter  of  domestic  policy.  What  the 
United  States  does  regarding  people  from  other  countries  has  repercussions  else- 
where, psychologically,  economically,  politically.  It  may  help  or  hinder,  the 
achievement  of  objectives  currently  pursued  through  foreign  policy,  and  thus 
has  a  bearing  on  that  policy.  Other  nations  may  become  resentful,  justifiably  or 
unjustifiably,  at  what  we  do,  or  they  may  approve  and  follow  our  example.  The 
movement  of  people  over  international  boundaries,  moreover,  has  a  relationship 
to  economic  and  social  conditions  within  the  country  of  emigration  as  well  as 
the  country  of  immigration.  In  a  world  in  which  our  Nation  cannot  escape  from 
international  cooperation,  and  in  which  conditions  elsewhere  must  be  taken  into 
account,  it  is  very  important  to  remember  this  relation  of  immigration  practice 
to  foreign  policy. 

Some  historical  examples  could  be  cited.  When  the  United  States  closed  its 
doors  to  import  of  slaves,  this  proved  to  be  not  only  a  stepping  stone  domestically 
toward  eventual  emancipation,  but  an  indication  internationally  of  our  attitude 
toward  the  slave  trade.  Later,  the  generally  free  immigration  policies  of  the 
ninteenth  century  aided  domestic  development,  and  at  the  same  time  established 
a  pattern  of  relationships  with  European  countries  and  peoples  which  still  per- 
sists. Moreover,  it  set  an  example  of  peaceful  coexistence  of  these  peoples  which 
could  well  be  studied  by  Europeans  at  this  time. 

The  established  policies  toward  immigration  of  persons  from  the  Western 
Hemisphere  not  only  indicates  our  confidence  in  these  peoples  as  possible  citizens, 
but  also  expresses  certain  convictions  about  hemisphei'ic  solidarity  which  are 
closely  allied  with  foreign  policy.  Contrariwise,  the  Exclusion  Acts,  the  "Gentle- 
men's Agreement,"  the  Asiatic  Barred  Zone,  all  have  tended  to  worsen  United 
States  relations  with  Asian  nations.  The  resentments  and  suspicions  fostered  are 
felt  today,  and  American  leadership  among  those  nations  was  weakened. 

It  is  natural  that  the  long-standing  relationship  of  the  United  States  with 
Europe  should  be  expressed  in  more  ample  immigration  opiX)rtunity  afforded 
Europeans.  But  United  States  immigration  policy  as  expressed  in  the  national 
origins  quota  system  needs  to  be  reassessed  in  the  light  of  both  principle  and 
experience.  So  far  as  practice  is  concerned,  it  has  not  achieved  its  objective  of 
preserving  a  certain  proportion  among  the  various  European  immigrants  ad- 
mitted. The  countries  with  the  largest  quotas,  especially  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  do  not  send  immigrants  in  numbers  comparalile  to  the  quotas,  whereas 
many  countries  with  smaller  quotas  fill  theirs  regularly,  and  in  the  case  of 
countries  of  origin  of  refugees  there  is  an  oversubscription  for  years  to  come. 

As  regards  the  British  quota  one  point  especially  should  be  noted.  The  num- 
ber of  prospective  immigrants  from  Great  Britain  is  not  such  as  to  result  in 
the  full  number  of  6.5,000  being  used.  In  fact,  of  the  immigrants  leaving  the 
United  Kingdom  annually  most  are  to  Commonwealth  countries,  and  it  is  ex- 
pected that  this  trend  will  continue.  No  long-range  policy  in  this  regard  has  been 
made  public  as  yet,  but  it  is  to  be  anticipated  that  such  a  preference  will  be 


254  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

encouraged  as  matters  now  stand.  Nor  is  large  scale  emigration  from  the  United 
Kingdom  as  yet  an  established  fact,  even  though  the  trend  of  the  prewar  years 
has  been  modified  in  the  direction  of  emigration.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the 
Royal  Population  Commission  in  its  report  (1949)  drew  attention  to  the  harmful 
effect  upon  Britain  that  too  large  emigration  might  have,  due  to  the  decline 
in  birth  rate  and  aging  of  the  British  population.  All  these  factors  must  be 
taken  into  account  in  reassessing  the  unduly  large  quota  number  which  the 
national  origins  provision  assigns  to  Great  Britain. 

Despite  the  number  of  visas  left  unused  by  the  British,  Irish,  and  certain  other 
Western  European  countries,  tlie  desire  for  and  need  of  emigration  from  other 
countries  of  Europe  remains  high  in  comparison.  In  line  with  its  foreign  policy 
objectives  the  United  States  would  from  time  to  time,  and  also  on  a  continuing 
basis,  wish  to  assist  the  peoples  of  some  of  these  countries.  Thus  foreign  policy 
would  have  helped  refugees  from  nazism,  and  later  refugees  from  communism, 
but  found  its  way  blocked  by  an  inflexible  quota  system  which  gave  preference  to 
Western  Europe  and  not  all  tiie  countries  there.  Today,  it  is  part  of  the  United 
States  psychological  struggle  with  communism,  as  well  as  a  demand  of  lunnan 
decency,  that  some  assistance  be  given  to  escapees  from  communism  and  other 
groups  in  Europe  who  stand  in  need  of  I'esettlement.  Obviously,  the  United 
States  cannot  resolve  the  whole  problem.  But  if  it  took  the  leadership,  as  was 
done  under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  then  other  countries  would  probably 
follow  suit,  as  they  did  previously. 

But  I  do  not  base  my  recommendation  for  a  more  realistic  system  of  distribut- 
ing visas  on  the  present  emergency  needs  in  Europe.  The  national  origins  system 
needs  an  overhauling  whether  or  not  any  special  iiroblem  existed,  nor  should  im- 
mediate assistance  to  certain  categories  of  potential  emigrants  from  Europe  be 
(lela.ved  until  revision  of  the  national  origins  system  can  be  accomi)lished.  That 
would  equally  be  against  the  best  interests  of  foreign  policy  aiming  to  accom- 
plish prompt  results  related  to  pressing  economic  and  political  conditions  in 
Europe. 

As  regards  revision  (jf  the  national  origins  system,  I  am  convinced  that  ways 
may  be  found,  after  study,  or  assigning  visas  to  Europeans  on  a  workable  anu 
acceptable  basis.  One  such  method  would  be  the  pooling  of  quotas  provision, 
which  lias  already  been  proposed.  It  would  be  an  improvement,  administratively, 
over  the  present  arrangement  and  would  certainly  be  more  flexible.  But  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  unsatisfactory  liasis  for  distribution  of  visas — accord- 
ing to  national  origins  groupings  in  the  United  States  at  a  certain  date — would 
still  remain,  and  would  merely  be  concealed.  Moreover,  the  proposal  as  made 
gives  no  assurance  that  the  unused  visas  would  be  given  the  groups  most  needing 
them  at  once,  and  whom  it  is  in  the  interests  of  over-all  United  States  policy  to 
aid.  Yet  it  would  be  an  improvement,  and  would  be  of  some  use  for  special 
situations.  It  would  at  least  assure  that  150,000  Europeans  coi;ld  get  immigra- 
tion visas  each  year,  whether  or  not  certain  countries  used  their  quotas. 

I  am  not  at  all  convinced  that  foreign  policy  of  the  United  States  would  best 
be  assisted  in  the  immediate  present  by  merely  putting  unused  visas  into  a  pool 
for  redistrilmtion  on  a  first-come,  first-served  basis.  In  normal  times  this  would 
probably  work  out  (juite,  satisfactorily,  and  could  therefore  be  considered  in 
( onnection  with  finding  a  substitute  formula  f(n'  permanent  immigration  policy. 
But  I  for  one  sincerely  hope  that  present  conditions  in  Euroi>e  will  not  be 
permanent. 

I  agree  with  those  who  .say  that  150.000  visas  a  year  to  Europeans  of  satis- 
factory character  is  not  too  large  a  number.  In  fact,  it  could  be  increased  to 
200,000  or  250,000  without  adverse  effects  being  felt  in  the  United  States  or 
without  problems  of  integration  being  created.  In  the  past  our  country  has 
taken  many  times  that  number  annually  and  succeeded  into  making  them  into 
good  Americans.  Our  country  is  large,  and  if  proper  distribution  of  immigrants 
throughout  the  Nation  were  accomplished  through  selectivity  and  incentives, 
the  presence  of  the  new  immigrants  would  hardly  be  felt.  Demographically 
speaking,  there  are  questions  of  people-resoui'ce  relationships  to  be  considered. 
It  would  be  something  less  than  honest  to  ignore  this  side  of  the  question.  But 
United  States  resources  are  great  and  productivity  is  growing  faster  than  popu- 
lation. Tile  long-term  population  trend  in  the  United  States — as  in  Western 
Europe — is  such  that  stability  or  even  decline,  rather  than  increase  is  likely 
to  be  with  us  in  a  matter  of  decades.  In  any  case  the  rate  of  increase  will  be 
less  as  the  population  ages.  The  experience  of  the  immediate  postwar  yeai's 
is  no  proof  that  the  trend  has  changed,  but  only  that  marriages  and  child- 
bearing  were  delayed  in  the  depression  years  and  during  the  war. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         255 

Thei'e  are  several  ways  in  wliicli  tlie  inO.tMlO-rinO.OOO  visas  a  year  could  be 
(listi'ihuted  to  Kuroi)eaiis.  One  would  be  to  remove  all  rest  I'ictions  Itased  on 
nationality  and  recoj;nize  a  "European  man"  which  is  actually  coming;  into 
existence,  in  fact  existed  before  but  was  obscured  by  national  animosities  and 
differences.  This  would  be  fully  in  line  with  Ignited  States  foreign  policy  urg-ing 
int<',i;ration.  economically  I'.nd  politically,  of  fnM>  I'^urope.  It  would  also  create 
.•I  new  link  with  the  captive  nations  of  the  Soviet  Russian  empire,  whether 
added  before  1!'39  or  after.  Such  a  way  of  assigning  European  inmiigration 
visas  has  much  to  commend  it,  especially  in  view  of  developing  foreign  policy 
and  the  progress  of  Eurojiean  integration. 

Another  method  of  distributing  the  ovei-all  European  (piota,  different  from 
the  tirst-come,  tirst-served  basis,  would  be  to  assign  ninnl)ers  annually  to  coun- 
tries according  to  needs  and  prospective  emigration,  as  well  as  the  current  inter- 
national situation.  Still  another  would  be  to  divide  up  the  over-all  European 
quota  according  to  the  ratio  of  populations  in  each  country.  This  would  at  least 
remove  some  of  the  inconsistencies  evident  in  the  workings  of  the  national 
origins  system,  which  makes  the  distribution  according  to  percentages  in  the 
United  States,  as  if  that  were  irrevocable  and  tinal.  If  annual  or  biennial  assign- 
ment of  quotas  were  envisioned,  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  a  joint  congres- 
sional connnittee.  or  an  interagency  body,  or  some  office  of  Government,  make 
the  allotments.  If  the  ratios  were  determined  according  to  populations  of 
European  countries,  this  need  would  not  exist,  but  the  result  might  be  less 
llexible. 

It  needs  to  be  emphasized  that  a  sound  policy  regarding  European  immigrants 
could  do  nuich  to  minimize  the  antagonisms  and  resentments  among  the  Eu- 
ropeans themselves.  This  is  certainly  in  accord  with  United  States  f(n-eign- 
policy  objectives. 

But  improvement  of  the  method  of  distributing  European  immigration  visas 
in  pei-manent  United  States  legislation  does  not  necessarily  assure  satisfactory 
action  on  immediate  and  urgent  problems.  I  said  above  that  I  hope  the  present 
political  and  economic  crises  in  free  Europe  will  not  I»e  permanent.  I  wish  to 
elaborate  briefly  on  that  point.  Certain  situations  exist  which  are  by  their 
nature  temporary,  even  though  not  as  temporary  as  we  might  wish.  I  refer  to 
the  plight  of  refugees,  escapees,  and  certain  other  categories  now  in  Europe  out- 
side the  iron  curtain.  Most  of  the  problems  center  around  Western  (xermany, 
Austria,  Italy — two  of  which  have  general  elections  in  1!)."»;3  amidst  considerable 
social  unrest — but  extend  to  other  countries  as  well. 

The  categories  I  have  in  mind,  and  which  require  prompt  attention  in  the  in- 
terests of  a  strong  psychological  war  against  Russian  Comnmnist  imperialism 
are  as  follows : 

(1)  Pipeline  DP's  already  processed  or  in  process,  who  never  received  visas 
because  of  termination  of  the  DP  Act.  Provision  should  be  made  for  a  reason- 
able number,  on  the  understanding  that  if  the  United  States  takes  initiative 
other  countries  will  be  encouraged  to  do  likewise. 

(2)  Other  refugees  not  in  pipeline,  who  are  still  not  integrated  into  the  econ- 
omies of  Germany  and  Austria  and  who  are  uidikely  to  be  so  integrated.  Forced 
residence  in  a  country  unable  to  receive  them  or  in  which  they  are  seriously 
discontented,  would  not  be  the  lot  of  these  people. 

(3)  Escapees  of  recent  and  present  origin,  a  number  of  whom  seek  immigra- 
tion opportunity  to  the  Western  Hemisphere,  and  some  of  whom  certainly  can 
make  a  contribution  to  the  United  States  at  the  same  time  we  assist  them  in- 
dividually. Pi-oper  treatment  of  these  escapees  is  of  tremendous  importance  in 
our  psychological  warfare  with  Soviet  Russia. 

(4)  A  number  of  unassimilated  German  ethnics,  especially  the  Volksdeutsche 
who  are  not  at  home  or  e<-()noniically  self-supporting  in  Germany.  It  is  esti- 
mated thiit  about  several  hundred  families  ( al)out  1  million  persons)  are  in  this 
category,  most  of  them  farm  families.  To  prevent  undue  draining  of  youthful 
population  from  demographically  weak  Western  Germany,  the  emphasis  should 
be  placed  on  resettlement  of  lamilies  and  not  individuals. 

(5)  Refngees  and  escai)ces  in  'i'rieste  or  Italy,  who  are  in  the  same  plight  as 
those  in  Germany  or  Austria. 

(())  Repati-iates  from  Africa  who  have  not  been  assimilated  into  tlie  weakened 
Italian  economy. 

(7)  A  number  of  underemployed,  or  other  good  potential  emigrants  from 
such  areas  as  the  Netherlands,  Italy,  Greece.  All  of  these  areas  are  the  victims 
of  either  economic  disruptment  conscciuent  to  loss  of  colonies  or  of  civil  war 
and  repatriation. 


256  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Should  European  integration  progress  satisfactorily,  as  it  is  to  be  hoped  it  will, 
then  freer  movement  of  people  within  Europe  can  be  expected.  Moreover,  cer- 
tain economic  and  trade  problems  would  be  minimized.  But  it  still  needs  to  be 
recognized  that  emergency  situations  exist,  e.specially  as  regards  the  categories 
mentioned,  and  that  we  cannot  sit  around  waiting  until  integration  occurs.  Even 
when  it  does  Western  Europe  will  ))e  at  a  disadvantage  so  long  as  normal  trade 
cannot  be  carried  on  with  food-producing  areas  to  the  east  and  elsewhere  in  the 
world.  We  cannot  allow  Western  and  free  Europe  to  starve  to  death  while  we 
wait  for  an  ideal  solution  for  its  people-resource  problems,  for  improvement  of 
its  productivity,  for  restoration  of  freer  trade. 

United  States  foreign  policy  vis-a-vis  Russian  Communist  imperialism  must  be 
aiid  remain  flexible  and  prepared  for  temporary  action  at  the  same  time  long- 
term  objectives  are  being  pursued.  Proper  handling  of  the  European  emigra- 
tion question  is  related  closely  to  such  a  policy. 

It  is  to  be  expected  that  both  the  long-term  and  immediate  migration  needs 
of  Europe  will  be  given  full  consideration  by  the  joint  congressional  committee 
established  pursuant  to  the  new  immigration  law.  In  addition,  other  con- 
gressional committees  studying  present  conditions  in  Europe  will  undoubtedly 
have  concrete  recommendations  to  make. 

May  I  put  in  a  word  for  United  States  support  for  the  work  which  began  at 
the  Brussels  (PICMME)  conference  last  December.  This  effort  needs  support. 
It  needs  not  only  a  modest  contribution  in  dollars,  but  also  the  offering  of  immi- 
gration opportunities  on  the  part  of  countries  able  to  take  a  share  of  the  Euro- 
pean emigrants.    The  United  States  is  one  such  country. 

May  I  also  point  out  that  support  and  encouragement  of  this  particular  effort 
in  no  way  militates  against  the  U.  N.  work  for  refugees.  The  U.  N.  High  Com- 
missioner for  Refugees  already  has  a  large  task  cut  out  for  liim,  within  terms  of 
Ids  mandate,  to  promote  legal  protection  of  refugees  and  assist  in  their  integra- 
tion in  the  countries  in  which  they  find  themselves.  His  work  is  complementary 
to,  and  necessary  also  to  that  being  carried  out  under  a  body  established  to  assist 
actual  movement  of  migrants.  The  U.  N.,  moreover,  has  an  additional  task  of 
helping  resolve  such  refugees  and  resettlement  problems  as  those  in  India  and 
I'akistan,  and  those  growing  out  of  conflict  between  Israel  and  the  Arab  states. 
The  U.  N.'s  task  is  to  see  if  some  permanent  resolution  for  such  problems  cannot 
be  arrived  at.  Like  many  others,  I  am  unhappy  to  recall  the  refugees  not  firmly 
resettled  both  in  the  India-Pakistan  area  and  in  and  around  Jordan.  Unlike 
the  situation  between  the  Western  World  and  Communist  Russia,  much  can  be 
done  to  resettlement  of  these  refugees  by  having  the  governments  concerned  reach 
a  settlement.  Such  was  worked  out  between  Greece  and  Turkey  after  World 
War  I,  and  in  other  non-Communist  areas. 

As  regards  European  immigration  to  the  United  States  in  the  future,  I  would 
recommend : 

1.  Revision  of  the  national  origins  quota  system  to  bring  it  into  line  with 
European  demographic  realities,  and  to  promote  political  and  cultural  integration 
of  Europe.  This  is  a  matter  for  revision  of  permanent  immigration  law. 

2.  Meeting  of  certain  situations,  by  their  nature  temporary,  through  legislation 
along  the  lines  indicated  as  desirable  in  President  Truman's  message  of  March 
24,  1952. 

Tlirough  both  these  steps  United  States  foreign  policy  can  be  furthered.  There 
is,  however,  urgent  priority  for  immediate  action  with  regard  to  No.  2,  in  order 
to  strengthen  our  psychological  strategy  during  1953. 

Turning  to  Asia,  there  are  certain  aspects  of  immigration  law  which  touch 
intimately  upon  foreign  policy,  as  well  as  having  a  bearing  on  decent  human 
relations.  The  psychological  effect  of  the  exclusion  acts  has  already  been  re- 
ferred to.  We  have  now  taken  courageous  and  far-seeing  steps  in  removing 
forever  "race"  as  a  barrier  to  immigration  and  naturalization.  We  have  also 
taken  significant  steps,  as  far  as  United  States-Asian  relations  are  concerned, 
in  providing  quotas  for  all  Asian  countries  and  for  dependent  territories.  These 
and  some  steps  of  comparable  nature  are  acts  of  statesmanship,  the  full  import 
of  which  is  not  yet  fully  appreciated. 

What  has  been  done  vis-il-vis  Asians  points  the  way  to  what  must  still  be 
done,  namely,  removal  of  all  restrictions  based  solely  on  race  and  racial  ancestry. 
What  remains  to  be  done  should  not  blind  us  to  what  has  already  been 
accomplished. 

Similar  statements  should  be  made  concerning  the  underdeveloped  continent 
of  Africa,  from  which  emigi-ation  is  likely  to  be  small  indeed.  The  situation  there 
is  complicated  by  the  dependent  and  trust  territories  about  which  the  United 


C0:\OIISSI0N    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         257 

States  is  in  no  position  to  take  comiiletely  independent  aetion.  While  we  urge 
and  encourage  early  self-sufficiency  and  self-government  for  tliese  and  similar 
areas,  we  must  nieanwliile  recognize  the  situation  for  what  it  is.  For  the 
present,  Africa  presents  no  particular  problem  as  regards  United  States  immi- 
gration law.  We  should,  however,  continue  to  promote  the  sense  of  world 
community  and  take  appropriate  action  when  this  seems  necessary. 

It  is  not  to  he  expected  that  the  permanent  immigration  law  can  foresee  all 
contingencies,  and  provide  for  them.  It  is  perfectly  sound  policy  to  provide 
temporarily  for  such  contingencies  as  they  arise,  and  as  the  situation  demands. 

T'nited  States  action  in  supporting  resettlement  of  European  problem  categories 
would  encourage  other  nations  to  act.  It  would  also  etu'oui'age  various  adjacent 
non-Communist  states,  which  have  refugee  problems  of  tlieir  own  due  to  various 
conflicts,  to  solve  these  problems  through  active  resettlement.  Kesolution  of 
such  refugee  problems  would  greatly  reduce  the  financial  strain  placed  upon 
the  limited  budget  of  the  nations  in  question  and  of  the  United  Nations. 

The  United  States  helped  bring  PICMME  into  existence,  and  earlier  was 
cooperating  actively  with  IRO.  The  contribution  of  funds  was  but  one  part 
of  the  program.  The  other  part,  an  important  one,  was  providing  opportunity 
for  the  peoples  seeking  resettlement.  To  do  so  again  as  regard  the  categories 
indicated  above  would  be  to  further  United  States  foreign  policy  at  this  time. 
It  would  encourage  other  nations  to  act  also. 

Father  Gibbons.  Immigration  and  integration  through  the  process 
of  naturalization  cannot  be  a  matter  solely  of  domestic  policy. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  in  the  course  of  our  country's  history,  immi- 
gration policies  had  a  very  definite  effect  upon  the  conduct  of  foreign 
policy.  It  has  been  a  surprise  to  me  that  the  two  were  not  more 
closely  integrated. 

Looking  way  back  we  can  see  that  not  too  long  after  the  Revolution- 
ary War  a  decision  was  made  to  exclude  for  the  future  the  admission 
of  slaves  into  this  country.  That  served  as  a  declaration  to  the  world 
that  we  would  have  no  further  part  in  the  slave  trade;  at  the  same 
time  it  gave  an  indication  to  our  people  domestically  that  it  was  in 
process. 

Tlie  fact  that  that  domestic  goal  was  not  achieved  peacefully  is 
beside  the  point.     The  influence  internationally  was  had,  nevertheless. 

The  generally  free  immigration  policies  of  the  nineteenth  century 
had  a  very  great  bearing  upon  the  development  of  our  country,  eco- 
nomically and  politically,  and  established  close  ties  with  Europe  at  the 
same  time.  I  think  it  is  something  that  is  not  too  frequently  appreci- 
ated, how^  close  those  ties  are.  It  set  an  example  of  peaceful  coexist- 
ence for  the  people  of  Europe. 

Xow  I  am  going  to  say  something  in  the  other  direction  where  an 
example  of  immigration  policy  had  a  harmfid  effect  in  our  relations 
abroad;  that  is,  in  connection  with  the  Exclusion  Act,  the  "Gentle- 
men's agreement,"  and  the  establishment  of  the  Asiatic  Barred  Zone. 
That  created  misunderstanding  in  the  Far  East  which  we  are  still  try- 
ing to  live  down. 

We  today,  of  course,  are  committed  to  removing  as  rapidly  as  is 
socially  possible  without  complete  upheaval  the  concept  of  white 
supremacy  from  the  world.  The  removal  of  that  is  something  of 
wliich  I  am  most  eager  to  see  and  to  see  accomplished.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  think  we  have  to  recognize  the  fact  tliat  we  cannot  proceed 
as  if  there  were  no  problem  in  the  world  socially  and  economically, 
and  we  would  have  to  take  this  into  consideration  in  thinking  about 
innnigration  in  the  United  States. 

It  is  a  tribute  that  people  want  to  come  here  in  such  large  numbers. 
I  have  spoken  to  numbers  of  Europeans  in  the  process  of  emigrating 


258  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

and  people  who  actually  came  here,  and  their  preference  for  the 
United  States  is  noteworthy,  I  am  sure,  on  account  of  tlie  many  people 
who  came  to  this  country. 

Now- 1  think  there  are  two  aspects  to  the  question.  One  is  the  ques- 
tion of  long  range  to  the  immigration  policy,  namely,  the  way  we  are 
going  to  treat  people  from  the  foreign  countries  who  wish  to  migrate 
to  our  shores,  and  the  question  of  using  immigration  policy  tempo- 
rarily or  not  so  temporarily  as  a  means  of  promoting  our  foreign 
policy  objectives. 

It  strikes  me  the  quota  system  has  done  quite  a  bit  to  frustrate  our 
policy  objective.  Certainly  Europeans  would  be  made  to  think  more 
of  us  if  there  were  no  such  policy.  I  realize,  of  course,  the  historical 
setting  in  which  that  policy  grew  up,  and  I  understand  full  well  that 
one  cannot  remove  historical  prejudices  overnight. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  think  we  are  arriving  at  the  day,  and  I  hope 
quickly,  at  what  might  be  called  European-minded.  That  is  some- 
thing that  is  a  reality ;  it  has  been  in  the  past  and  we  hope  it  will  be 
more  in  the  future.  It  is  emerging.  There  is  a  connnon  bond  between 
all  Europeans  which  cannot  be  gainsaid.  It  is  not  one  based  on  race. 
It  is  one  based  on  a  comnuniity  of  ideas  and  on  a  historical  cultural 
heritage. 

Now  I  think  as  far  as  the  practical  workings  of  the  national  origins 
quota  system  over  the  past  20  years  is  concerned,  they  have  been  noted 
as  being  unsuccessful  in  achieving  the  objective  of  preserving  a  pro- 
portion among  the  immigrants  comparable  to  that  existing  in  our 
country  supposedly  at  the  time  that  the  system  was  put  into  effect. 
The  people  from  the  high-quota  countries  of  Western  Europe,  partic- 
ularly Britain  and  Ireland,  just  have  not  come. 

Now  in  that  connection  I  did  some  research  work  in  the  Popula- 
tion World  Connnission  Report,  1949,  of  the  British  Government, 
and  found  that  they  had  some  interesting  things  to  say.  I  realize  it  is 
drawn  up  against  the  background  of  what  might  be  called  restrictive 
immigration  policy  as  far  as  the  United  Kingdom  is  concerned.  But 
the  rest  of  it  is  satisfactory  immigration,  ranged  between  65,000  and 
150,000  a  year.  Now  it  is  an  established  fact  that  most  of  the  British 
immigrants  will  normally  tend  to  gravitate  to  the  Commonwealth 
and  not  to  the  United  States,  no  matter  how  much  the  kinship  between 
Americans  and  British  has  been  established  in  past  days. 

In  view  of  that  fact,  the  assignment  of  a  quota  which  we  have 
given  to  Great  Britain  and  North  Ireland  is  not  realistic. 

Now  we  who  are  endeavoring  to  aid  various  European  nations  have 
to  take  into  account  their  economic  problems,  their  political  prob- 
lems, their  attitudes,  their  psychological  reactions  toward  the  situa- 
tions that  have  confronted  them  in  many  of  these  postwar  years, 
and  whether  we  like  it  or  not  if  we  fail  to  do  that  it  will  have  re- 
percussions in  the  pursuit  of  harmony  in  this  world  by  us,  particularly 
the  European  portion  of  it. 

It  seems  to  me  on  a  long-range  basis  therefore  we  sim]:)ly  have  to 
find  ways  and  means  for  finding  substitutes  for  national  origin  system 
as  it  is  Avritten  into  law  at  present.  It  is  not  an  easy  task  and  I  recog- 
nize it  because  I  have  worked  in  this  for  a  good  while  now. 

I  am  going  to  make  several  ]U'oposals  or  possible  solutions  to  the 
problem.     One  has  already  been  made,  namely — well,  they  are  all 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  259 

listed  in  the  statement  tliat  lias  been  handed  to  the  Commission.  One 
is  on  the  })roi)osal  of  distribul  iiiii'  visas  each  year.  A\'e  could  re- 
distribute the  quotas  to  the  ])eo])le  \\ho  are  eao:er  to  emi<rrate.  Never- 
theless, I  think  there  are  obvious  limitations  to  that  proposal.  In  the 
first  i)lace.  it  doesn't  remove  the  national  orifjin  system,  there  it  merely 
conceals  it,  and  that  is  an  important  fact.  Then  the  ethnics  oroups 
here  in  the  United  States  at  a  ^iven  date  still  remain  the  way  on  which 
we  made  the  initial  quotas.  T  am  opposed  to  retaining  that  at  all, 
if  it  is  at  all  possible. 

1  think  therefore  that  we  have  to  find  other  ways.  Namely,  we 
could  just  ijtrnore  European  boundaries  and  provided  people  were 
suitable  potential  immi<i:rants  to  our  countries,  consider  them  as  a 
sin^rle  species,  namely  of  European  mind.  From  there  in  it  would  be 
on  a  tirst-come,  first-served  basis.  Now  in  normal  times  this  would 
j)robably  work  out  satisfactorily.  But  I  think  we  have  to  consider 
some  exceptional  times.  The  second  method  I  can  see  of  handling 
it  is  distributino-  according  to  economic  needs,  foreign  policy  ob- 
jectives, and  the  desires  for  immigration  of  the  i)eoples  in  Europe. 
The  difficulty  of  that  of  course  is  that  you  would  have  to  have  a  body, 
immigration  committee  or  joint  committee  of  Congress  or  some  agency 
of  (xovernment  designated  to  ]:)erform  the  rather  disagreeable  task 
of  annually  assigning  the  quotas  or  visas  to  the  different  areas.  I 
wouldn't  want  to  be  serving  on  any  such  committee. 

The  third  method  I  can  see  as  a  possible  solution  is  the  reassigning 
of  the  150,000  or  whatever  number  we  would  judge,  and  I  would  cer- 
tainly think  there  would  be  no  difliculty  of  absorbing  250,000  from 
Europe — I  think  some  high  figures  have  been  thrown  around  here 
lately,  but  anyhow  that  seems  to  me  to  present  no  difficulties — that 
they  could  be  distributed  in  ])roportion  to  the  populations  of  the 
various  countries  in  Europe. 

Now  that  would  have  a  significant  effect  upon  the  present  method 
of  distribution.  First  it  would  ])lace  the  emphasis  on  the  other  coun- 
tries as  well  as  our  own  desires  of  having  immigrants  from  a  certain 
area,  and  it  would  in  that  way  make  sure  that  there  was  a  line  that  was 
more  realistic.  Some  of  the  high  quota  countries  of  Western  Europe 
would  then  be  cut  down,  and  some  of  the  other  countries  presently 
(piite  low  on  the  list  would  move  up,  and  therefore  you  would  have 
a  more  equitable  distribution. 

Now  I  am  not  going  to  go  into  that  any  more,  because  I  think  that 
the  long  range  problem  has  to  be  studied  very  carefully  and  I  hope 
that  this  Commission  will  come  up  with  a  satisfactory  suggestion  for 
the  national  (jrigin  ])r()blem. 

The  immediate  problem  in  Europe  I  would  like  to  s))eak  on  now. 
Whether  or  not  we  effect  a  change  on  the  long-range  policy,  we  have 
to  face  the  fact  that  there  is  an' immediate  situation.  There  are  cate- 
gories of  people  and  particular  groups  in  Europe  who  stand  greatly  in 
need  of  resettlement  in  order  to  pi'omote  economic  stability  on  the 
European  continent.  The  categories  I  have  in  mind  I  hate  listed  in 
])age  4  of  my  pre])ared  statement. 

Tlie  first  is  the  pipeline,  and  that  was  never  used  because  of  the  DP 
Act  passed  last  December. 

The  second  were  not  in  pipeline  but  are  those  who  are  definitely  not 
integrated,  or  who  are  unlikely  to  be  so  integrated  into  the  economies 
of  German v  and  Austria. 


260         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

The  third  one,  escapees  of  recent  and  present  origin,  a  continuing 
type,  a  number  of  whom  seek  immigTation  opportunity  to  the  Western 
Hemisphere,  and  some  of  whom  certainly  can  make  a  contribution  to 
the  United  States  at  the  same  time  we  assist  them  individually. 
Proper  treatment  of  these  escapees  is  of  tremendous  importance  in 
our  psychological  warfare  with  Soviet  Russia. 

The  fourth  group  that  I  want  to  stress  is  that  of  unassimilated  Ger- 
man etlmics,  especially  the  Volksdeutsche  who  are  not  at  home  or 
economically  self-supporting  in  Germany.  It  is  very  important  we 
consider  this  group.  It  is  very  easy  here  to  throw  around  a  staggering 
number  that  would  frustrate  anyone  interested  in  resettlement.  Using 
such  exaggerated  figures  serves  no  useful  purpose. 

I  would  only  emphasize  this ;  that  it  should  be  according  to  families 
and  not  individuals,  because  most  of  these  under  No.  4  are  farm  fami- 
lies. To  prevent  undue  draining  of  youthful  population  from  demo- 
graphically  weak  Western  Germany,  the  emphasis,  then,  should  be 
placed  on  resettlement  of  families  and  not  the  individual. 

No.  5  category  is  the  refugees  and  escapees  in  Trieste  or  Italy,  who 
are  in  the  same  plight  as  those  in  Germany  or  Austria. 

No.  6  is  repatriates  from  Africa  who  have  not  been  assimilated  into 
the  weakened  Italian  economy. 

And  No.  7,  a  number  of  underemployed,  or  other  good  potential 
emigrants  from  such  areas  as  the  Netherlands,  Italy,  Greece.  All  of 
these  areas  are  the  victims  of  either  economic  disruptment  consequent 
to  loss  of  colonies  or  of  civil  war  and  repatriation. 

I  am  not  suggesting  the  United  States  take  all  these  people  in.  But 
we  should  promote  the  resettlement  of  these  people  in  a  proportionate 
share  with  other  countries  of  the  world.  Other  countries  can  partici- 
pate in  the  resettlement  program  and  it  was  established  at  the  Brussels 
conference.    I  think  the  United  States  should  get  behind  such  a  quota. 

Specifically  to  the  United  States  immigration  from  Europe,  one, 
revision  of  the  national  origins  quota  system  to  bring  it  into  line  with 
European  demographic  realities,  and  two,  to  promote  political  and 
cultural  integration  of  Europe.  This  is  a  matter  first  for  revision  of 
permanent  immigration  law;  secondly,  by  meeting  of  certain  situa- 
tions, by  their  nature  temporary,  through  legislation  along  the  lines 
indicated  as  desirable  in  President  Truman's  message  of  March  24, 
1952. 

Through  both  these  steps  United  States  foreign  policy  can  be  fur- 
thered. There  is,  however,  urgent  priority  for  immediate  action  with 
regard  to  meeting  the  temporary  situations,  in  order  to  strengthen 
uiir  psychological  strategy  during  1953. 

With  regard  to  Asia,  I  will  say  something  briefly.  I  was  encouraged 
hy  the  fact  that  race  has  been  removed  as  a  barrier  to  our  country.  I 
think  it  is  a  significant  step  on  a  long-range  basis.  I  also  think  the 
significance  of  this  step  will  be  gradually  appreciated  as  time  goes  on. 
It  has  not  been  appreciated  as  yet.  The  same  can  be  said  of  the  assign- 
ment 01  quotas  to  all  of  these  countries  and  the  dependent  areas. 

In  anotlier  great  area  of  the  world,  Africa,  the  problem  still  is  not 
as  acute  for  a  number  of  reasons,  one  being  that  migration  is  not  so 
great.  It  is  an  underdeveloped  country  and  very  much  under- 
populated. 

I  think  we  Americans  have  to  recognize  there  is  such  a  thing  in  the 
world  and  take  it  into  account.    I  am  not  happy  about  the  fact,  but 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         261 

in  this  Avhole  question  of  removing  barriers  based  on  race  and  ethnic 
distinctions,  I  think  there  are  times  wlien  time  is  of  the  essence,  and 
wlietlier  we  like  it  or  not  it  won't  be  accomplished  overnight.  If  we 
try  to  push  too  hard,  we  will  create  the  opposite  effect  of  what  we  are 
ti'ving  to  accomplish. 

I  would  like  to  conclude  by  saying  emphatically  that,  with  regard  to 
Europe,  Americans  have  a  great  responsibility  for  trying  to  help 
Europe  promote  its  own  political  and  economic  stability  within  the 
European  Continent,  and  I  think  that  foreign  policy  can  be  pursued 
by  ])ushing  the  special  action  that  has  been  urged  by  President  Tru- 
man in  his  message  of  March  24,  1952,  along  with  the  long-term 
objectives.  I  do  not  think,  however,  that  the  special  action  should  be 
imperiled  by  tying  it  up  in  package  arrangement. 

The  ChaipvMan.  Do  you  think  it  ought  to  be  treated  separately? 

Father  GiBP.oNs.  Yes;  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  Father.  We  appreciate  the 
time  and  effort  that  j^ou  have  put  into  making  that  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Dr.  Solomon  Dingol. 

STATEMENT  OF  SOLOMON  DINGOL,  ANDREW  VALUCHEK,  AND 
EDGAR  L.  TRIER,  REPRESENTING  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  EDITORS 
OF  AMERICAN  FOREIGN-LANGUAGE  NEWSPAPERS 

Dr.  DiNGOL.  I  am  Solomon  Dingol,  editor  of  The  Day,  a  Jewish 
publication.  I  am  accompanied  by  Andrew  Valuchek,  editor  of  New 
Yorksky  Dennik  and  New  Yorksky  Listy,  Czechoslovakian  papers; 
and  Edgar  L.  Trier,  editor  of  France  Amerique,  a  French  paper.  We 
are  here  as  representatives  of  the  Committee  of  Editors  of  American 
Foreign-Language  Newspapers,  representing  18  newspapers  in  12 
languages.    My  address  is  100  Grand  Concourse,  Bronx,  New  York, 

We  have  a  joint  prepared  statement  which  I  will  read,  if  I  may. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

Mr.  DixGOL.  Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  Commission,  we,  editors 
of  American  newspapers  published  in  foreign  languages  in  this 
country,  loyal  citizens  of  the  United  States,  conscious  of  the  traditions 
of  liberty  of  our  beloved  country  and  aware  of  the  feelings,  the  think- 
ing, the  philosophies  of  our  foreign  groups  in  this  country  and  abroad, 
appreciate  the  opportunity  to  present  this  statement  to  you  on  our 
country's  immigi'ation  policy. 

We  feel  that  we  can  speak  with  authority  on  the  distressing  effect 
of  the  restrictive  and  discriminatory  immigration  policy  of  the  United 
States  on  the  peoples  abroad  who  look  to  us  for  enlightened  leader- 
ship and  equality  of  treatment  for  all  races  and  nationalities. 

We  make  this  statement  in  the  realization  that  a  change  in  our 
immigration  policy  is  necessary  to  keep  faith  with  our  friends  and  to 
maintain  our  leadership  in  the  free  world.    We  believe  that — 

1.  The  quota  provisions  under  the  Immigration  and  Nationality 
Act  (known  as  the  McCarran  Act)  are  contradictory  and  defeat  their 
own  purposes. 

The  law  provides  for  the  annual  admission  of  154,657  immigrants  to 
the  United  States.  During  the  past  two  decades  no  such  number  has 
been  admitted  in  any  one  year.     During  some  years  we  have  received 


262  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

less  than  half  of  that  number.  Despite  this,  the  McCarran  Act  does 
not  charge  the  400,000  displaced  persons  admitted  to  the  United  States 
under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1948  against  the  deficiencies  of  the 
previous  years,  but  instead  mortgages  the  future  quotas  of  every  coun- 
try in  which  the  displaced  persons  were  born.  The  new  immigration 
law  requires  that  50  percent  of  the  immigrants  who  were  admitted  to 
the  United  States  during  the  past  4  years  under  the  Displaced  Persons 
Act  should  be  charged  against  the  quotas  of  the  countries  of  their 
national  oi'igin.  This  means  that  the  meager  quotas  of  countries  like 
Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  and  many  others  which  suffered  most  from 
Nazi  oppression  and  are  now  under  Communist  domination,  will  be 
cut  in  half.  These  countries  will  not  be  able  to  make  use  of  their  full 
quotas  for  many  years  to  come  and  in  many  cases  for  as  long  as  50 
3'ears,  or  even  more. 

A  vast  number  of  freedom-loving  people  in  totalitarian  countries  are 
now  working  for  the  liberation  of  their  lands.  Their  lives  are  in 
constant  danger.  In  fairness  to  them,  and  by  way  of  encouragement, 
they  should  be  given  a  chance  to  come  to  the  United  States  at  least 
within  the  full  quotas  of  their  respective  countries. 

2.  It  has  been  significantly  pointed  out  by  social  scientists  that  the 
national-origin  theory,  on  which  our  quota  law  was  based,  is  unsound. 
We  submit  that  it  is  also  undemocratic  and  unrealistic.  Political 
and  economic  conditions  in  many  countries  have  undergone  changes 
since  the  quota  law  of  1924  went  into  effect.  It  is  therefore  inadvis- 
able and  unrealistic  to  base  admissions  to  the  United  States,  in  the 
year  1952,  on  situations  and  conditions  that  prevailed  in  1924.  May 
we  respectfully  suggest  that,  if  our  quota  law  must  remain  on  the 
statute  books,  a  new  basis  of  allocation  of  quotas  be  established,  more 
in  line  with  the  present  conditions  in  foreign  countries  and  in  the  best 
interests  of  the  United  States. 

3.  The  new  immigration  law  creates  two  classes  of  citizenship.  The 
naturalized  citizen  does  no  longer  enjoy  the  same  rights  and  protection 
under  the  law  which  is  accorded  to  the  native-born  American.  Our 
country  always  prided  itself  on  being  a  country  of  equitable  laws. 
"Equal  justice  to  all''  was  one  of  the  highest  and  most  cherished 
principles  of  Americanism.  Are  we  going  to  forsake  our  traditional 
concepts  ? 

4.  The  new  immigration  law  makes  the  gesture  of  opening  our  doors 
to  immigrants  from  Asiatic  countries  for  the  purpose  of  improving  our 
relations  with  those  countries.  It  is  our  considered  opinion  that  this 
provision  will  not  only  fail  to  improve  our  relations  but  will,  on  the 
contrary,  rather  militate  against  us  in  that  respect.  What  will  the 
anti-Communists  among  the  400  million  Chinese  think  of  their  allo- 
cated annual  quota  of  only  100  immigrants  to  the  LTnited  States? 
What  will  the  300  million  Indians  think  of  our  admission  of  100  of 
their  nationals  annually?  They  will  consider  such  "generosity"  a 
mockery  and  ati  insult.  Think  what  it  means  to  loyal  freedom-loving 
Chinese  who  want  to  escape  from  present  Communist  domination,  or 
to  other  friendly  Asiatics  whom  we  want  to  enlist  in  the  fight  against 
connnunism  in  their  own  countries,  and  their  reaction  to  our  present 
immigration  law.  The  McCarran  Act,  instead  of  repudiating  the 
philosophy  of  racism,  actually  accentuates  it. 

5.  The  effect  of  the  new  immigration  law  on  foreign  countries  is,  in 
our  opinion,  devastating.     The  free  world  which  looked  upon  the 


COMAilSSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         263 

United  States  as  a  bi<>-  brother  and  generous  friend  is  disillusioned. 
It  is  outraged  not  only  by  the  restrictions  in  immigration  and  by  the 
mortgaging  of  meager" quotas  but  more  so  by  the  spirit  of  the  McCarran 
Act,  which  c(msiders  every  innnigrant  a  potential  criminal  and  looks 
upon  every  alien  with  suspicion  after  his  admission  to  the  country. 
People  abroad  who  regard  the  United  States  as  the  leader  of  the  free 
world  are  bitterly  disappointed. 

6.  The  new  immigration  law  ])lays  directly  into  the  hands  of  the 
Communist  pro])agandists.  Some  foreign  newspapers  take  the  stand 
that  our  devotion  to  freedom  and  equality  is  mere  lip  service.  This 
has  been  the  tenor  of  editorials  not  only  in  the  Communist  press  but 
also  in  some  democratic  foreign  newspapers  in  countries  which  have 
been  traditionally  friendly  to  the  United  States.  It  is  a  fact  that 
before  the  McCarran  Act  was  passed  many  more  anti-Communist 
leaders  made  efforts  to  escape  from  their  Communist-dominated 
native  countries  than  is  the  case  today. 

In  the  present  struggle  between  the  totalitarian  and  the  free  world, 
it  is,  we  submit,  our  duty  to  provide  refuge  for  political  escapees  and 
for  all  those  who  are  willing  to  join  us  in  our  fight  for  freedom. 

The  history  of  our  country  is  a  history  of  immigration.  Innni- 
grants  from  nearly  every  country  in  the  world  have  contributed  to 
our  growth  and  present  strength. 

Our  immigration  laws  must  be  liberalized.  They  must  become  more 
humane  and  more  realistic  to  satisfy  our  own  needs  and  the  needs  of 
our  friends  abroad. 

The  Chairman.  We  appreciate  your  courtesy  in  coming  here  and 
expressing  your  views. 

Dr.  J.  Ilice  Gibbs  is  our  next  witness. 

STATEMENT  OF  J.  RICE  GIBBS,  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  IMMIGRATION 
COMMITTEE  OF  THE  AMERICAN  DEFENSE  SOCIETY,  INC. 

Dr.  Gibbs.  I  am  Dr.  J.  Rice  Gibbs,  140  East  Fiftieth  Street,  New 
York,  N.  Y.  I  represent  the  American  Defense  Society,  Inc.,  255 
Fifth  Avenue,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  and  I  am  chairman  of  the  immigra- 
tion committee  of  that  organization. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  which  I  should  like  to  read. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

Dr.  Gibbs.  Gentlemen  of  the  ImmigTation  Commission,  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  recently  passed  an  immigration  law  that 
was  drawn  up  after  5  years  of  intense  study,  debate,  committee  hear- 
ings, and  deliberation.  This  law  was  passed  by  Congress,  vetoed  by 
the  President,  and  then  passed  over  his  veto.  This  w^as  not  a  partisan 
measure  and  was  not  drawn  to  favor  any  special  group  but  was  sup- 
posed to  be  and  is  for  the  best  interest  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  I  came  into  this  room  yesterday  to  listen  to  the  arguments 
for  and  against  the  bill  as  it  now  is.  As  1  sat  here  and  listened  to 
those  who  want  to  open  our  shores  to  imniigi-ants  fi'om  all  over  the 
world,  I  wondered  whether  they  were  speaking  for  the  good  of  the 
United  States  or  for  only  the  s])ecial  race  of  the  speaker. 

The  law  as  it  now  stands  seems  to  us  of  the  American  Defense 
Society  to  be  fail-  and  just.  It  not  only  limits  the  number  of  persons 
who  may  enter  the  United  States  within  a  certain  ])eriod  but  also 


264         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

provides  means  of  screening  those  who  seek  entrance  so  as  to  keep  out 
undesirables.  It  also  provides  that  those  who  came  here  or  are  here 
and  cannot  adapt  themselves  to  our  way  of  living  and  commit  criminal 
acts  against  our  Government  and  laws  may  be  tried  for  their  crimes 
and  if  found  guilty  may  be  deported  even  if  they  have  become  citizens. 
This  deportation  act  is  a  just  one  and  really  should  be  applied  to  some 
who  have  been  born  here. 

Too  many  of  our  colleges  and  universities  have  given  professorships 
to  recent  immigrants  who  claim  to  have  superior  knowledge  and  are 
alloAved  to  teach  their  ideological  learnings  to  the  youth  of  our  coun- 
try. We  don't  need  these  so-called  intellectuals  of  Europe  to  come  here 
and  teach  us  how  to  run  our  country  or  do  we  need  them  in  the  pro- 
fessions or  in  the  sciences.  When  we  need  brains  we  can  find  them 
here,  and  initiative  progression  is  one  of  our  specialties.  Russia  says 
she  has  invented  everything,  but  we  are  a  young  country ;  so,  give  us 
time  and  we  will  catch  up  to  them  without  the  use  of  spies. 

We  also  have  here  a  number  of  foreign-born  labor  leaders,  most  of 
whom  seem  to  favor  the  Marxist  theory.  These  we  could  deport  with- 
out the  labor  unions  losing  prestige  by  a  change  of  leadership. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  letting  down  of  the  bars  to  larger  immi- 
gration quotas  is  in  the  interest  of  our  American  society.  We  have 
seen  in  the  last  few  years  an  attempt  to  break  down  our  traditional 
form  of  government  by  Presidential  decrees  and  by  a  bureaucratic 
form  of  government  into  a  socialistic  state  brought  upon  us  by  mi- 
nority pressure  groups  who  want  either  to  take  over  our  government, 
force  us  into  economic  difficulties,  subject  us  to  foreign  rule  or  into 
international  entanglements.  We  do  not  feel  that  these  groups  have 
the  welfare  of  the  United  States  at  heart  but  want  us  to  get  into  a 
world  federation. 

We  have  taken  our  share  of  refugees — maybe  as  many  as  2  million — 
legally  and  illegally.  In  the  meantime  we  do  not  seem  to  have  recog- 
nized that  right  here  in  the  United  States  we  have  displaced  persons 
who  do  not  have  decent  homes  or  schools  to  which  they  can  send  their 
children. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  population  of  the  United  States  would 
decline  rapidly  if  we  stopped  immigration,  but  youth  is  marrying 
young  and  the  evidence  is  at  hand  to  show  us  that  we  do  not  need 
worry  but  we  must  keep  our  country  free  of  the  wrong  kind  of  "isms" 
so  they  will  have  a  free  country  to  live  in. 

The  American  Defense  Society  believes  we  had  some  influence  in 
forming  the  present  immigration  laws  and  hope  they  will  remain 
in  force  for  as  many  years  as  the  laws  they  supersede. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you.  Dr.  Gibbs. 

Monsignor  Burant? 

STATEMENT  OF  RT.  REV.  MSGR.  FEIIKS  F.  BURANT,  PRESIDENT 
OF  THE  POLISH  IMMIGRATION  COMMITTEE 

INIonsignor  Burant.  I  am  Msgr.  Feliks  F.  Burant,  president  of  the 
Polish  Immigration  Committee,  25  St.  Marks  Place,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
I  am  testifying  in  behalf  of  the  committee  and  have  a  statement  whiuh 
I  would  like  to  read. 

The  Chairman.  The  Commission  will  be  pleased  to  hear  your  views. 

Monsignor  Burant.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  President's 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         265 

Coininission  on  Inimifrration  and  Naturalization,  in  the  first  place,  I 
am  very  orateful  to  the  President's  Connnission  on  Immigration  and 
Naturalization  for  having  invited  me  to  today's  session  and  thus  giving 
me  tlie  opportunity  to  make  a  few  observations  on  so  vital  a  subject 
as  the  problem  of  our  immigration  legislation. 

I  would  like  to  state  at  the  outset  that  I  am  neither  a  lawyer  nor  do  I 
consider  myself  an  expert  on  the  complex  regulations  of  immigrant 
legislation.  However,  I  do  know  its  practical  application  with  regard 
to  a  multitude  of  concrete  human  affairs  with  which  I  come  in  contact 
almost  daily.  Precisely  this  i)ermits  me  to  observe  the  lights  and 
shadows  of  our  immigration  maze.  I  believe  that  for  the  Commis- 
sion, if  it  wishes  to  gain  a  complete  picture,  not  only  the  arguments  of 
specialists  and  lawyers  are  of  importance  but,  in  at  least  equal  measure, 
the  opinions  of  persons  and  organizations  which  have  a  wealth  of 
experience  in  carrying  out  ])robably  one  of  the  most  httmanitarian 
missions,  namely,  that  of  opening  the  doors  of  our  free  country  for  the 
unforttmate,  oppressed,  homeless,  for  people  without  a  coimtry  btit 
faithful  to  the  principles  of  our  western  civilization  in  whose  behalf 
they  did  not  hesitate  to  risk  lives  and  property. 

The  organization  over  which  I  have  the  honor  to  preside  has  over 
the  last  few  years  secured  assurances  for  almost  22,000  displaced 
persons,  former  Polish  soldiers  in  (jreat  Britain,  and  so-called  out-of- 
zone  refugees.  In  addition,  we  help  in  the  immigration  of  many 
quota  immigrants  from  various  countries.  A  special  held  of  the  work 
of  our  committee  is  the  care  for  Polish  sailors  who  for  purely  political 
reasons  had  jumped  their  ships  which  are  now  controlled  by  the  Com- 
munist regime  imposed  on  Poland  by  JSIoscow.  To  this  should  be 
added  the  help  which  we  extend  to  people  deserving  protection  who 
are  kept  in  Ellis  Island  and  who  are  threatened  with  deportation  from 
this  country. 

The  two  latter  fields  of  our  work — that  is,  the  care  over  Polish 
sailors  and  refugees  on  Ellis  Island — provide  us  with  extremely  hard 
experiences  and  at  the  same  time  throw  a  glaring  light  on  the  back- 
ground and  spirit  of  our  immigration  laws. 

If  I  may  begin  my  comments  with  a  general  remark,  I  must  say 
that  our  immigration  laws  do  not  keep  pace  with  the  great  changes 
that  life  and  the  course  of  world  events  carry  with  them,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  shows  dangerous  tendencies  of  isolation  from  what  the  world 
situation  demands  from  us  and,  even  worse,  from  all  those  great 
traditions  and  principles  on  which  the  greatness  of  our  country  was 
built. 

In  my  opinion,  the  immigration  law  which  dail}^  affects  thousands 
of  people  all  over  the  world  nuist  be  in  keeping  with  the  principles 
which  we  proclaim  at  home  and  wdiich  our  propaganda  set-up 
transmits  to  the  rest  of  the  world  as  a  contrast  to  the  Communist 
enslavement  of  man.  It  is  beyond  my  understanding  that  our  Depart- 
ment of  State  should  strive  to  win  the  confidence  and  the  friendship 
of  the  oppressed  and  free  peoples  of  the  world  and  prestige  among 
them,  while  at  the  same  time  our  immigration  regulations  and  pro- 
cedure manifest  a  narrow  and  incomprehensible  misunderstanding. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  my  parents  and  grandparents  were  born 
in  this  country  and  that  consequently  I  may  consider  myself  a  "native" 
American  in  accordance  with  the  new  immigration  law,  nevertheless 


266  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

I  cannot  accepttlie  philosophy  that  thanks  to  this  fact  I  am  entitled  to 
^•reater  privileges  than  a  refugee  who  had  come  here  a  few  years  ago, 
and  after  years  of  prisons  and  concentration  camps  defend  today  my 
country  which  is  already  also  his. 

Let  us  imagine  that,  to  his  misfortune,  some  years  after  his  return 
from  the  front  he  would  become  a  so-called  public  charge.  He  will 
then  live  in  constant  fear  of  deportation,  which  according  to  our  new 
immigration  law  threatens  him  at  least  theoretically. 

I  also  camiot  understand  how  it  is  that  for  instance  an  Englishman 
or  Irishman  who  live  peacefully  in  their  countries,  if  they  wish  to 
emigrate  to  the  United  States,  will  obtain  innnigi-ation  in  a  month's 
time  while  a  Pole,  a  Czech,  an  Estonian,  or  some  other  refugee,  who 
fought  against  the  Hitler  or  Stalin  occupation  at  the  greatest  risk  to 
his  life  and  even  managed  to  esca])e  from  behind  the  iron  curtain,  will 
be  rewarded  by  the  west  by  confinement  in  a  camp  and  the  hope  of 
finding  asylum  in  our  country  in  four,  five,  or  even  more  years. 

As  an  American,  I  confess  that  I  am  amazed  when  last  year  in 
August  I  applied  in  turn  to  all  responsible  agencies  in  Washington 
with  the  request  that  asylum  be  granted  to  f 'i  heroic  Polish  sailors  who 
had  overpowered  the  crew  of  a  warship  together  with  the  Soviet  officers 
on  board  of  the  shij)  on  the  high  seas  and  subsequently  reached  Sweden 
where  they  received  asylum.  Plowever,  these  brave  boys  did  not  feel 
safe  in  Sweden  on  account  of  the  numerous  agents  of  the  Warsaw 
regime  and  turned  to  my  committee  to  help  them  in  coming  to  this 
country.  Leaving  aside  the  ])ropaganda  value  which  their  entry 
would  have  had  for  our  country  and  how  nuich  this  would  have 
strengthened  the  faith  of  millions  of  people  behind  the  iron  curtain 
that  we  do  what  we  preach,  we  were  told  that  they  should  register 
on  the  quota  and  wait.  However,  those  boys  did  not  have  the  patience 
that  we  demanded  from  them  and  after  a  few  weeks  received  visas 
from  tlie  Canadian  Government,  and  even  free  passage.  This  one 
example  is  a  proof  how  incapable  owr  immigration  law  is  of  meeting 
any  emergency  situations,  how  rigid  regulations  plus  the  preponder- 
ance of  the  bureaucratic-administrative  machinery  are  unable  to  sup- 
port the  principles  and  directions  of  our  foreign  policy.  It  appears 
that  it  is  easier  to  bring  in  a  few  hundred  sheepherders  from  Spain 
to  Nevada  than  a  dozen  real  heroes  in  the  struggle  for  those  })rinciples 
in  the  name  of  whicli  we  pay  billions  of  dollars  in  taxes  and  for  which 
our  best  sons  are  shedding  or  are  ready  to  shed  their  blood. 

And  here  I  come  to  one  of  the  greatest  defects  in  our  present  as 
well  as  forthcoming  immigration  law.  The  existing  quota  system  does 
not  at  all  correspond  to  the  present  conditions  and  needs,  but  it  is 
a  perpetuation  and  discrimination  against  the  countries  of  Central  and 
Eastern  Europe.  Accepting  the  year  1890  as  the  basis,  it  is  formed 
on  a  tendentious  and  artificial  estimate,  because  the  main  wave  of  im- 
migrants from  the  countries  of  East-Central  Europe  came  princi])ally 
after  that  date.  But,  even  leaving  aside  this  historical  and  statistical 
consideration,  no  one  will  deny  that  precisely  these  countries  are  today 
the  greatest  producers  of  refugees,  scattered  families  and  homeless 
people. 

The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  very  simple :  Either  the  whole  anti- 
quated quota  system  should  be  thoroughly  revised  or  the  Department 
of  State  should  be  authorized  to  utilize,  depending  on  the  situation 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  267 

iind  real  needs,  the  unused  quotas  of  western  and  northern  European 
countries. 

Another  concrete  aspect  of  the  hxw  to  which  I  wnsh  to  draw  your 
attention  is  the  far-reacliino-  aggravation  with  regard  to  deportation. 
Let  me  state  in  advance  that  I  am  not  concerned  with  the  fate  of  peo- 
ple who  are  in  the  service  of  a  foreign,  hostile  power.  They  should  be 
sent  back  to  where  their  loyalty  lies,  of  course  their  guilt  being  proved. 
But  1  am  concerned  about  innocent  victims,  people  who  wander  over 
various  countries  and  who  sometimes  knock  at  our  door  asking  that 
it  be  opened  so  that  they  might  begin  to  lead  decent,  human  lives. 

It  is  best  to  use  facts.  Three  and  a  half  years  ago  more  than  100 
Polish  sailors  left  their  shi})s  because  many  were  tlireatened  with  arrest 
and  moreover  one  of  the  ships  had  been  sold  to  the  Soviets;  our  press 
and  radio  gave  this  fact  much  well-deserved  publicity.  It  would  again 
seem  that  such  people,  at  a  time  when  we  wage  psychological  warfare 
with  the  masters  of  tlie  Kremlin,  are  needed  and  deserved  asylum. 
It  is  true  that  so  far  none  of  them  were  deported,  but  not  more  than 
two  or  three  have  their  stay  legalized.  The  rest  live  in  constant  fear 
and  cannot  overcome  the  complexities  of  the  innnigration  procedures. 
Many  were  rejected  by  the  hearing  officers  for  they  said  the  truth ; 
they  told  the  truth:  That,  leaving  the  ship,  they  liad  the  intention  of 
seeking  asylum  in  this  conntr3^  The  laAv  enabling  them  to  legalize 
their  stay  excludes  such  a  possibility.  A  series  of  appeals  begin  and 
they  now  say  that  leaving  tlie  Communist  ship  they  had  no  intention 
of  remaining  in  this  country:  if  they  said  they  intended  to  stay  here,, 
they  were  not  eligible.  Indeed  our  laws  are  sometimes  strange  and 
complicated. 

Our  inmiigration  law  should  emphatically  distinguish  between 
political  refugees  who  have  no  place  to  return  to  except  to  prison, 
from  those  who  are  iK)t  victims  of  war  and  all  its  consequences  and 
simply  seek  adventure.  Then  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  resort  to 
various  tricks  to  save  i)eo])le  who  instead  of  being  kept  for  months 
at  Ellis  Island  would  enjoy  the  fruits  of  our  democracy  and  propa- 
gate our  way  of  life. 

According  to  the  new  law,  the  hearing  officer  has  power  over  the 
alien's  life  and  death.  Actually  he  iathe  person  who  ultimately  make^" 
the  decision;  he  is  the  same  case  investigator,  prosecutor,  and  judge. 
I  think  this  is  a  bit  too  much  for  one  person.  It  is  unfair  to  an  alien 
wdio  might  be  the  subject  of  deportation  proceedings  that,  outside  an 
appeal  from  one  to  another  administrative  instance,  he  has  no  recourse 
to  an  independent  statutory  board  of  a  judicial  character  which 
would  be  empowered  to  issue  final  decisions  in  such  extremely  im- 
])ortant  matters  as  deportations. 

The  new  law  goes  even  further.  I  think  it  is  the  first  time  in  our 
history  that  aliens  may  be  deported  without  a  hearing.  I  have  in 
mind  the  stowaways  who  again  nuist  be  treated  quite  differently  if 
they  are  citizens  of  free  countries  than  if  their  home  and  family  are 
in  the  Soviet-occupied  countries. 

Knowing  the  situation  behind  the  iron  curtain,  we  shoidd  rathei" 
accept  a  definite  rule  whereby  no  one  except  the  Communists  or  fel- 
low travelers  be  deported  to  their  original  countries.  All  others,  how- 
ever, from  these  unfortunate  lands,  should  be  granted  an  asylum 
regardless  of  the  way  they  have  reached  our  shores.    This  ought  to  be 

25.356 — 52 18 


268         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

one  of  the  guiding  principles  in  our  policy  instead  of  leaving  a  de- 
cision of  deportation  to  individual  immigration  officers. 

I  strongly  believe  that  refugees  who  return  to  Poland  and  other 
nations  behind  the  iron  curtain,  at  the  present  time,  have  reasonable 
grounds  to  fear  persecution. 

The  present  Polish  regime  shows  a  general  attitude  that  everyone 
who  comes  from  the  west  is  a  spy.  This  is  the  same  state  of  mind  that 
prevails  in  Soviet  Russia. 

Those  persons  who  during  the  last  "World  War  lived  in  the  west  are 
especially  kept  under  supervision.  Their  whereabouts  are  closely 
watched  by  the  state  police,  and  there  are  quite  a  few  reasonable  hints 
that  in  case  of  war  all  those  would  be  put  in  concentration  camps. 

The  new  law  which  requires  every  Pole  to  be  in  possession  of  special 
documents  gives  thorough  proof  of  this  attitude. 

In  order  to  obtain  those  documents,  one  must  complete  a  very  long 
and  complicated  questionnaire  which  especially  requires  details  of 
one's  stay  in  the  west. 

Among  others  there  are  questions  as  follow : 

Why  did  you  not  return  to  Poland  immediately  after  the  war  at  the 
first  occasion  ? 

Names  of  organizations  and  persons  with  whom  you  had  contact 
during  your  stay  outside  of  Poland. 

This  is  clear  proof  that  if  any  one  of  the  refugees  who  were  in  the 
west  are  not  yet  in  a  slave-labor  camp,  they  are  under  constant  fear 
that  at  any  time  whatsoever  they  might  be  persecuted  because  of  their 
potential  risk  to  the  Communist  structure. 

The  campaign  of  hate  which  is  presently  being  conducted  against 
the  United  States  speaks  for  itself. 

Our  immigration  law  in  order  to  meet  pressures  of  our  times  should 
be  more  flexible  and  free  of  guidance  of  heartless  routine. 

Recently  we  had  a  very  unpleasant  case  in  which  again  the  lack  of 
a  proper  regulation  did  not  permit  us  to  help  an  unhappy  Polish 
refugee  soldier.  A  few  years  ago  he  came  from  Germany  to  Venezuela 
because  he  simply  had  no  other  possibility.  As  a  result  of  tlie  bad 
climate  he  decided  to  leave  that  country  and  after  obtaining  a  Canadian 
visa  he  bought  for  his  hard-earned  savings  an  airplane  ticket  and  flew 
to  ISIontreal.  At  the  airport  the  Canadian  health  commission  found 
that  he  had  contracted  tropical  malaria  and  he  was  refused  permission 
to  land.  The  airline  took  him  back  and  kept  him  under  guard  in  a 
New  York  hotel  because  the  immigration  authorities  said  he  was  not 
their  concern  since  he  was  only  in  transit.  Finally  the  line  put  him 
on  a  plane  but  Venezuela  also  did  not  accept  him.  Consequently,  he 
was  returned  to  New  York  and  put  on  Ellis  Island  and  before  anyone 
learned  about  this  case  (officially  to  this  day  no  Polish  American 
organization  has  been  notified)  the  immigration  authorities  sent  him 
hastily  to  Germany.  The  result  is  clear.  The  American  airline  paid 
some  $2,000.  After  years  of  hardship  the  soldier  was  returned  to  the 
country  where  he  had  been  taken  prisoner  by  the  Nazis  13  years  ago. 
Perhaps  he  will  feel  resentment  against  Canada,  but  I  am  concerned 
vrith  what  he  thinks  about  this  country,  what  goes  on  in  his  heart. 
Could  no  place  for  him  be  found  in  our  country?  If  poor  Norway 
could  take  a  few  dozen  blind,  could  not  we  give  shelter  to  one  victim 
of  malaria?     What  will  this  man  be  saying  about  us?     About  our 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         2G9 

human  ai)proacli  and  onr  fjratitiide  for  loyal  allies.  Our  immigration 
law  must  pay  greater  attention  to  the  value  of  human  lives  if  we  want 
peojile  all  over  the  world  to  believe  that  the  individual  actually  means 
something  in  our  civilization. 

Summing  up  I  feel  that  a  revision  of  our  immigration  laws  is  again 
most  important  and  timely. 

After  tliese  general  reiiiarks  concerning  our  immigration  laws  let 
me  submit  a  few  concrete  suggestions  with  regard  to  the  current  and 
most  pressing  innnigration  needs  of  Polish  refugees.  I  apologize  for 
limiting  myself  only  to  my  national  group,  but  this  is  a  field  with 
which  i  am'  most  familiar.  I  also  believe  that  in  preparing  the  Com- 
mission's general  report  these  few  demands  may  be  helpful  in  giving  a 
full  outline  of  the  most  pressing  immigration  needs  as  far  as  refugees 
are  concerned. 

Under  the  existing  immigTation  laws,  the  Polish  quota  is  6,524  out 
of  the  annual  quota  of  153,000  immigrants  to  the  United  States.  Under 
the  terms  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  as  amended,  the  Poles  admitted 
under  said  act — like  others — will  be  subtracted  from  future  Polish 
■quotas.  Thus  the  Polish  quota  is  mortgaged  50  percent  until  1999. 
This  is  completely  unreal  and  tragic,  since  the  refugees  from  Com- 
munist tyranny  are  thus  barred  from  entering  the  United  States. 

The  provisions  of  3  (c)  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  as  amended, 
which  intends  to  bring  some  relief  to  the  problem,  for  the  so-called 
out-of-zone  refugees,  fails  entirely  in  its  purpose  because  of  the  meager 
number  of  available  visas. 

The  following  groups  of  Polish  refugees  should,  as  soon  as  possible, 
be  given  the  opportunity  of  emigrating  to  the  United  States  as  non- 
quota immigrants : 

1.  Fifteen  thousand  more  displaced  persons  who  are  still  living  in 
Germany  and  were  covered  by  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  as  amended, 
but  who  did  not  succeed  in  emigrating  to  the  United  States,  because 
they  did  not  obtain  visas  before  January  1,  1952,  or  were  unable  to 
get  assurance  in  time  to  meet  the  deadline  of  July  31, 1951. 

The  total  number  of  Polish  refugees  is  about  50,000. 

The  health  screening  of  those  people  should  be  a  little  more  humane. 
I  do  not  think  that  it  is  justified  to  look  with  such  precision  for  spots 
on  the  lungs  of  people  who  suffer  without  any  guilt  of  their  own  and 
who  in  conditions  of  normal  life  could  recover  their  health.  A  man 
who  on  orders  or  inspiration  of  the  west  committed  sabotage  against 
Hitler  or  Stalin  regime  should  be  permitted  to  have  even  several  spots 
on  his  lungs. 

2.  Seven  thousand  ex-Polish  soldiers  from  Great  Britain,  who  were 
deprived  of  the  privilege  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act,  as  amended, 
merely  because  they  did  not  register  before  June  16, 1950,  out  of  18,000 
visas  allocated  to  this  category  under  said  act,  only  approximately 
11,000  were  profited  from.  In  view  of  this,  we  believe  that  this  sug- 
gestion will  not  be  in  any  way  a  disregard  of  the  intention  of  last 
Congress,  concerning  the  admittance  to  the  United  States  of  these 
18,000  ex-Polsh  solders,  who  fought  so  bravely  and  gallantly  in  the 
last  war.  as  expressed  in  the  aforesaid  act. 

3.  Five  thousand  Polish  refugees  scattered  in  different  countries 
who  escaped  from  Poland  after  May  1945.  The  definition  of  refu- 
gees as  usually  given  should  be  changed  to  exclude  the  condition  "who 


270  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

has  not  been  firmly  resettled."  Our  experience  shows  that  it  is  al- 
most impossible  to  determine  ayIio  is  firmly  resettled  except  in  those 
cases  where  the  refugee-resident  in  the  foreign  country  has  applied  for 
citizenship  in  that  country.  The  use  of  the  above  phrase  in  actual 
practice  makes  it  almost  mandatory  that  the  American  consul  use  his 
own  discretion  in  determining  the  cpiestion. 

All  the  three  above-mentioned  groups  as  people  who  in  their  vast 
majority  have  no  relatives  in  this  country  should  be  permitted  entry 
on  the  basis  of  assurances,  as  was  the  case  according  to  the  Displaced 
Persons  Act.  These  people  would  not  be  able  to  obtain  affidavits  m 
view  of  the  much  more  complicated  character  of  that  document. 

My  experience  in  the  field  of  immigration  and  resettlement  with 
the  Polish  element  has  been  very  gratifying  and  pleasing.  Indeed, 
the  United  States  has  benefited  from  the  skills,  abilities,  and  culture 
of  the  new^  innnigrants.  Many  of  them  are  now  fighting  in  the  United 
States  Army  in  Korea  and  are  giving  an  excellent  account  of  them- 
selves as  American  soldiers. 

We,  therefore,  feel  that  the  Poles,  like  other  refugees,  merit  your 
careful  and  serious  consideration.  Whatever  you  accomplish  here 
will  indeed  reach  the  enslaved  people  there  and  I  hope  your  final  re- 
port will  demonstrate  to  them  that  they  have  not  been  entirely  for- 
gotten. 

I  believe  the  good-neighbor  and  the  open-door  i)olicy  will  pre- 
vail over  a  policy  cutting  us  oif  from  the  rest  of  the  world.  Let  those 
who  want  to  erect  a  Chinese  wall  to  keep  out  new  immigrants  remem- 
ber that  from  a  people  of  4  million  we  have  become  in  not  quite  200 
years  a  nation  of  150  million.  We  owe  this  to  the  steady  influx  of 
millions  of  valuable  and  industrious  immigrants  devoted  to  our 
country. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Commission  I  respectfully  sub- 
mit for  your  serious  consideration  these  general  suggestions  and  I 
hope  that  they  will  be  of  some  help  to  your  noble  endeavor. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you,  Monsignor.  The  Commission  appre- 
ciates the  time  and  effort  that  you  have  put  into  that  very  interesting 
paper. 

Reverend  Burant.  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edward  Hong. 

STATEMENT  OF  EDWAED  HONG,  REPRESENTING  THE  CHINESE 
CONSOLIDATED  BENEVOLENT  ASSOCIATION,  ACCOMPANIED  BY 
GILBERT  B.  MOY 

Mr.  Hong.  I  am  Edward  Hong,  551  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City. 
1  am  accompanied  by  Mr.  Gilbert  B.  Moy,  and  together  we  are  appear- 
ing in  behalf  of  the  Chinese  Consolidated  Benevolent  Association, 
located  at  16  Mott  Street,  New  York  City.  The  association  represents 
the  total  of  65  family  associations,  representing  all  of  the  Chinese  in 
the  New  York  area  and  on  the  eastern  seaboard.  The  Chinese  Con- 
solidated Benevolent  Association  is  also  associated -with  many  other 
branches  located  all  over  the  United  States. 

I  know  the  hour  is  getting  late,  and  I  thank  the  Chairman  and  the 
members  of  the  Commission  for  the  privilege  to  just  say  a  few  words 
for  the  record.    I  wish  to  have  an  opportunity  to  prepare  a  written 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  271 

dociinient  for  the  coiisidoi'atio]!  of  tlie  Coiniiiissioii ;  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  1  didn't  know  I  was  ^ointj;  to  speak  for  the  association,  1 
Avas  unable  to  })re|)are  a  wiitten  statement  at  this  time.  However,  the 
few  matters  to  whicli  I  wouhl  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mission at  this  time  aie  with  resi)ect  to  the  McCari'an  Act  as  it  now 
affects  the  Chinese:  and.  also,  immigration  proceedings.  Now,  my 
experience  and  my  knowledge  is  of  the  way  that  it  is  handled  here  in 
the  Xew  Yoi-k  area  ;  1  believe  it  also  is  being  handled  in  the  same  man- 
ner in  San  P^rancisco — those  being  the  two  j)rincipal  ]>orts  where  the 
Chinese  immigrants  come  in,  and  also  where  the  Chinese  are  more  or 
less  of  the  greatest  coiicentration,  and,  therefore,  most  of  the  deporta- 
tion cases  are  also  being  handled  in  those  two  districts. 

Now,  with  respect  to  dei)ortation  hearings,  the  (xovernment  has 
been  operating  on  the  projected  McCarran  Act,  which  I  do  believe 
places  a  great  hardship  on  the  Chinese.  There  aren't  too  many  of 
those  cases,  I  think  probably  at  the  most  it  would  be  under  5,000 
cases,  and  the  majoi-ity  of  them  deal  with  Chinese  seamen  who  have 
been  seamen  most  of  their  lives.  After  10  or  15  years  of  service  at 
sea,  they  have  chosen  a  place  to  stay,  so  they  pick  the  United  States, 
and  the  reason  they  pick  this  place  is  the  fact  that  there  is  the  greatest 
concentration  of  Chinese  overseas  here  in  the  United  States,  outside  of 
the  Malayan  and  the  Indochina  area. 

Now  in  this  area,  the  Chinese  who  Avere  here  before  have  established 
businesses  which  require  the  help  of  these  seamen,  and  those  people 
who  have  illegally  come  to  the  United  States.  There  is  no  replenish- 
ment of  this  supply  of  help.  I  think  for  the  benefit  of  the  Chinese 
citizens  who  are  here,  who  operate  legitimate  businesses,  these-  im- 
migrants who  are  here  illegally  should  be  given  suspension  of  de- 
])ortation  to  help  out  the  economic  need.  I  think  there  is  at  the  present 
lime  a  shortage  of  help,  especially  in  the  restaurant  business.  So 
much  for  the  deportation  and  suspension  procedures.  I  think  it  re- 
quires a  little  further  study  and  I  will  try  to  elaborate  on  this  point 
in  my  written  document  to  the  Commission. 

The  other  pressing  point  at  this  time  is  the  handling  of  Chinese 
immigrants  to  the  United  States.  In  San  Francisco,  as  well  as  in 
New  York,  although  we  have  more  or  less  removed  the  exclusion  law 
and  special  ti-eatment  of  the  Chinese,  I  don't  think  in  actual  practice 
they  have;  the  entire  old  procedure  has  still  taken  i)lace.  And  al- 
though on  many,  many  occasions  these  Chinese  immigrants,  like  non- 
quota visa  cases,  or  wives  of  American  citizens — these  waives  are  being 
held  on  Ellis  Island  for  .'>  or  4  weeks  before  a  hearing  is  given;  some- 
times e\en  longer,  as  nuich  as  3  or  4  months.  I  don't  think  that  the 
amount  of  fraud  in  those  cases  is  too  prevalent.  I  don't  think  as  a 
rule  that  they  should  be  held  for  such  a  long  jn'ocedure.  I  think  these 
])rocedures  should  be  studied  into  and  shonld  be  expedited,  esi)ecially 
in  cases  with  a  marriage  certificate. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  mean  when  you  said  that  you  did 
not  think  that  "'the  amount  of  fraud  in  those  cases  is  too  prevalent''^ 

Mr.  Hoxo.  1  think  ther(>  ai'e  cases— it  is  not  ])revalent  in  the  Chinese 
cases — it  is  prevalent  to  all  the  innnigration  cases.  In  respect  to  fraud, 
it  is  not  a  question  that  these  ])eople  want  to  perpetrate  a  fraud  against 
the  United  States.  I  think  the  innnigration  laws  are  being  discrimi- 
natory aiulso  ha  I'd  on  the  immigi-ants  that  it  foi-ces  tluMu  to  perpe- 
trate fraud  against  the  American  (io\ernment. 


272         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

But  I  think  if  we  realize  the  humanity  of  the  situation  we  wouldn't; 
have  so  much  fraud.  Now,  for  instance,  Avhere  there  are  fraudulent 
cases,  the  reason  why  people  go  into  the  fraud  is  because  a  person  of 
Chinese  ancestry  had  been  here  for  a  period  over  20  years,  and  it  takes 
a  long  time  before  he  goes  through  any  suspension  proceeding,  or  ad- 
justs statutes.  Prior  to  1943,  the  repeal  of  the  Exclusion  Act,  they 
could  not  be  naturalized,  they  couldn't  integrate  themselves  in  the 
community.  After  all,  they  are  only  human — they  would  like  to 
have  their  wives;  they  would  like  to  have  their  family  here.  That's 
the  only  reason  they  would  do  that. 

I  think  the  number  of  Chinese  people  who  come  here  to  the  United 
States,  who  come  in  as  illegal  aliens,  and  who  try  to  come  onto  the 
shores  of  the  United  States  are  those  that  have  relatives,  and  resident 
aliens  of  Chinese  ancestry  here  in  the  United  States  who  liave  estab- 
lished themselves  who  would  like  to  have  them  here  to  help  them  out 
in  their  business.  I  don't  think  there  is  wholesale  immigration  of" 
Chinese  into  the  United  States. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  be  glad  to  consider  any  document  that: 
you  care  to  file.  We  are  going  to  San  Francisco  ourselves,  and  per- 
haps people  out  there  will  tell  us  more  of  the  situation  there  that  you 
might  not  know  about  here.  We  would  like  to  have  whatever  infor- 
mation you  can  give  us  for  our  file  just  as  soon  as  you  can  send  it  in. 

Mr.  Hong.  Yes,  sir. 

Before  closing,  I  would  like  to  add  one  more  point  to  the  question- 
of  immigration  and  naturalization.  I  agree  heartily  with  the  previous 
witnesses  who  have  testified  here  as  to  the  revision  of  the  immigration 
quota  system.  I  believe  the  national  origins  method  is  outdated  and 
does  not  fit  into  the  present  day  where  people  travel  all  over  the  world 
in  a  very  short  space  of  time,  and  people  just  have  to  more  or  less 
trade  with  each  other,  and  I  do  believe  that  we  should  have  a  good- 
neighbor  policy. 

I  think  the  Chinese  people  here,  those  who  have  been  here  in  the 
United  States,  have  ilitegrated  into  the  community  despite  great  hard- 
ship, great  pressures  from  all  over.  They  have  won  the  respect  and 
the  friendship  of  all  those  that  they  come  in  contact  with. 

I  thank  the  Commission  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  here  ? 

Mr.  Hong.  I  have  been  here  since  1923,  sir.  I  was  9  years  old  when^ 
I  came  over.  I  lived  in  a  small  town  known  as  Danville,  111.,  and  I 
was  brought  up  there,  and  I  obtained  my  education  at  the  University 
of  Illinois.  I  believe  Your  Honor  had  the  privilege  of  witnessing  my 
admission  to  the  bar  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  last 
year  wlien  Mr.  Irving  Geiger  made  the  motion. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Hong.  I  will  submit  my  written  statement  later. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Walter  Brunberg. 

STATEMENT  OF  WALTER  BRUNBERG,  VICE  PRESIDENT  AND 
ACTING  PRESIDENT,  ESTONIAN  AID,  INC. 

Mr.  Brunberg.  I  am  Walter  Brunberg,  53  Coolidge  Street,  Marl- 
boro, N.  Y.  I  am  representing  Estonian  Aid,  Inc.,  22  East  Seven- 
teenth Street,  New  York,  of  which  I  am  vice  president  and  at  the- 
present  time  acting  president. 


COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  273 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  I  avouUI  like  to  have  inserted  in  the 
records,  and  I  would  like  to  explain  the  high  lights  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Tliat  may  bo  done. 

(There  follows  the  ])repared  statement  submitted  by  Mr.  Walter 
Brunbero-  in  behalf  of  Estonian  Aid,  Inc. :  ) 

Spt^aklng  of  immigration  with  reference  to  the  Estonian  applicants,  the 
United  States'  gates  are  almost  entirely  closed.  Only  58  visas  annually 
are  available  for  Estonian  inuiiitirants.  because  half  of  the  Estonian  quota 
of  nu  a  year  lias  been  mortiiawd  aiiead  through  tlie  year  214G. 

In  vi»'>\v  of  an  entirely  new  internatiimal  situation  in  Europe,  caused  by- 
World  War  II  and  the  totalitnriiin  regimes  a  continuing  allocation  of  inuni- 
gration  quotas  oidy  on  tlie  basis  o!'  the  composition  of  the  population  in  the 
United  State.s  in  1920  seems  to  us  hardly  jnstiliabie. 

In  wide  areas  nations  have  been  shifted  from  their  native  lands,  and  mil- 
lions of  industrious  people  of  good  moral  character  who  hitherto  had  never 
thought  of  emigration  are  now  in  need  of  new  homes.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  Americans  need  tliem.  They  are  the  same  Euroi.vans  whose  fitrefathers 
once  built  this  country  and  its  culture,  and  even  today  th(>y  would  have  much 
to  contribute  to  America,  if  adnutted. 

As  to  the  l^:stonian  quota  on  the  basis  of  the  official  United  States  Census 
of  1920,  this  census  did  not  show  the  real  number  of  Estonians  in  this  country 
for  the  following  reasons  : 

(1)  Most  of  the  Estonians  who  immigrated  before  the  First  World  War 
were  listed  as  Kussians,  because  Estonia  was  at  that  time  under  the  rule 
of  Russia.  Availing  tliemselves  of  the  similarity  between  the  Estonian  and 
Finnish  languages,  they  often  had  themselves  inscribed  also  as  being  of  Fin- 
nish nationality;  (2)  Even  a  classification  on  the  basis  of  tlie  mother  tongue 
N\as  not  a  sure  identification.  The  greater  part  of  the  early  Estonian  immi- 
grants were  seamen.  They  often  married  non-Estonian  women  and  adopted 
the  language  of  tlieir  wives  at  home. 

The  small  E,stonian  quota  and  its  mortgaging  against  the  DP  Act  is  not 
concordant  with  the  needs  and  interests  of  the  United  States,  as  there  are 
many  highly  qualified  .si>ecialists,  professionals,  and  skilled  workers  among 
the  Estonians  abroad. 

Under  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1948,  as  amended,  a  little  more  than 
10,000  Estonians  have  already  been  resettled  in  this  country.  We  have  come 
to  know  them  as  industrious,  intelligent,  and  clean  people.  They  have  made 
good  carpenters,  hospital  worliers,  domestics,  factory  hands,  farmers,  drafts- 
men, engineers,  physicians,  etc.  The  fact  that  they  are  well  educated  and 
that  about  half  of  them  are  high  school  or  college  graduates  has  not  done 
any  harm  to  our  counti'y.  We  have  thousands  of  refugees  with  college  de- 
grees working  as  plain  laborers,  and  they  are  doing  well.  We  feel  that  they 
are  valualde  assets  to  our  country. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  approximately  30,000  Estonian  refugees  still 
in  Western  Europe,  many  of  them  l(M)king  longingly  toward  this  free  coiin- 
try  of  ours.  Their  own  homeland  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  small 
but  ijrogressive,  is  now  mider  Soviet  occupation.  Its  incorporation  into  the 
Soviet  Union  has  not  been  recognized  by  our  Government.  According  to  avail- 
able information  an  estimated  10-20  percent  of  the  population  of  Estonia  have 
been  killed  or  deported  by  the  invaders,  and  new  settlers  from  Russia  and  Asia 
have  been  brought  in.  This  genocide  is  going  ou  year  after  year  in  the  Baltic 
States,  and  the  30,000  Estonian  refugees  in  the  Western  Euroi^ean  countries 
Lave  no  way  l)ack. 

As  a  codesigner  of  this  tragic  situation  in  postwar  Europe  (the  Communists 
occupied  Estonia  in  1944  without  indirect  assistance),  our  country  has  some 
responsibilities  toward  these  helpless  people  and  victims  of  Soviet  tyranny.  If 
we  can  no  longer  lielp  those  who  were  enslavetl,  with  our  support,  by  the  Soviet 
Union,  we  still  can  do  something  for  the  escapees.  The  admission  of  these 
refugees  into  the  United  States  is  not  only  our  moral  obligation,  but  would  also 
be  within  our  own  national  interests. 

The  DP  Act  of  1948,  as  amended,  was  a  special  measure,  designed  to  ease 
the  situation  in  overcrowed  IRO  refugee  camps  of  three  particular  countries: 
Germany,  Austria,  and  Italy.  It  excluded  refugees  residing  in  other  European 
countries.  Among  those  excluded  were  all  the  industrious  yomig  men  and  women 
who  in  194G  and  1947  moved  from  Germany  to  England,  Belgium,  France,  etc., 


274  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

on  the  basis  of  temporary  employment  contracts,  after  liavins'  been  assured  l)y 
the  authorities  that  they  may  keep  their  DP  status  and  become  eligil)le  for  immi- 
gration to  overseas  later  on — which  promises  unfortunately  were  not  kept. 
Having  been  classified  as  "permanently  resettled"  they  were  not  granted  admis- 
sion into  otir  country  under  the  DP  Act  of  1948,  and  a  very  large  number  of 
families  were  liroken  up.  when  those  who  were  left  Itehind  in  Germany  came 
hei'e.  while  the  refugees  in  England  and  other  countries  were  held  ineligible, 
even  though  they  included  spouses,  parents,  and  children  of  those  going  from 
Germany  to  the  United  States. 

The  194.S  DP  Act  excluded  also  the  more  than  80.000  courageous  Baits  who 
fled  to  Sweden  in  small  boats  but  who  do  not  feel  themselves  safe  there,  due  to 
the  proximity  of  the  Soviet  border.  Fifteen  small  boats  from  among  this  group, 
hearing  loads  of  these  twentieth  century  Estonian  Vikings  already  have  nosed 
even  into  American  harbors,  fleeing  the  menace  of  the  Red  imperialism.  Quite 
a  number  of  Latvians  and  Lithuanians  have  done  the  same,  and  we  were  happy 
and  proud  of  our  Eighty-second  Congress  when  it  passed  a  special  act,  Public 
Law  (i.").").  granting  all  these  Vikings  the  right  to  stay  in  this  country,  despite  the 
restrictions  of  the  general  immigration  laws. 

In  addition  there  are  thousands  of  other  European  refugee-applicants  for 
permanent  residence  here,  living  in  our  country  already  for  years,  but  unable  to 
acquii'e  citizenship  liecause  their  immigration  status  has  not  been  fully  clarified. 
Regardless  of  highest  cliaracter  qualities  and  of  tiieir  technical  oi-  professional 
skills  and  intelligence,  regardless  of  their  unquestionable  opposition  to  com- 
Tuunism,  there  is  only  one  way  of  treating  these  cases  under  our  present  legisla- 
tion, deportation. 

According  to  section  4  of  the  DP  Act  of  194.S,  a  number  of  refugees  already 
in  the  United  States  were  given  opportunity  to  make  application  for  permanent 
residence  if  they  had  entered  this  country  prior  to  April  1,  194S.  Recently  the 
flrst  list  of  such  persons  was  approved  by  the  Congress  (conference  report  to 
accompany  H.  Con.  Res.  101,  July  2,  19rt2).  On  this  list,  a  considerable  number 
of  cases,  previously  recommended  for  approval  by  the  Commissioner  of  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalization,  by  "the  Attorney  General  and  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, were  deleted — presumably  partly  because  of  their  entry  after  the 
April  1948  deadline.  Last  week  some  of  these  persons  received  orders  to  leave 
the  United  States  within  00  days.  Yet,  they  have  been  en.ioying  the  hospitality 
of  this  country  for  a  long  time,  have  bect)me  (mr  good  neighlxtrs  and  have 
started  new  useful  lives  here. 

In  view  of  the  above  we  feel  that  our  present  immigration  policy  should  be 
revised  and  lil)eralized,  in  order  to  meet  our  national  interests  and  our  interna- 
tional mo]-al  obligations. 

(1)  Without  going  into  criticism  about  the  question  of  naticmal  quotas  in 
principle  we  are  resi)ectfully  asking  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  future  quota 
numbers,  which  should  not  be  allocated  only  on  the  basis  of  our  census  of  1920. 

(2)  We  are  especially  in  favor  of  having  the  principle  of  pooling  unused 
([uotas  incorporated  into  a  revised  new  law,  to  the  effect  that  quota  numbers 
wiiich  were  available  for  some  quota  area  in  Europe  and  which  remained  un- 
used shall  not  be  canceled  but  shall  be  made  available  for  the  use  of  applicants 
from  other  European  countries  (preferably  from  the  countries  of  eastern  and 
central  Europe  wiiich  are  now  enslaved  by  Communist  rulers). 

(3)  We  resjtectfully  urge  that  quota  deductions  as  established  by  the  dis- 
placed persons  law  be  canceled,  or  at  least  postponed  until  January  1,  1962. 

(4)  Realizing  that  the  nonquota  admission  of  ministers  of  religi(m,  scientists, 
professors,  research  assistants  and  other  sp'ecialists,  as  provided  in  our  previous 
immigration  law,  is  of  great  importance  to  America,  we  advocate  the  restoration 
of  nonquota  status  for  this  class  of  immigrants. 

(5)  We  also  believe  that  a  new  emergency  legislation  for  a  selective  admission 
of  refugees  and  migrants  from  overpopulated  areas  in  Europe  is  urgently  needed. 

(6)  In  this  legislation  the  admission  of  refugees  should  not  be  limited  only  to 
German.  Austria,  and  Italy,  but  should  also  include  refugees  temporarily  re- 
siding in  the  United  Kingdom,  Belgium,  France.  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  some 
other  countries,  whicli  were  not  covered  by  the  DP  Act  of  1948. 

(7)  Preference  should  be  given  to  those  refugees  which  have  been  separated 
from  their  families.  If  one  or  moi'e  members  of  their  families  are  now  residing 
in  the  United  States,  such  refugees  should  be  admitted  even  from  countries 
outside  of  Europe. 

(8)  Realizing  that  the  expenses  foi-  old  and  sick  immigrants  would  be  largely 
compensated  by  the  contribution  to  oin-  country  of  their  fellow  countrymen,  the 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGIUTION    AND    NATURALIZATION  275 

workiiij;  refugee-iiiuui,ur:uits,  \\v  \)v\iv\v  that  also  the  pcrsdiis  who  may  have  the 
tuhorciUosis  or  other  sicknesses  throufjh  hardship  of  war  aiu)  exile,  should  be 
treate<l  from  a  more  hiimanitariaii  vie\vi»oint.  I"'amilies  wliicii  were  separated 
under  tlie  displaced  persons  law  \>y  reason  of  tlie  healtli  condition  of  one  niem- 
her  (»f  the  family,  should  l)e  I'eunited. 

(!))  We  also  think  that  refugees  residing;  now  in  tin-  I'nited  States  shoidd 
he  given  an  opportunity  to  remain  in  this  country,  by  including  in  this  emergency 
legislation  a  paragraph  sinnlar  to  section  4  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Act  of  1048. 

Mr.  l>Krxr.F.R(;.  First  of  till.  1  would  like  to  thank  yon  members  of 
the  Coiinnissioii  for  oiviiio;  ns  an  ()])portunity  to  testify  and  express 
our  ideas  on  this  new  leoislatioii  which  has  been  passed  in  Con«yress. 
Our  ideas  are  more  thoionohly  ex|)lained  in  our  statement,  but  I  am 
only  o-oinof  to  limit  myself  to  the  liioiili^hts  of  our  statement.  First 
of  all,  we  are  not  oj)posed  to  the  principle  of  national  quotas,  because 
we  believe  that  a  nation  should  have  the  right  to  determine  and  pre- 
serve its  ethnic  character.  However,  this  McCarran-Walter  bill  has 
certain  features  which,  in  our  o]:>inion,  are  objectional)le  and  unfair. 
The  national  quotas,  particularly  of  those  nations  which  were  parts 
of  other  nations  before  the  First  World  War,  were  very  small,  and  it 
is  probably  laro^ely  due  to  the  fact  that  nationals  of  these  nations  were 
classified  as  belono-in<r  to  the  earlier  nations,  the  nations  from  which 
they  came  orioiually.  I  am  particularly  referrino;  to  the  Estonian, 
Latvian,  and  Lithuanian  nations,  the  so-called  Baltic  Republics,  which 
were,  prior  to  1920,  part  of  Russia.  At  the  time  of  the  census  of  1920, 
which,  I  believe,  is  the  basis  of  the  quota  system,  these  nations  had 
just  barely  regained  their  independence,  and  many  of  their  nationals 
were  still  listed  here  as  Russians.  That  probably  also  applies  to  other 
nations.  So,  therefore,  we  believe  that  it  is  unfair  to  restrict  the  quota 
to  somethino:  like  116  people  from  Estonia,  and  a  little  more  from 
Latvia,  and  Lithuania.    Now,  that  is  one  point  that  we  have. 

Then,  the  second  point  is  that  perhaps  not  all  national  quotas  are 
going  to  be  used,  and  w^e  are  strongly  in  favor  of  having  the  unused 
quotas  distributed,  made  available  to  everybody,  particularly  to  refu- 
gees from  countries  which  are  now  under  Soviet  domination.  There 
are  many  cases  where  real  hardship  is  involved,  where  families  have 
been  separated,  and  also  cases  of  refugees  who  arrive  here  in  small 
boats,  or  in  other  ways,  and  seek  admission,  and  carmot  be  admitted 
because  there  is  no  quota  munber  for  them.  So,  if  these  umised  (][uotas 
could  be  made  available  in  such  cases  it  would  certainly  help  the  situa- 
tion very  much. 

Then,  the  third  point  is  that  the  old  immigration  law  was  even  more 
liberal  in  some  resj^ects  in  that  it  admitted  the  })rofessionals,  or  rather 
scientists,  teachers,  and  ministers  of  religion,  outside  of  the  quota, 
and  that,  certainly,  resulted  in  benefits  to  our  country  because  this 
way  we  acquired  a  munber  of  prominent  scientists  and  clergymen,  and 
teachers,  who  are  now  in  our  midst,  and  are  doing  good  work.  So  we 
would  like  to  have  this  paragraph  inserted  in  the  new  law  too,  if 
possible. 

But,  then,  besides  all  these  ]">oints,  it  seems  urgently  necessary  to 
have  a  sjx^cial  act  enacted  by  ('ongress,  something  like  the  one  that 
the  President  proposed  last  year  by  which  about  ;>00,00()  {)eople  woidd 
be  admitted  as  a  special  groiq)  of  iimnigrants  not  subject  to  the  quota. 
We  believe  that  tlie  admission  of  such  a  grouj)  of  ])eo|)le  will  not  only 
result  in  relieving  hardships  over  there  in  over-])oi)tdated  countries, 


276  COMMISSIOX    ox    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

but  would  result  iu  lasting  benefits  to  our  own  Nation  because  among 
these  people  are  very  valuable  men  and  women.  We  have  seen  by  the 
success  of  the  DP  law  of  1948  that  these  people  can  be  assimilated 
rather  easily,  and  most  of  them  are  now  employed,  and  are  doing 
useful  work. 

The  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  appreciate  your  com- 
ing. 

Rev.  Rudolf  Kiviranna. 

STATEMENT  OF  REV.  RUDOLE  KIVIRANNA,  PRESIDENT, 
ESTONIAN  RELIEE  COMMITTEE,  INC. 

Reverend  Kiviranna.  I  am  Rev.  Rudolf  Kiviranna,  president  of 
the  Estonian  Relief  Committee,  Inc.,  wdiich  I  am  representing  here. 

I  have  a  written  statement  for  the  record  and  should  like  to  make 
a  few  brief  remarks. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  so. 

Reverend  Kiviranna.  Our  organization,  Mr.  Chairman,  has  helped 
10,000  Estonian  anti-Communists  to  come  to  the  United  States  under 
the  displaced  persons  law.  I  have  myself  lived  and  escaped  from 
behind  the  iron  curtain.  I  am  glad  to  be  here  4  years,  and  I  have 
voluntarily  devoted  those  4  years  to  helping  Estonian  refugees  es- 
pecially. In  regard  to  Public  Law  414,  it  seems  to  me  and  our 
organization  that  the  tragic  situation  in  which  we  are  living  has  not 
been  taken  into  consideration,  and,  also,  the  complications  and  the 
responsibility  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  whom  for  leader- 
ship, people  behind  the  iron  curtain  and  especially  those  who  have 
been  happy  to  escape  are  looking.  We  have  submitted  to  your  Com- 
mission concrete  cases,  specific  cases,  in  which  the  families  are  sepa- 
rated, the  son  and  the  father  are  here;  the  mother  is  not  permitted 
to  come  to  the  United  States  for  the  very  reason  that  she  has  tuber- 
culosis, which  is,  at  present,  in  a  nonactive  status. 

I  should  like,  in  addition  to  those  remarks  and  information  submit- 
ted to  your  Commission,  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  from 
the  European  ])oint  of  view,  and  from  the  point  of  view  of  those 
Avho  are  living  behind  the  iron  curtain,  it  seems  impossible,  if,  in  the 
time  of  the  liberation  of  those  countries,  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica does  not  have  enough  persons  from  that  country  who  are  able  to 
help  the  United  States  in  reconstruction  of  those  nations,  who  have 
a  knowledge  of  the  language  of  this  country,  who  know  America, 
and  the  American  way  of  life,  and  who  will  be  able  and  willing  to  be 
available  for  tlie  reconstruction  of  nations  once  liberated  from  behind 
the  iron  curtain. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chairman.  Your  written  statement  will  be  inserted  in  the 
record. 

(The  written  statement  submitted  by  Rev.  Rudolf  Kiviranna  in 
behalf  of  Estonian  Relief  Committee,  Inc.  is  as  follows :) 

The  Estonian  Relief  Committee,  Inc.,  the  largest  Estonian  relief  organiza- 
tion in  the  United  States,  was  established  in  1041  to  assist  displaced  persons 
in  this  country  and  abroad.  The  Estonian  Relief  Committee,  Inc.,  is  actively 
interested  in  the  new  bill  concerning:  (a)  Refugees  from  Communist  occupied 
and  dominated  countries,  and  (6)  i)eople  from  overpopulated  areas  in  Eu- 
rope. 


COMMISSION    ON    IIMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         277 

«UGGE.STIOXS   REGARDING    TTIE    PRESIDRMIAI,    MESSAGE    OF    MARCH    24,    1952,    TO   THE 

CONGKESS 

1.  Special  attention  should  be  paid  to  these  displaced  persons  under  the  Dis- 
placed I'ersous  Act  of  194S.  as  amended,  who  were  eligible,  but  remained  with- 
out visas  as  the  deadline  of  December  31,  1951,  arrived. 

2.  A  problem  of  a  trasic  nature  for  a  large  number  of  refugees  is  awaiting 
a  proper  solution  on  the  legislative  way.  The  resettlement  activity  of  the  IRO 
which  was  carried  out  under  difficult  conditions  has  caused  a  number  of  cases 
in  which  young  people  were  sent  to  Australia,  Canada,  etc.,  their  elderly  parents 
had  to  stay  in  the  camps  and  were  later  brought  to  the  United  States  under  the 
Displacetl  Persons  Act.  There  are  cases  in  which  husbands  and  wives  are 
separated.  The  Amorcian  way  of  life  has  always  had  a  deep  appreciation  for 
family  life  and  family  unity.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  now  an  op- 
portunity to  help  those  who  have  lost,  for  the  sake  of  their  democratic  prin- 
ciples, their  home  countries  to  live  in  and  woi-k  together  with  their  closest 
relatives  in  this  land  of  liberty.  Legislative  measures  should  be  taken  in  those 
cases  in  which  one  member  of  a  family  has  legally  entered  the  United  States, 
his  immediate  family  members  would  be  given  the  opportunity  to  come  to  the 
United  States. 

Special  attention  should  be  paid  to  elderly  parents  in  this  country  whose  only 
existence  is  dependent  from  the  admission  of  their  children. 

8.  The  question  of  those  refugees  who  were  sent  to  Great  Britain  on  the  basis 
of  temporary  working  contracts  awaits  a  righteous  solution.  Thousands  of 
homeless  refugees  able  and  eager  to  work  used  the  opportunity  to  follow  the  call 
of  Great  Britain  for  urgently  needed  manpower.  They  signed  their  working 
contracts  under  the  clear  understanding  that  they  would  not  lose  their  DP  status 
and  that  they  would  have  full  rights  to  return  to  Germany,  Austria,  or  to  immi- 
grate to  overseas  countries.  About  5,000  Estonians  together  with  members  of 
other  nationalities  used  this  opportunity  and  were  sent  to  Great  Britain  to 
work  in  British  hospitals,  sanatoriums,  farms,  mining,  and  industry.  They  have 
Tieen  refused  the  opportunity  to  immigrate  to  the  United  States  in  violation 
with  their  official  working  contracts  and  promises  they  had  received.  They  do 
not  consider  themselves  firmly  resettled.  Through  the  fact  that  they  have  been 
restrained  in  their  immigration  to  the  United  States  or  other  countries  of  their 
-preference,  they  should  be  given  special  consideration  and  preference. 

4.  In  addition,  thousands  of  Estonian  refugees  are  residing  temporarily  in 
Sweden  (22,000),  Germany  (5,000),  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  the 
Netherlands,  Italy,  etc. 

We  hope  that  the  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization 
will  give  to  these  suggestions  favorable  attention  and  consideration. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Mrs.  Harriet  Barron. 

STATEMENT  OF  MRS.  HARRIET  BARRON,  REPRESENTING  THE 
AMERICAN  COMMITTEE  EOR  PROTECTION  OF  FOREIGN- 
BORN 

Mrs.  Barron.  I  am  ISIrs.  Harriet  Barron,  and  I  represent  the  Amer- 
ican Committee  for  Protection  of  Foreign-Born. 

I  have  a  prepared  statement  in  behalf  of  the  American  Committee 
for  Protection  of  Foreign-Born,  which  I  desire  to  submit  for  the 
record. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  prepared  statement  submitted  by  Mrs.  Harriet  Barron  in 
behalf  of  the  American  Committee  for  Protection  of  Foreign-Born 
is  as  follows:) 

On  October  9,  just  a  few  days  hence,  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals  in 
Washington,  D.  C,  will  have  before  it  a  deportation  case  which  can  best  demon- 
strate the  need  for  revising  the  immigration  and  naturalization  laws  of  this 
country. 

I  am  referring  to  the  case  of  Benny  Saltzman.  Benny  Saltzman  has  been 
•ordered  deported  and  his  case  will  be  heard  by  the  Board  of  Immigration  Ap- 


278  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

peals  on  October  9.  This  man,  a  native  of  Lithuania,  now  57  years  old,  came 
here  in  1913.  39  years  ago.  He  is  a  painter  by  trade,  has  worked  hard,  married, 
had  three  sons,  and  has  contributed  in  every  way  he  possibly  knew  how  to  make 
this  a  good  country  in  which  to  live.  His  two  older  sons,  Bernard  and  Isidore, 
fought  in  World  War  II.  Isidore  died  fighting  in  the  Battle  of  the  Bulge.  Ber- 
nard sustained  injuries  in  the  Battle  of  the  Bulge.  And  now,  the  youngest  son,. 
Max,  who  is  just  18.  has  received  a  I-A  draft  classification  and  is  awaiting  a 
call  to  the  Armed  Forces. 

This  gold-star  father  is  to  be  deported,  torn  from  his  wife  and  two  remaining 
sons,  uprooted  from  the  only  homeland  he  knows  and  sent  to  a  land  whose 
customs,  language,  and  habits  he  has  long  forgotten.  This  because,  as  he  freely 
admits,  he  joined  the  Communist  Party  in  193G  to  drive  racketeers  from  his 
painters'  union. 

Why,  you  may  ask,  do  I  dwell  on  this  particular  case?  I  do  because  it  il- 
lustrates an  aspect  of  our  immigration  and  naturalization  laws — political 
deportations.  I  dwell  on  this  case  because  it  is  a  case  which  can  be  repeated 
in  varying  degrees  more  than  2.'")0  times  and  each  time  substituting  another  name, 
another  city,  but  always  repeating  the  same  general  set  of  circumstances. 

The  American  Committee  for  Protection  of  Foreign-Born  is  currently  aiding 
in  the  defense  of  more  than  2.")0  i)ersons  facing  deportation  solely  because  of  their 
past  or  current  membership  in  the  Communist  Party  or  fraternal  organizations. 
In  no  instance  ha;^  thei-e  been  any  charge  of  malfeasance.  In  no  instance  has 
any  person  in  this  category,  which  we  call  political  deportations,  been  charged 
with  having  ever  done  anything  which  would  warrant  the  cruel  and  severe  puni.sh- 
nient  of  being  torn  from  family,  home,  friends,  and  relatives  by  deportation. 

In  man.y  families  where  deportation  has  become  a  threat,  the  sons  served  in 
World  War  II  and  their  parents,  like  Benny  Saltzman,  were  active  in  the  war 
effort.  Take  the  case  of  Carl  Latva.  a  Wendell,  N.  H..  textile  worker,  who  has  two 
sons,  both  veterans,  and  he  is  to  be  deported  because  in  1936  he  paid  90  cents  dues 
to  the  Communist  Party.  Take  the  case  of  Mii'iam  Stevenson,  of  Los  Angeles. 
This  woman  was  held  on  Terminal  Island  for  more  than  6  months,  denied 
bail  in  deportation  proceedings,  when  her  son  was  called  to  join  the  Armed  Forces. 
Louis  Ragni  and  Blaga  Poprov.ska,  of  Detroit,  their  sons  are  now  in  Korea  as 
nieml)ers  of  the  Armed  Forces,  while  they  face  deportation.  Peter  Warhol,  of 
Minneapolis,  himself  a  war  veteran,  faces  deportation. 

All  because  at  one  time  or  another  they  had  been  members  of  the  Communist 
Party.  In  the  Latva  case,  16  years  have  passed  since  he  held  membership  in  the 
Communist  Party.  In  the  case  of  Benny  Saltzman  it  is  likewise  16  years  and 
with  the  overwhelming  majority  of  deiiortation  ca.ses  where  chai'ges  arise  out 
of  membership  in  prescribed  organizations  there  has  been  a  10-  to  20-year  lapse 
between  membership  and  proceedings. 

I  call  to  your  attention  this  intensification  of  persecution  of  our  foreign-born 
because  of  political  beliefs  and  urge  that  in  giving  considei'ation  to  a  change  in 
our  immigration  polic.v  this  be  given  seriotis  consideration. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  also  that  our  present  innnigration  policy  is  a  punitive 
policy.  It  is  not  a  policy  designed  to  make  immigraton  and  naturalization  pro- 
cedures easier,  but  rather  a  policy  which  is  wielded  to  breed  fear  and  intimida- 
tion in  these  communities  where  there  are  foreign-born — children  and  relatives 
of  foreign-born. 

Even  in  nonpolitical  cases  there  need  be  serious  consideration  given  to  the 
present  policy.  In  the  cases  of  persons  who  have  lived  here  for  many  years  and 
are  entitled  to  adjust  their  status,  adjustment  has  become  so  complicated  as  to 
provide  a  field  day  for  law.vers  while  the  client  bankrupts  himself  in  a  maze  of 
legal  expense. 

The  American  Committee  for  Protection  of  Foreign-Born  asserts  that  the  im- 
migration policy  we  ai'e  following  at  the  present  time  smacks  of  the  same  police- 
state  policy  on  which  this  Nation  embarked  when  the  alien  and  sedition  laws 
were  enacted  in  1798.  The  McCarran-Walter  law  is  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Act 
of  1952. 

In  1798,  the  alien  and  sedition  laws  were  passed  to  brand  opposition  subversive. 
The.v  were  passed  to  create  an  atmosphere  of  hysteria  and  they  succeeded.  To- 
day, we  find  that  again  there  is  .such  an  atmosphere.  It  was  the  beginning  of 
the  deportation  drive  in  1946  and  the  arousing  of  a  calculated  anti-foreign-born 
hysteria  throughout  the  Nation  which  has  created  the  political  situation  whereby 
a  IVIcCarran-Walter  law  could  be  passed.  It  is  indeed  significant  that  this  law, 
Mhich  encomi)asses  14  million  ]ieople,  was  passed  by  1  vote. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  279 

I  spdke  earlier  of  a  type  t)f  deiiortalioii — political  deportation.  Throimhout 
liistory  there  has  always  been  a  tiroup  oi-  iiroups  of  persons  who  have  been 
I'landed  the  subversives  of  the  day  and  retaliatory  action  taken  against  them. 
But  let  us  jusl  follow  the  course  of  a  nouciti/.en  who  today  has  had  di'portation 
liroc-eediiitrs  instituted  auainsi  him.  .\iid  let  us  use  the  provisos  of  the  McCarran- 
Walter  law  as  a  vehicle. 

Under  the  provisions  of  this  law,  any  Government  apent,  so  desisnated  by  tlie 
Attorney  (Jeuei'al,  has  arresting;'  power.  He  does  not  liave  to  prove  the  person 
lie  arrests  is  a  nonciti/.en,  nor  does  he  have  to  produce  a  warrant  Itefore  inakinu' 
the  arrest. 

Secondly,  after  the  arrest  has  been  made,  bail  may  or  may  not  be  granted  at 
the  discretion  of  the  Attorney  (4eneral.  Hearings  in  the  case  are  held.  And  as 
we  learn  from  all  oA'er  the  country,  these  hearings,  which  are  suppo.sed  to  be 
(•pen  public  hearings  are  often  held  in  small  rooms  where  witnesses,  arresting 
officers,  hearing  officers,  and  othei-  departmental  oflicials  have  space  priority  and 
the  person  facing  deportation  is  refused  permission  for  liis  friends  and  relatives 
to  witness  the  hearing  procednres. 

But  what  of  due  process  at  these  hearings?  The  arresting  officer  is  an  em- 
ployee of  the  Justice  Department,  designated  by  the  Attorney  General.  The 
examining  othcer  is  an  employee  of  the  Justice  Department  designated  by  the 
Attorney  General.  The  hearing  officer  is  an  employee  of  the  Justice  Department 
designated  by  the  Attorney  General. 

Tlie  Justice  Department  initiates  proceedings  and  sits,  through  its  employees, 
as  judge  and  jury.  The  person  is  guilty  in  the  eyes  of  the  Justice  Department 
or  he  would  not  have  been  arrested  in  proceedings  at  the  outset.  How  can  these 
hearings  be  considered  unbiased  or  fair  if  the  Department  of  Justice  and  its 
employees  arrest  at  the  outset  and  pass  final  judgment.  We  submit  that  there 
should  he  an  application  of  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  to  the  Inunigration 
and  Natui-ali/-ation  Service,  thereby  aU'oi'ding  the  accused  at  least  a  minimum 
cpport luiity  to  fair  and  impartial  hejirings. 

Not  only  is  the  Department  of  Justice  accuser,  prosecutor,  judge,  and  jury  but 
the  witnesses  are  likewise  the  paid  hirelings  of  the  Justice  Department.  In 
some  instances,  the.se  professional  informers  travel  fi'om  area  to  area  giving 
testimony,  for  .$17  or  more  a  day,  against  scores  of  persons  faced  with  deporta- 
tion. In  other  instances  the  Department  of  Justice  uses  a  i)erson  against  whom 
deportation  proceeilings  have  been  initiated  to  testify  against  another  and 
promises  the  new  informer  that  proceedings  against  him  or  her  will  be  dropped 
because  of  his  or  her  cooperation. 

Also  there  is  another  policy  which  is  becoming  more  and  more  prevalent  in 
deportation  c-ises.  The  accused  is  arrested,  jailed,  denied  bail,  l)ecause  the  Jus- 
tice De])artment  has  information  about  this  person  the  release  of  whicli,  it  is 
said,  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  best  public  interest.  How  can  counsel  defend 
his  client  when  the  charges  against  the  client  are  not  made  Icnown? 

Or,  again,  there  is  the  practice  of  taking  depositions  from  the  noncitizen  when 
there  is  no  cotmsel  and  then  using  this  deposition  as  evidence  against  the  person 
at  the  deportation  hearing.  Or,  just  as  crass,  the  holding  of  hearings  hunderds 
of  miles  away  from  the  place  of  residence  of  the  accused  and  using  the  deposition 
as  evidence,  introducing  of  witnesses,  wilhout  the  person  chai-ged  even  present  at 
the  hearing.  Or.  in  the  event  the  person  wishes  to  be  pi'esent  as  his  fate  is  being 
m.appcd.  lie  must  deplete  his  financial  resources  in  transportation  to  and  from 
hearings. 

There  is  a  further  phase  of  our  current  immigration  ))oIicy  which  has  been 
carried  over  into  the  future  with  the  McCarran-Walter  Act.  This  is  the  question 
of  the  right  to  bail.  Today,  and  in  the  future,  unh'ss  soiiK^thing  is  done  about  it, 
noncitizens  arrested  in  deiiortation  procccdiugs  may  be  refused  bail  at  the  outset. 
They  remain  jailed  Ihrougliout  their  hearings  and  then,  after  .-m  order  for  depor- 
tation lias  been  issued  against  them,  they  may  be  kept  in  jail,  without  bail,  for 
6  months  more. 

:\lr.  Justice  Black,  dissenting  in  the  .March  10  Supreme  Court  decision  in  the 
Carlson  case,  declared  :  "I  can  only  say  that  I  regret,  deeply  regret,  that  the 
Court  now  ;idds  tin'  right  to  bail  to  the  list  of  other  P.ill  of  Rights  guaranties 
that  have  recently  been  weakened  to  expand  governmental  powers  at  the  expense 
of  individual  freedom." 

The  statement  niiule  by  Mr.  Justice  Black  is  indeed  true.  As  you  know,  depor- 
tation cases  can  be  and  often  are  long  and  di-ngged  out.  There  is  no  time  limit 
as  to  when  the  .Justice  Department  must  hold  hejirings  in  deportation  cases. 
Therefore,  the  noncitizen  sits  in  jail  until  the  Justice  Department  gets  ready  to 


280         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

hold  hearings.  But,  assume  that  hearings  are  held  quickly  and  an  order  for 
deportation  handed  down,  the  noncitizen  still  can  be  held  for  an  additional 
6  months. 

Denial  of  bail  at  the  outset  is  punishing  a  person  before  he  has  been  adjudged 
guilty.  It  is  contrary  to  any  semblance  of  justice,  and  the  American  Committee 
submits  to  you  that  the  constitutional  right  to  bail  should  not  be  taken  awaj^ 
from  any  American,  be  he  citizen  or  noncitizen. 

We  urge  that  there  be  no  power  to  deny  bail  in  deportation  cases  and  that  in 
all  deportation  cases  bail  in  reasonable  amounts  be  granted. 

We  further  request  that  the  6  months'  imprisonment  after  an  order  for  depor- 
tation has  been  handed  down  be  done  away  with.  This  policy  of  denying  bail 
has  resulted  in  Martin  Young  sitting  imprisoned  on  Ellis  Island  for  11  months; 
while  final  disposition  of  his  case  is  being  made. 

I  would  like  to  touch  further  on  the  question  of  bail  as  provided  for  under 
provisions  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act.  Even  if  bail  has  been  granted,  tho 
Attorney  General  is  given  the  right,  under  law,  to  pick  up  and  rearrest  nonciti- 
zens  and  increase  the  amount  of  bail  set. 

The  McCari-an-Walter  Act  has  been  paraded  as  a  modernization  of  our  immi- 
gration and  naturalization  policy.  The  power  to  rearrest  and  reset  bail  was  not 
previously  a  part  of  our  policy,  and  we  submit  to  you  that,  rather  than  moderni- 
zation, this  repressive  measure  is  retrogression.  We  urge  that  that  provision- 
be  done  away  with. 

The  American  Committee  is  unalterably  opposed  to  the  racist  restrictive-quota, 
provisions  of  the  law.  These  provisions  are  absolutely  no  better  than  previous 
Immigration  quotas. 

They  further  are  viciously  discriminatory  against  the  Negro  people  by  the 
arbitrary  limitation  to  100  the  number  of  West  Indians  permitted  entry  from 
any  given  colony  in  1  year.  While  very  slightly  raising  immigration  restrictions^ 
for  other  groups,  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  singles  out  the  West  Indian  people 
for  special  discriminatory  quotas. 

Our  immigration  policy  has  not  only  resulted  in  a  pattern  of  discrimination! 
against  West  Indians.  The  Mexican  people  have  become  the  target  and  free 
game  for  deportation.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  Mexicans  are  picked  up  each- 
year  and  hurled  deep  into  the  interior  of  Mexico,  and  it  is  indeed  not  infrequent 
that  citizens  are  deported  with  noncitizens.  All  deported  in  such  fashion  as  to 
make  the  Constitution  and  our  heritage  of  human  rights  and  decency  meaning- 
less phases. 

In  1944,  when  Mr.  Earl  Harrison  submitted  his  resignation  as  United  States 
Commissioner  of  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  the  American  Committee,  iit 
its  monthly  publication,  the  Lamp,  declared  that  under  Commissioner  Harrison 
there  had  been  a  change  in  the  Service's  attitude  toward  noncitizens  made  possi- 
ble by  a  sincere  effort  to  understand  the  noncitizen's  problems. 

Our  current  policy  and  the  policy  which  will  be  forced  upon  us  by  the  McCar- 
ran-Walter Act  is  not  a  sincere  effort  to  understand  the  noncitizen's  problems. 
We  maintain  that  today  our  immigration  and  naturalization  policy  has  changed: 
drastically,  and  not  only  is  there  no  attempt  to  understand  problems  but  there 
is  a  calculated  attempt  through  harassment  and  institution  of  deportation  or 
denaturalization  proceedings  to  intimidate  into  silent  submission  the  foreign- 
born  residents  of  this  Nation. 

Little  good  can  be  said  of  an  immigration  and  naturalization  policy  under 
which  3  million  noncitizens  find  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  freedom  of  speech, 
or  belief  and  that  they  do  not  have  the  protection  of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Little  good  can  be  said  of  an  immigration  and  naturalization  policy  which 
foi'ces  noncitizens  to  register,  like  criminals,  every  year  and  make  known  within 
10  days  a  change  of  address  or  face  rigorous  penalty. 

Little  good  can  be  said  of  an  immigration  and  naturalization  policy  under 
which  11  million  naturalized  citizens  find  their  freedom  curtailed  and  evert 
their  right  to  continue  to  be  citizens  of  this  country  seriously  threatened  by 
the  denaturalization  provisions  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  undemocratic  aspects  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act 
is  its  provisions  in  relation  to  naturalized  citizens.  Even  before  passage  of  this; 
law,  because  of  the  broad  powers  granted  the  courts  in  denaturalization  pro- 
ceedings, the  courts  have  grown  to  consider  naturalized  citizens  as  a  special 
category,  not  quite  as  good  as  the  native-born  citizen.  The  McCarran-Walter 
Act  has  solidified  that  second-class  status  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt,  according: 
to  this  law,  that  naturalized  citizenship  is  not  a  lasting  citizenship  but  on© 
which  may  be  given  or  taken  away  at  whim  and  fancy. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         281 

The  American  Committee  specifically  requests  tliat,  in  giving  consideration 
to  chaniies  in  our  iniinigration  and  naturalization  policy,  a  statute  of  limitations 
involving  a  reasonable  period  of  time  be  binding  in  denaturalization  cases.  Let 
me  cite  a  case  in  point. 

For  2")  years  James  Lustig  has  been  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  Yet,  a 
few  short  months  ago  denaturalization  proceedings  were  instituted  against  him 
on  the  basis  that  25  years  ago,  when  applying  for  citizenship,  he  allegedly  made 
a  false  statement.  It  has  taken  2r»  years  for  the  Department  of  Justice  to  learn 
of  that  so-called  false  statement.  And  I  submit  to  you  that  there  may  be  a 
reason,  and  that  reason  is  that  James  Lustig  is  a  trade-union  organizer,  a 
district  organizer  for  the  United  Electrical,  Radio  and  Machine  Workers  of 
America,  once  affiliated  with  the  CIO,  today  an  independent  union. 

But  can  one  possibly  conceive  it  fair  or  democratic  to  wait  25  years  and 
institute  denaturalization  proceedings  against  any  man  or  woman.  According 
to  the  McCarran-Walter  Act,  a  naturalized  citizen,  can  lose  his  or  her  citizen- 
ship for  refusal  to  testify  before  a  congressional  committee.  Citizenship  can 
be  revoked  if  the  naturalized  citizen  joins  an  organization  which  was  a  pro- 
scribed organization  at  the  time  of  securing  citizenship.  Concealment  of  a 
material  fact  is  also  grounds  for  revocation  of  citizenship.  But  the  meaning 
of  concealment  of  a  material  fact  is  not  spelled  out ;  and  again,  as  in  the  Lustig 
case,  there  is  no  statute  of  limitations,  and  25  years  after  naturalization  the 
Justice  Department  can  declare  the  citizen  concealed  a  material  fact  and  revoke 
citizenship. 

Once  a  person  becomes  a  naturalized  citizen,  his  citizenship  should  not  be 
a  pawn  at  the  disposal  of  the  Department  of  Justice  or  any  governmental 
agency.  It  should  not  be  a  citizenship  easily  revoked  but  should  be  an  honorable 
one.  One  which  permits  the  naturalized  citizen  to  fully  partake  of  democracy 
and  have  democracy  extended  to  him — free  speech,  choice  of  association — and 
the  right  to  believe  as  he  sees  fit  without  the  constant  threat  of  revocation  of 
citizenship  as  penalty  for  any  dissenting  thought  regarding  the  status  quo. 

This  is  the  policy  of  the  United  States  toward  its  foreign-born.  This  is 
the  policy  which  you  are  assembled  to  consider.  The  American  Committee  for 
Protection  of  Foreign-Born  maintains  that  there  can  be  no  such  restrictive, 
repressive,  and  unreasonable  policy  toward  the  foreign-born  without  that  policy 
reflecting  in  governmental  and  administrative  attitudes  toward  the  whole 
American  people — native-born  as  well  as  foreign-born. 

The  American  Committee  respectfully  requests  that  your  primary  concern 
be  the  removal  of  racist,  restrictive,  and  antidemocratic  phases  of  this  Nation's 
immigration  and  naturalization  policy  as  the  first  step  toward  maintaining  a 
democratic  policy  for  all. 

Mr.  RosENFiELD.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  request  that  the  New  York 
record  remain  open  at  this  point  for  the  insertion  of  statements  sub- 
mitted by  persons  unable  to  appear  as  individuals  or  as  representa- 
tives of  organizations  or  who  could  not  be  scheduled  due  to  insufficient 
time  ? 

The  Chairman.  That  may  be  done. 

This  concludes  the  hearings  in  New  York.  The  Commission  will 
stand  adjourned  until  it  resumes  hearings  in  Boston,  Mass.,  at  9 :  30 
a.  m..  October  2,  1952. 

(Whereupon,  at  5 :  15  p.  m.,  the  Commission  was  adjourned  to  re- 
convene at  9:  30  a.  m.  October  2,  1952,  at  Boston,  Ma.ss.) 


STATEMENTS  SUBMITTED  BY  OTHER  PERSONS  AND 
ORGANIZATIONS  IN  THE  NEW  YORK  AREA 

(Tliose  submitted  statements  follow:) 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY    CHARLES    H.    TURNBULL    OF   WEST 

ORANGE,  N.  J. 

September  17,  1952. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  am  au  Aryan  whose  forebears  have  lived  on  this  continent  for 
many  generations.  My  favorite  gripe  is  the  unfairness  of  onr  immigration  regu- 
lations on  two  counts : 

1.  Europeans  are  too  highly  favored  and  Asians  are  favored  not  at  all.  We 
are  mistalien  if  we  think  that  only  well-screened  Europeans  can  be  valuable 
.assets  to  this  country. 

2.  This  country  is  large  enough  and  has  enough  opportunity  for  all  comers 
for  a  good  many  years.  So  I  am  in  favor  of  granting  speedy  entry  to  all  sincere 
applicants — the  people  of  California  notwithstanding. 

Good  luck  with  your  new  appointment. 
Sincerelj' 

Charles  H.  Turnbull. 
West  Orange,  N.  J.,  28  Woodsidc  Terrace. 

P.  S. — I  would  be  interested  to  see  flgiires  comparing  (broken  down  by  coun- 
tries of  origin)  numl)er  of  entrance  applicants,  number  admitted  if  free  immi- 
gration were  established  (first  year,  lifth  year,  tenth  year),  number  admitted 
who  return  to  their  native  lands  permanently. 


STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY   REV.    JOHN    H.    DUDDE,    OF    ST.    PAUL'S 
LUTHERAN  CHURCH,  LIVERPOOL,  N.  Y. 

St.  Paul's  Lutheran  Church, 
Liverpool,  N.  Y.  September  25, 1952. 
Hon.  Philip  B.  Perlman, 

Special  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalizatioti, 

Washinyton,  D.  C. 

Honored  Sir  :  I  have  been  interested  in  displaced  persons'  problems  for  several 
years  and  know  many  of  them.  I  find  among  them  at  present  a  deep  concern 
over  those  left  behind  in  Europe  for  one  reason  or  other  and  excluded  from 
coming  to  America.  My  contacts  have  been  chiefly  with  Latvians  and  Hun- 
garians. 

Last  evening  Mr.  and  INIrs.  Gustav  Wenczl  called  on  me  in  regard  to  their  son 
Steplieii,  who  has  been  in  Holland  for  the  last  5  years,  where  he  was  "resettled" 
from  Germany,  where  he  had  fled  from  Hungary.  I  sponsored  his  father  and 
mother  into  America,  and  they  have  made  a  very  satisfactory  adjustment  here 
in  the  new  land.  Both  work.  I  also  have  an  assurance  of  a  good  job  for  the  son. 
But  the  American  consul  in  Holland  has  given  him  a  number  which  will  not  be 
reached  on  Holland  quota  basis  for  another  5  years. 

This  is  just  one  case.    There  are  many  others. 

I  would,  therefore,  go  on  record  that  something  be  done  to  make  the  -reunion 
of  families  possilde.  In  fact.  I  would  urge  the  widest  leniency  possible  in  let- 
ting as  many  of  these  unfortunates  into  our  fair  land  as  can  be  arranged.  I 
could  wiitP  many  pages  t)f  stories  of  these  people  who  have  made  the  most  amaz- 
ing contributions  to  our  social  and  economic  life  in  the  space  of  just  a  year  or  so. 

Anything  that  you  and  your  commission  can  do  will  be  gratefully  appreciated. 
Very  truly  yours, 

John  H.  Dudde. 
282 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         283 

STATPDMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  S.  WIIXY  HART,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY 

3561  De  Kalb  Avenue,  New  York,  N.  Y., 

September  28,  1952. 

PRESinENT's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization, 
Effective  Office,  Washington,  D.  C: 

I  road  with  intorost  in  the  papor  about  your  study  for  cases  of  immigration 
and  naturalization. 

My  opinion  in  this  question  is  to  make  tlie  citizen's  examination  easier  for  ohler 
people.  I  tind  that  people  over  GO  years  old  can  hardly  study  the  American  his- 
tory and  learn  all  the  questions.  I  got  citizenship  in  1944  and  had  to  answer 
about  '20  (piestions.  My  wife,  who  is  older  than  I,  would  like  to  get  citizenship. 
Slie  speaks  Knglish  and  makes  her  shoppin.u;  in  English.  But  to  study  some 
hundred  (piestions  about  the  history  is  impossible. 

My  opinion  is  that  for  the  United  States  it  is  more  precious  to  get  citizens 
with  good  character  and  reputation  than  people  who  study  American  history 
and  never  get  to  be  good  citizens. 

Think  this  over  and  make  it  easier;  tlie  American  way  is  in  all  things  easy. 

In  England,  to  get  citizenship  depends  on  the  good  reputation. 
Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)      S.  Willy  Hart. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  HELEN  E.  BURKE,  OF  NEW  YORK 

31  Draught  Street,  Jersbtt  City,  N.  J., 

September  30,  1952. 
Committee  on  Immigr.\tion  and  Naturalization, 

United  States  Courthouse,  Foley  Square,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sirs,  GENTLE^^EN,  and  Fellow  Citizens  :  Having  read  and  duly  noted  a 
write-up  in  today's  edition  of  the  Daily  News,  as  a  citizen  I  have  much  to  say  in 
regard  to  any  relaxation  on  tlie  existent  laws  pro  and  con  on  immigi-ation  and 
naturalization. 

For  the  past  8  years  I  have  found  myself  in  a  position  to  note  the  immediate 
effects.  May  I  note  hereunder  the  results  of  the  ordinary  citizen  arriving  at  a 
natural  conclusion  after  having  duly  taken  in  tlie  circumstances  and  showing 
the  net  results  of  same  experimentations : 

1.  Forced  sale  of  insurance  policies  in  order  to  survive  and  exist.  This  necessi- 
tated a  form,  as  you  well  know,  of  obvious  security  in  the  future,  for  me  and  my 
two  children  wliich  I  sold. 

2.  Living  on  a  fixed  budget,  small  enough  indeed,  but  adequate  for  our  needs. 

3.  Having  our  larder,  stolen,  borrowed  from,  and  so  forth,  from  time  to  time, 
even  though  all  we  luid  at  the  time  was  just  enough  for  our  budget  to  cover  food 
and  shelter. 

4.  Suffering  through  periods  of  illness  when  we  could  not  afford  the  services 
of  a  physician,  or  a  dental  treatment  at  times. 

5.  Monetary  units  and  systems  being  undermined,  through  an  exchange 
premium,  effected  at  your  own  door,  with  salesmen  and  sympathetic  tradespeople. 
What  happens  when  no  one  is  familiar  with  tills  code.  All  this  while  I  liave  not 
been  in  a  position  to  buy  the  custoiuai'y  replacements  on  worn-out  electrical 
H(piii)meiit  such  as  wasliing  machine,  electric  iron,  etc.  Nor  have  I  been  in  a 
position  at  times  to  purchase  even  a  minimum  wardrobe  according  to  the  true 
American  standards  of  living. 

Having  been  in  the  business  world  myself  at  one  time,  I'm  quite  aware  of  the 
fact  that  past  history  in  Eurojie  has  come  to  sit  on  our  dof)rstep. 

Reinenilier  when  foreign  banks  called  in  moneys  abroad V  It  most  certainly 
must  have  been  done  so  for  a  reason. 

The  fact.  too.  exists,  however,  that  where  a  man  lias  what  might  be  termed  a 
reasonably  adequate  position,  which  keeps  him  financially  provided  for,  but  not 
to  the  ]ioint  of  luxury,  he  is  the  man  that  is  and  will  be  victimized  by  just  these 
circumstances.  Through  the  years  he  has  been  forced  throui;li  the  necessity  of 
economy  to  make  liis  earnings  adecpiate  and  budiret  bis  income  accordingly. 

If.  therefore,  his  sjiou.se  too,  or  likewise,  happens  to  be  economical  as  well. 
would  they  not  then  be  at  the  mercy  of  such  dealings  as  undermining  of  income 
through  the  suggested  "code"  income  form  of  living  lu-opolled  by  the  "in  the 
know"   immigrants  who  had  been   and   are   still    living  schooled   so   thoroughly 

2.1.350—52 JO 


284  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

abroad.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  why  is  it  tlie  United  States  has  not  taken  any  at- 
tempt to  teach  their  citizens  of  this  monetary-code  system  of  living?  Is  it 
neglect  or  merely  the  fact  that  we  here  in  the  United  States  are  all  too  signifi- 
cantly unaware  of  how  money  is  used,  by  whom,  etc.?  Or  do  we  choose  to  remain 
ignorant  of  true  factual  data?  Please  do  not  pass  this  letter  up,  for,  as  Con- 
fucius said,  "Any  reading  is  better  than  none  at  all."  Also,  "Ignorance  is  still 
a  thing  to  be  acquired." 
Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     Helen  E.  Burke. 

P.  S. — I'm  sympathetic  to  a  cause,  too,  for  I  came  of  parents  who  entered  this 
country  in  their  early  youth.  But,  however,  I'm  sincerely  convinced  that  the 
immigration  and  naturalization  laws  have  not  taken  into  thought  fully  living 
conditions  of  today. 

If  for  any  reason  you  think  this  is  the  letter  of  a  crank,  I  have  no  money  saved 
and  no  luxuries.  I  found  out  that  through  being  put  into  and  at  the  point  of 
experimentation  keeps  one  poor  indeed,  but  adequately  up  on  news  of  what  is 
happening  today  and  the  consequences.  As  usual,  it  might  be  like  overbuying  or 
overextending  credit,  both  domestically  and  abroad. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  VITO  MAGLI,  CANDIDATE  FOR  CONGRESS, 

NEW  YORK  OITY 

New   York,  N.  Y.,  UfSJ^  First  Avenue. 
Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield, 

Executive  Director,  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturali- 
zation, Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  wish  to  make  the  following  statement,  on  my  behalf,  for  insertion 
in  tlie  printed  record  of  the  public  hearing  held  in  New  York  City  on  September 
30-October  1,  1952,  in  reference  to  the  McCarran-Walter  Act. 

I  respectfully  urge  the  repeal  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Immigration  Act  for 
the  following  reasons : 

The  act  is  an  unparalleled  piece  of  vicious  legislation  aimed  against  14,000,000 
foreign-born  in  the  United  States.  It  is  a  pernicious  and  vile  attack  against 
Americans  of  Italian  descent  who  have  so  much  contributed  in  building  our  great 
country;  it  is  a  despicable  insult  against  the  Negro  and  Jewish  people,  against 
the  Catholic  and  other  people  of  our  country, 

I  oppose  this  antidemocratic  act  because  it  vests  enormous,  arbitrary  powers 
in  the  hands  of  a  few  officials  of  the  Department  of  Justice,  for  deportation, 
exclusion,  arrest  and  detention  of  people  living  in  our  country  for  years  for  the 
simple  reason  that  they  do  not  believe  in  the  same  politics  of  the  Justice 
Department. 

Further,  I  oppose  this  act  because  it  excludes  from  coming  to  our  country  many 
outstanding  personalities  in  the  fields  of  science,  arts,  and  other  professions, 
because  of  their  anti-Fascist  record. 

The  McCarran-Walter  Immigration  Act  perpetrates  the  "master  race"  theory 
by  its  continuous  adoption  of  the  1924  National  Origins  Act,  which  uses  the  figures 
of  the  18D0  census  for  quotas.  The  Italian  quota,  for  example,  remains  in  the 
figure  of  5,000,  while  that  of  England,  which  has  not  used  it  for  years,  because 
she  does  not  need  it,  is  much  greater. 

In  order  that  we  erase  this  insult  against  the  many  millions  of  foreign-born 
Americans.  I  urge  that  a  public  hearing  be  held  immediately  after  the  opening  of 
the  new  Congress,  so  that  the  American  people  may  show  their  indignation  against 
the  McCarran-Walter  Act,  and  propose  a  new  immigration  and  naturalization 
law  that  will  honor  this  great  family  of  immigrants  who  have  so  much  contrib- 
uted, and  are  still  contributing,  in  building  oxiv  country. 
Respectfully  yours, 

ViTo  Magli. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATUUALIZATION         285 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   NICHOLAS   J.   CASSAVETES,   NEW   YORK 

CITY 

Nkw  Yokk,  N.  Y.,  ;]0o  West  Forty-Second  Street, 

October  3,  1952. 
rKEsiiiENT's  Commission  o>  I ii  migration, 

Wa.sJiiuf/ton,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir  :  You  have  been  assijinod  a  heavy  task  of  determining  and  reporting 
t<i  the  President  on  our  national  ininiijiration  policy. 

I  shall  nut  presume  to  expi'ess  an  opinion  on  the  over-all  policy  affecting  im- 
migration. 

As  a  Greek-American  leader,  however,  I  feel  that  I  have  a  considerable  store 
of  knowledge  anil  experience  concerning  Greek  immigration  and  that  your  Com- 
mission might  not  consider  it  amiss  to  read  the  observations  Vi'hich  I  am  to  sub- 
mit to  you  in  the  few  paragraphs  that  follow : 

1.  The  Greek-American  population  in  the  United  States  is  about  800,000,  of 
whom  about  500,000  born  in  Greece  and  about  300,000  born  in  the  United 
States. 

2.  The  Greek-American  innnigrants  have  been  engaged  in  the  industries  of 
restaurants,  candy  shoi:s.  fruit  shops,  and  groceries.  In  fact,  there  are  in  the 
United  States  30,000  restaurants  and  luncheonettes  owned  and  operated  by 
Greek-Americans.  The  average  nuiiibei"  of  other  Greek-Americans  employed 
in  these  shops  is  four  for  each  shop.  This  makes  a  total  population  of  150,000 
out  of  500,000  Greeks  in  America  making  their  living  from  the  restaurant  in- 
dustry. 

There  are  also  not  less  than  10,000  other  shops  of  various  industries  operated 
by  Greek-Americans.  Tliis  will  bring  the  total  of  Greek-Americans  operating 
and  servicing  Greek-American  shops  to  about  190,000  to  200,000.  These  figures 
would  indicate  that  every  Greek-American  of  working  age,  except  native-born, 
who  enter  into  other  lines  oi  trades  or  the  professions,  is  earning  his  living  from 
the  Greek- American  shops. 

3.  The  average  age  of  the  Greek-American  shopowner  is  60.  This  will  indicate 
that  in  5  years  the  owners  will  be  of  retiring  age. 

4.  The  great  question  in  the  minds  of  tliese  shopowners  is  what  will  happen 
to  their  shops  when  they  will  no  longer  be  able  physically  to  operate  them. 

It  has  taken  them  from  30  to  40  years  to  create  a  vast  network  of  trained 
food  workers  servicing  the  American  people. 

5.  This  anxiety  of  the  Greek-Americans  causes  them  to  hope  earnestly  that 
the  so-called  Celler  bill,  for  entry  into  the  United  States  of  destitute  relatives 
of  Greek-Americans,  may  be  enacted  by  the  Congress. 

6.  The  relief  of  the  Greeks  by  the  entry  of  22,500  or  more  Greeks  will  not 
only  salvage  the  vast  food  industry  that  our  Greek  immi.L'-rants  have  created  but 
will  also  relieve  Greece  of  a  proportionate  unemployed  population,  which  is  a 
good  target  for  subversixe  propaganda,  and  will  also  perpetuate  the  Greek- 
American  restaurant  industry,  which  is  of  great  economic  value  to  our  Nation, 
hoth  in  the  matter  of  distribution  of  foodstuffs  and  also  as  a  valuable  source 
of  tax  income. 

7.  Nor  is  the  number  of  25,000  Greek  immigrants  a  too  generous  gesture  to  the 
Greeks.  For,  from  1021  to  1024  the  aiuiual  Greek  (luota  \\as  3,000  Greeks  from 
Greece,  and  about  2.000  Greeks  from  the  then  3,000  annual  Turkish  quota.  This 
means  that  the  Greek-Americans  have  been  practically  starved  as  far  as  receiv- 
ing new  blood  from  Greece  since  1924,  by  the  loss  of  4,730  immigrants  each  year 
over  a  i>eriod  of  28  years,  or  by  131,000. 

.S.  I  am  sure  that  1  voice  the  sentiments  of  .500.000  Greek-American  naturalized 
citizens  in  urging  your  Commission  to  recomnu'nd  an  equitable  reparation  to 
the  Greek-Americans  for  the  unfair  reduction  since  1024  of  the  annual  flow  of 
Cre'k  immigrants  under  Greek  and  Turkish  (piotas  from  5,000  to  only  308,  by 
urging  upon  the  President  to  increase  the  munlier  of  Greeks  among  the  proposed 
total  of  300,000  Eurcjpeans  to  at  least  30,000. 

It  is  a  matter  of  fairness  to  the  (Jreek-Aniericans,  a  matter  of  economic  neces- 
sity of  the  Greek-American  shopowners  that  they  bring  relatives  to  carry  on 
the  thousands  of  sliops  which  aging  slioi>owners  will  have  to  (  ause  to  he  closed, 
and  it  is  also  a  matter  of  considerable  national  wealth  through  distribution  of 
foodstuffs  from  our  farms  and  our  wholesale  houses,  r.s  well  as  a  salvage  of 
millions  of  tax  revenue  from  the  continued  operation  of  40,000  Greek-American 
shops  in  the  United  States. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Nicholas  J.  Cassavetes. 


286  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED  BY  MR.   AND   MRS.   HAROLD  FELTZ, 

WILLIAMSVILLE,  N.  Y. 

October  3,  1952. 
Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield. 

Dear  Sir  :  Recently  I  read  a  letter  in  the  Buffalo  Evening  News.  It  referred 
to  the  McCarran-Walter  law  as  a  law  to  keep  down  immigration  to  the  United 
States. 

I  am  a  housewife  and  a  mother  of  two  children,  and  as  long  as  I  can  remember 
I  have  been  told  that  it  is  the  duty  of  American  parents  to  show  civic  pride 
and  vote  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  to  protect  our  children's  interest  and  future 
in  the  United  States. 

I  do  not  feel  it  is  fair  to  our  children  to  open  the  floodgates  of  immigration. 
My  husband  and  I  existed  through  one  depression,  and  I  pray  my  children  will 
never  know  such  want.  My  husband  and  I  do  not  want  the  McCarran-Walter 
immigration  law  changed  in  any  way. 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Harold  Feltz. 

William sviLLE,  N.  Y.,  ^9  Cadman  Drive. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  SERGE  BELOSSELSKY,  FEDERATION  OP 
HUSSIAN  CHARITABLE  ORGANIZATIONS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
HOUSE  OF  FREE  RUSSIA,  NEW  YORK  CITY 

Federation  of  Russian  Charitable  Organizations  of  the  United  States, 

New  York,  24,  N.  Y.,  October  U,  1952. 
Harry  N.  Rosenfield, 

Executive  Director,  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalisa- 
tion, Washington  25,  D.  C. 
Dear  Mr.  Rosenfield  :  With  reference  to  the  hearings  held  by  you  recently 
in  New  York  please  be  informed  that  this  federation  is  in  complete  agreement 
with  the  views  expressed  by  His  Eminence,  Metropolitan  Anastasius  and  his 
cliancelor.  Father  George  Grabbe,  in  their  memorandums  submitted  to  you  on 
October  1,  1952. 

As  to  the  ca.se  of  those  refugees  who.  to  avoid  being  sent  back  to  the  Soviet 
Union,  made  certain  false  statements,  it  would  seem  to  us  that  bill  H.  R.  .5678, 
which  died  somewhere  in  committee  during  last  session,  might  solve  the  question, 
if  passed.     The  following  is  a  quote  of  the  particular  section  I  have  in  mind. 

"[82d  Cong.,  H.  R.  5678,  1st  sess.] 

"A  BILL  To  revise  the  laws  relating  to  immigration,  naturalization,  and  nationality,  and 

for  other  purposes 

"(P.  29,  par.  19:) 

"Ajiy  alien  M'ho  seeks  to  procure,  or  has  sought  to  procure,  or  has  procured  a 
visa  or  other  documentation,  or  seeks  to  enter  the  United  States  by  fraud,  or  by 
wilfully  misrepresenting  a  material  fact :  Provided,  That  such  misrepresentation 
shall  not  serve  to  exclude  the  alien  under  this  act  or  other  act  when  it  has  its 
origin  in  an  action  where  he  had  reasonable  ground  to  fear  i)ersecution  because 
of  race,  religion,  or  political  opinions  and  M^hen  such  misrepresentation  is  found 
by  the  Attorney  General  not  to  have  been  material  to  the  issue  in  the  proceeding 
involved." 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)      Serge  Belosselsky, 
Representative  in  Eastern  United  States, 
House  of  Free  Russia,  Inc.,  349  West  86th  Street,  New  York  24,  N.  Y. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         287 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  L.  M.  FRUCHTBAUM,  DIRECTOR,  POLITI- 
CAL AFFAIRS,  AND  I.  N.  STEINBERG,  SECRETARY  GENERAL,  FKEE- 
LAXD  LEAGUE  FOR  JEWISH  TERRITORIAL  COLONIZATION 

I'^JEBXAND  LKAGUe  FOR  JEWISH  TeBRITORIAI,  COIX>NIZATION, 

1819  Broadway,  Suite  301-30-',,  Nciv  York  23,  N.  Y.,  October  24,  1952. 

Mr.   HaRKY  N.  ROSKNFIEXD, 

Executive  Director,  President's  Commission  on  Iiwmigration  and  Natu- 
ralization, llJfO  O  Street  NW.,  Washinyton,  D.  C. 
Dear  Mr.  Rosenfiet.d  :  We  greatly  regret  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  Free- 
land  League  to  present  its  views  at  a  hearing  of  your  Commission.  According  to 
your  advice,  we  are  enclosing  a  memorandum  to  the  Commission  setting  forth 
our  suggestions  for  an  additional  aspect  of  the  migration  issue.  We  trust  that 
the  memorandum  will  be  included  in  the  materials  of  the  Commission.  Should 
you  wish  further  details  on  the  questions  involved  we  shall  be  glad  to  supply 
them. 

Perhaps  it  would  be  useful  to  add,  for  your  information,  that  the  Freeland 
League  has  been  engaged  for  the  past  decade  in  investigating  the  possibilities 
for  large-scale  colonization  of  Jewish  refugees  in  several  countries  overseas. 
The  league  has  conducted  negotiations  with  the  Government  of  Australia  con- 
cerning the  Kimberley  Province  in  western  Australia,  and  with  tlie  Netlierlaiids 
concerning  Surinam  (Dutcli  Guiana).  The  league  also  dispatched  expert  com- 
missions to  both  areas  and  detailed  scientific  reports  exist. 

It  is  now  involved  in  negotiations  and  investigations  in  other  countries  of 
Latin  America.  And,  in  accordance  with  our  concept  of  migration  and  coloni- 
zation, we  are  submitting  the  enclosed  memorandum  for  group  settlement  projects 
in  the  United  States. 

Hoping  to  hear  from  you,  we  are. 
Sincerely  yours, 

/S/    Dr.  I.  N.  Steinberg, 

Secretary  General. 
/S/     Dr.  L.  M.  Fruchtbaum, 

Director,  Political  Affairs. 

Memorandum  to  the  President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturali- 
zation ON  Colonization  in  the  U.  S.  A. 

1.  We  fully  support  the  demands  of  all  progressive  elements  in  this  country 
for  a  change  in  the  McCarran-Walter  immigration  law, 

2.  But  the  present  debate  on  immigration  provides  an  opportunity  to  draw 
the  attention  of  tlie  President's  Commission  and  of  public  opinion  to  an  important, 
though  neglected,  element  in  the  process  of  migration :  colonization  and  group 
settlement  in  the  United  States.  By  colonization  we  understand  the  settling 
of  cohesive,  organized  groups  of  immigrants  on  underpopulated  or  underdevel- 
oped areas  of  land,  with  the  purpose  of  developing  it  on  an  agro-industrial  basis. 

?..  There  seems  to  be  plenty  of  room  in  the  United  States  for  such  projects 
of  planned  colonization.  On  August  5  of  this  year  in  New  York,  during  the 
centennial  celebration  of  the  American'  Geographical  Society,  this  fact  was 
stressed  in  paradoxical  form  by  Dr.  L.  D.  Stamp,  professor  of  social  geography 
at  London  University.  He  said :  "The  United  States  might  be  one  of  the  world's 
most  underdeveloped  countries."     (New  York  Times,  August  6,  1952). 

4.  We  suggest  that  it  would  be  advisable  for  a  newly  envisaged  immigration 
law  to  formulate  conditions  not  only  for  individual  immigration,  but  also  for 
group  colonization.  Thus  possibilities  would  be  created  for  new  economic  devel- 
opment of  soil  and  natural  resources,  beneficial  both  to  the  immigrants  and  the 
country  as  a  whole. 

5.  It  is  to  be  assumed  that  not  all  individual  immigrants  coming  to  this  country 
cnn  make  the  best  of  the  existent  opportunities.  For  the  most  part  they  settle 
in  the  overpopulated  and  higlily  industrialized  cities.  Streaming  into  the  labor 
market  of  an  already  tightly  organized  and  competitive  economy,  they  necessarily 
pass  through  difficult  stages  of  adjustment.  As  a  result  they  are  frequently 
unable  to  contribute  the  maximum  of  their  capabilities. 

6.  This  socio-psychological  problem  could  be  averted  if  a  part  of  the  immigrants 
wei-e  given  the  opportunity  to  start  their  new  life  as  pioneers  in  collective  eco- 
nomic units.  Most  migrants  come  from  countries  of  persecution  and  they  are 
in  need,  for  a  given  period,  of  a  closely  knit,  almost  family-like  environment,  to 


288         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION 

regain  their  human  dignity  and  creative  abilities.  History,  of  our  country  and 
elsewhere,  has  iiroven  that  such  an  environment  can  best  be  provided  in  a  large- 
scale  colony,  where  dozens  and  hundreds  of  families  work  together  and  build  a 
new  productive  existence. 

7.  We  assume  that  such  a  colonization  approach  to  the  migration  problem  might 
well  appeal  to  many  people  in  the  United  States  who  view  individual  migration 
sceptically.  They  would  see  the  newcomers  not  only  as  individuals  attempting 
to  infiltrate  and  intrude  on  the  overcrowded  positions  of  the  existing  economic 
system  but  also  as  groups  of  people  coming  to  develop  the  country  in  a  construc- 
tive manner  and  thus  to  open  up  new  sources  of  production  and  wealth  for  the 
entire  people. 

8.  We  are  aware  of  the  fact  that — according  to  the  letter  and  the  snirit  of 
the  American  Constitution — no  one  can  be  bound  permanently  to  a  spjcif  c  sPOt; 
freedom  of  movement  is  one  of  the  basic  prerogatives  of  the  American  c  tizen. 
But  we  believe  that  specific  provifiions  could  be  formulated  by  which  the  mi  ;rant- 
groups  would  accept  some  conditions  of  territorial  stability  for  the  pioneerins: 
period  of  their  settlement. 

9.  From  an  economic  viewpoint,  group  colonization  of  new  migrants  seems  to 
be  especially  efficient  in  that  it  would  favor  a  pooling  of  agricultural  machinery 
and  equipment,  fertilization  of  soil,  joint  buying  and  selling,  and  the  development 
of  small  industries  for  the  utilization  of  the  byproducts  of  agriculture. 

10.  It  would  appear  useful  that  some  basic  principles  of  group  colonization 
be  included  in  any  settlement  plans  for  the  United  States.  These  principles  need 
not  be  obligatory,  but  the  practical  realization  of  such  prelects  would  evolve 
within  their  broad  framework.  These  principles,  incidentally,  are  indicated  by 
contemporary  experiences. 

(a)  Colonization  should  be  not  purely  agricultural,  but  agro-industrial,  to 
give  settlers  a  choice  of  occupations  and  the  benefits  of  a  diversified  economy. 

(6)  Colonization  should  utilize,  as  far  as  possible  and  as  necessary,  coopera- 
tive methods.  There  are  innumerable  variations  in  the  application  of  coopera- 
tive methods,  to  avoid  waste  of  time,  energy,  and  capital. 

(c)  Colonization  should  take  cognizance  of  the  social,  cultural,  and  religious 
backgrounds  of  migrant  groups,  and  should  therefore  direct  their  settling  during 
the  pioneering  stage  on  the  basis  of  their  ethnic  and  cultural  coherence.  Further- 
more, this  type  colonization  would  keep  the  settlers  more  attached  to  their  new 
homes  and  would  act  as  a  deterrent  to  city  attractions. 

11.  The  United  States  is  showing  a  deep  interest,  and  is  spending  large  funds, 
to  help  resettle  the  hundreds  of  thousands  who  are  homeless  in  the  world.  F>ut 
the  realizing  is  growing  in  our  country,  that  the  best  way  to  help  both — the 
immigrant  masses  and  the  countries  of  immigration — is  not  by  planless  individual 
migration,  but  by  constructive  colonization  of  the  impopulated  and  underdeveloped 
lands  overseas.  The  United  States  Government  has  taken  the  lead  in  the 
International  Committee  for  Migration  from  Europe  which  has  now  begun 
working  along  these  lines. 

It  would  be  of  great  historical  importance  if  the  United  States  were  to  set 
an  example  to  other  countries  by  herself  creating  the  conditions  for  the  group 
settlement  of  migrants  on  the  lines  set  forth  above. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  DR.  L.  AGH.  CHAIRMAN  IN  U.  S.  A.,  COLr 
LEGIAL  SOCIETY  OF  HUNGARIAN  VETERANS  IN  U.  S.  A.,  NEWARK,  N.  J. 

CoLLEGiAi,  Society  of  Hungarian  Veterans  in  U.  S.  A., 

Newark  1,  N.  J.,  1952. 

Dear  Mr.  President:  In  the  very  near  future,  the  influx  of  those  300,000 
refugees  from  behind  the  iron  curtain,  whose  escape  and  salvation  the  Presi- 
dent and  the  Members  of  the  Eighty-second  Congress  planned  and  protected,  will 
cease. 

Very  recently  the  President  again  asked  the  permission  of  the  departing 
Eighty-second  Congress  for  entry  of  300,000  additional  homeless  refugees  into 
the  United  States. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         289 

Such  a  humane  and  noble  deed  as  this  is  without  precedent  or  parallel  in  all 
history.  For  this  deed,  the  CoUegial  Society  of  HniiKarian  Veterans  expresses 
its  perpetual  gratitude  and  deeply  sincere  thanks  to  tlie  I'resident,  the  Congress, 
and  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

You  have  led  us — anti-Communist  veteran  soldiers  of  Hungary — into  the  land 
of  freedom  and  bounty.  Since  our  settlement  here  we  hold  sarred  the  responsi- 
bility of  loyal  citizmshii)  to  the  U.  S.  A.;  of  assisting  in  every  way  to  perpetuate 
her  national  welfare;  and  to  protect  her  land  and  people  in  case  of  enemy  attack. 

While  in  gratitude  and  faith  we  bow  before  you.  and  the  people  of  the  U.  S.  A., 
in  our  own  contentment  we  point  out  to  you  the  plight  of  others,  of  one  of  the 
greatest  injustices  wrought  by  inexorable  fate: 

Escape  from  tlie  Sovit't,  emigi'ation.  and  homelessness  tore  apart  many  families 
witli  great  cruelty.  After  V.'orld  War  II,  at  the  beginning  of  the  emigration  of 
European  refugees,  many  nations  accepted  only  the  physically  able,  primarily 
young  manpower.  The  young  seized  every  opportunity  in  order  to  aid  their  weaker 
and  older  family  members  through  quick  emigration  and  subsequent  lucrative 
jobs.  There  were  occasions  wiieii  the  fathei''s  unusual  strength  or  talents 
hastened  the  emigration  of  the  parents,  who,  in  turn,  held  pressing  the  need 
to  aid  those  children  left  behind.  These  events  broke  up  more  families.  The 
U.  S.  A.  was  almost  the  only  nation  in  whose  people  and  leaders  were  inherent 
humaneness,  understanding,  and  neighborly  love  to  open  her  gates  to  all,  regard- 
less of  age. 

With  great  respect  we  beseech  Mr.  President  and  all  Members  of  the  Eighty- 
second  Congress  that,  during  the  preparation  of  and  decision  on  the  new  immi- 
gration law,  they  keep  in  mind  these  broken  families;  that  they  make  it  possible 
for  parent  and  child,  regardless  of  sex,  age,  creed,  or  nationality,  to  travel  at 
liis  own  expense  to  the  U.  S.  A. 

The  high  economic  standards  existing  today  have  assisted  the  immigrant 
parent  or  child  in  the  U.  S.  A.  in  saving  sufficient  funds  to  pay  the  immigration 
expenses  of  his  remaining  refugee  family. 

In  the  consideration  of  the  above  request,  we  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  number  of  these  new  immigrants  (who  on  the  basis  of  the  DP  law  came 
to  the  United  States  but  have  not  yet  been  able  to  become  citizens)  is  much 
larger  than  the  number  of  those  who  would  immigrate  on  the  basis  of  our  above 
petition. 

We  repeat  our  request ;  and  in  faith  place  it  at  the  discretion  of  Mr.  President 
and  each  Member  of  the  Eighty-second  Congress,  and  trust  in  their  best  inten- 
tions and  wisest  foresight. 
Very  cordiall.v, 

CoLLEGiAL  Society  of  Hungarian  Vetehans  in  U.  S.  A., 
(Signed)     L.  Agh, 

Newark  1,  N.  J. 


STATEMENT  SUB.MrrrKD  BY  REV.  PAYSON  MILLER,  SECRETARY, 
INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS  COMMITTEE,  CONNECTICUT  COUNCIL 
OF  CHURCHES 

[Western  Union  telegram  dated  October  30,  1952] 

Hartford,  Conn.,  October  30. 
Director  of  Immigration, 

17 /,2  O  Street  NW.,  Washhir/tnn,  D.  C: 

International  Relations  Committee,  Connecticut  Council  of  Churches,  urges  fol- 
lowing changes  in  McCarran  Immigration  Act:  Elimination  of  national  origins 
quota  system;  permit  deportation  only  because  of  illegal  entr.v;  elimination  of 
discrimination  between  native-born  and  naturalized  citizens;  guarantee  fair  hear- 
ing to  persons  subject  to  law. 

Rev.  Payso.x  Miller,  Secretary. 


290  CORIMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  GEORGE  B.  MURPHY,  JR.,  COCHAIRMAN, 
AMERICAN  COMMITTEE  FOR  PROTECTION  OF  FOREIGN  BORN,  NEW 
YORK  CITY 

American  Committee  fok  Protection  of  Foreign  Born, 
23  West  Tiventv-sixth  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  Octoier  25,  1952. 
Hon.  Harold  Rosenfield, 

Executive  Secretary,  President's   Commission  on  Immigration  and  Nat- 
uralization, Executive  Office,  Wasliington,  D.  G. 

Dear  Sir  :  For  the  final  day  of  your  hearings,  October  28,  we  submit  herewith 
a  letter  signed  by  SO  prominent  Americans  from  23  States  expressing  their  oppo- 
sition to  the  Walter-McCarran  law. 

We  hope  that  you  will  give  this  letter  your  consideration. 
Respectfully  yours, 

( Signed ■>     George  B.  Murphy,  Jr.,  Cochmnnan. 

President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization, 

Wasliington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sirs  :  It  is  fitting  that  your  month-long  hearings  throughout  the  country 
should  terminate  today,  the  sixty-sixth  anniversary  of  the  dedication  of  the 
Statue  of  Liberty.  On  this  anniversary,  we  the  undersigned,  bearing  in  mind 
the  great  democratic  heritage  on  which  this  Nation  was  founded,  and  the  enor- 
mous contribution  made  to  it  by  the  foreign  born,  cannot  but  feel  that  heritage 
and  those  contributions  are  being  discarded  by  the  enactment  of  the  Walter- 
McCarran  law. 

In  this  letter  we  can  only  touch  on  a  few  phases  of  our  disagreement  with  the 
Walter-McCarran  Act  and  the  general  pattern  of  legislation  aimed  at  the  foreign 
born.  The  quota  restrictions,  based  on  discrimination  against  those  of  eastern 
and  .southern  Europe,  have  long  been  a  blot  on  our  books  and  certainly  do  not 
create  any  great  feeling  of  friendship  toward  us  by  the  peoples  of  the  world. 
And  now  are  added  special  restrictions  against  our  neighbors,  the  people  of  the 
West  Indies,  developing  a  new  aspect,  so  aptly  called  by  Congressman  Celler,  "a 
quota  within  a  quota,"  and  limiting  their  admission  to  this  country  to  100  a 
year  from  each  colony. 

Noncitizens  and  naturalized  citizens  are  robbed  of  constitutional  guaranties  by 
this  new  law.  Noncitizens  can  be  arrested  for  deportation  at  the  merest  suspicion 
by  any  agent  so  designated  by  the  Attorney  General.  They  can  be  held  without 
bail  indefinitely.  They  can  be  deported  to  any  country  designated  by  the  At- 
torney General  regardless  of  the  persecution  awaiting  them  on  arrival,  and  re- 
gardless of  the  length  of  their  residence  or  family  ties  here. 

The  Mexican  people  have  become  the  target  and  free  game  for  deportation. 
Hundreds  of  thousands  of  Mexicans  are  picked  up  each  year  and  hurled  deep  into 
the  interior  of  Mexico  and  it  is  indeed  not  infrequent  that  citizens  are  deported 
with  noncitizens. 

Naturalized  citizens  are  relegated  to  a  second-class  status  and  no  statute  of 
limitations  guarantees  their  citizenship.  A  host  of  new  crimes  have  been  created 
against  naturalized  citizens,  making  it  possilile  for  citizenship  to  be  taken  away 
at  any  time.  Two  classes  of  citizenship  are  instituted — one  for  the  native-born 
and  one  for  the  naturalized  citizen. 

Endless  police-state  procedures  have  been  initiated  against  the  foreign-born, 
the  aim  of  which  can  only  be  to  make  all  ideas  subject  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Attorney  General.  Freedom  of  thought,  speech,  and  association  are  being  denied 
to  all  foreign-born  in  this  country. 

We,  the  undersigned,  respectfully  urge  that  on  this,  the  final  day  of  your 
hearings  and  on  the  sixty-sixth  anniversary  of  the  dedication  of  the  Statue  of 
Liberty,  you  do  your  utmost  to  guarantee  that  there  shall  be  a  new  policy  of 
immigration  and  naturalization,   a  policy  that  makes  no  distinction  between 


COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         291 

native-  and  foreiirn-born  citizens,  a  policy  which  accords  to  all,  native-  and 
foreisn-horu,  liberty  and  freedom  as  jjuaranteed  under  the  Constitution  of  tlie 
United  States,  and  a  policy  which  ends  discrimination  against  tlie  peoples  of 
the  world. 

KespectfuUy  yours, 
(Signed)  Rabbi  Michael  Alper,  New  York,  N.  Y. ;  Hon.  Elmer  A.  Benson, 
Appleton,  ."\Iinn. ;  Dr.  llussell  Becl^er,  Kalamazoo,  Mich.;  Prof. 
Derk  Bodde,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Prof.  G.  Murray  Branch,  At- 
lanta, Ga. ;  Dr.  Dorothy  Brewster,  New  York,  N.  Y. ;  Prof. 
Emily  C.  Brown,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y. ;  Rev.  Raymond  Calkins, 
Caml)rid.ire,  IMass. ;  Rev.  Frank  D.  Campbell,  Del  Rosa,  Calif. ; 
Rev.  Howard  K.  Carey,  Altadeua,  Calif. ;  Dr.  A.  J.  Carlson, 
Chicago.  111. ;  Prof.  Florence  Converse,  Wellesley,  Mass. ;  Prof. 
Philip  W.  L.  Cox,  Vineyard  Haven,  Mass. ;  Dr.  Abraham  Cron- 
bach,  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  Prof.  Fphraim  Cross,  New  York,  N.  Y. ; 
Rev.  Jolin  W.  Darr,  Middletown,  Conn.;  Very  Rev.  John  \V. 
Day,  Topeka,  Ksuis. ;  Prof.  William  Wells  Denton,  Tucson, 
Ariz.;  Dr.  Katherine  Dodd,  Little  Rock,  Ark.;  Prof.  Arnold 
Dresden,  Swarthmore,  Pa.;  Dr.  Guido  Ferrando,  Ojai,  Calif.; 
Rev.  George  A.  Fisher,  Raleigh,  N.  C. ;  Rev.  Kenneth  Ripley 
Forlies.  Philadelphia,  Pa. ;  Hon.  Clemens  J.  France,  Providence, 
R.  I. ;  Prof.  Royal  W.  France,  New  York,  N.  Y. ;  Ben  Gold,  New 
York,  N.  Y. ;  Dr.  IMarcus  I.  Goldman,  Alexandria,  Va. ;  John  T. 
Gojack,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. ;  Rabbi  Robert  B.  Goldburg,  Hamden, 
Conn. ;  Rev.  L.  A.  Gross,  Chicago,  111. ;  Dr.  Ralph  H.  Guudlach, 
New  York,  N.  Y. ;  Robert  Gwathmey,  New  York,  N.  Y. ;  Rev. 
Albert  J.  Ilallington,  Danbury,  Conn.  ;Dashiell  Hammett,  New 
York,  N.  Y. ;  William  Harrison,  Boston,  Mass. ;  Prof.  Robert 
J.  Havighurst,  Chicago,  111.;  P]-of.  A.  Eustace  Hayden,  Chicago, 
111.;  Rev.  Charles  A.  Hill,  Detroit,  Mich.;  Rev.  Chester  E. 
Hodgson,  Ozone  Park,  N.  Y. ;  Rev.  Pi-of.  Fleming  James,  Sr., 
North  Haven,  Conn. ;  Francis  Fisher  Kane,  Peace  Dale,  R.  I. ; 
Hon.  Robert  W.  Kenny,  Los  Angeles,  Calif. ;  Dr.  John  A.  Kings- 
bury, Shady,  N.  Y. ;  Prof.  Paul  Kirkpatrick,  Stanford,  Calif. ; 
Prof.  I.  M.  Kolthoff,  Minneapolis,  Minn. ;  Dr.  Walter  Landauer, 
Storrs,  Conn. ;  Rev.  Carl  J.  Landes,  Deer  Creek,  Okla. ;  Dr. 
Paul  H.  Lavietes,  New^  Haven,  Conn. ;  Samuel  M.  Lindsay, 
Washington,  D.  G. ;  Prof.  Oliver  S.  Loud,  Yellow  Springs,  Ohio ; 
Rev.  Bernard  M.  Loomer,  Chicago,  111. ;  Rev.  Edward  G.  Maxted, 
Warrington,  Fla.;  Rev.  John  A.  Maynard,  New  York,  N.  Y. : 
Miss  Mary  S.  McDowell,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ;  Rt.  Rev.  Walter 
Mitchell,  Kancho  Sante  Fe,  Calif. ;  Hon.  Stanley  Moffatt,  South 
Gate,  Calif. ;  Rt.  Rev.  Arthur  W.  Moulton,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah  ; 
Scott  Nearing,  Cape  Rosier,  Maine;  Prof.  Gaspare  Nicotri,  New 
York,  N.  Y. ;  Prof.  Constantine  Panunzio,  Los  Angeles,  Calif. ; 
Rev.  Edward  L.  Peet,  Sacramento,  Calif.;  Prof.  Bertha  Haven 
Putnam,  South  Iladley,  Mass.;  Willard  B.  Ransom,  Indianap- 
olis, Ind. ;  Anton  Refregier,  Woodstock,  N.  Y. ;  Dr.  Bertha  C. 
Reynolds,  Stoughton,  Mass.;  Earl  Robinson,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ; 
Prof.  Robert  A.  Rosenbaum,  Portland,  Oreg. ;  Alexander  Saxton, 
Sausalito,  Calif. ;  Prof.  Philip  L.  Schenk,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. ; 
Dr.  Paul  Scherer,  New  York,  N.  Y. ;  Prof.  Vida  D.  Scudder, 
W'ellesley,  Mass.;  Dr.  Laila  Skinner,  Chicago,  111.;  Prof.  Louise 
Pettibone  Smith,  Wellesley,  Mass.;  Prof.  Ellen  B.  Talbot, 
Spartani)urg,  S.  C. ;  Dr.  Alva  N.  Taylor,  Nashville,  Tenn. ; 
Eddie  Tangen,  San  Francisco,  Calif. ;  Prof.  I^roy  Waterman, 
Ann  Aibor,  Mich.;  Prof.  F.  W.  AVeymouth,  Los  Angeles,  Calif.; 
I'rof.  Rolland  Emerson  Wolfe,  Cleveland  Heights,  Ohio ;  and 
Rev.  Sam  Wright,  Boston,  IMass. 


292         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  EDITH  WYNNER,  NEW  YORK  CITY 

54  Riverside  Drive,  New  York  24,  N.  Y., 

October  28,  1952. 
Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield, 
Executive  Director, 

President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalisation, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Mt  Dear  Mr.  Rosenfield  :  Thank  you  for  your  telegram  informing  me  that 
while  it  is  not  possible  to  arrange  for  additional  testimony  on  the  McCarran- 
Walter  Act,  a  written  statement  would  be  acceptable. 

I  enclose  the  statement  I  had  prepared  and  would  appreciate  your  adding  it 
to  the  report  being  made  of  these  hearings. 

I  would  also  appreciate  being  put  on  the  mailing  list  of  your  Commission. 

Thanking  you  in  advance  and  with  best  wishes  for  the  success  of  your  efforts 
to  secure  revision  of  this  sadistic  and  un-American  legislation. 
Very  sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)  Edith  Wynner. 


McOarran-Walter  Act  Applies  a  Religious  Test  to  Alien  Pacifist  Appli- 
cants FOR  Citizenship 

Statement  of  Miss  Edith  Wynner  of  New  York,  former  secretary  of  the  Griffin- 
O'Day  Bill  Committee  to  reconcile  naturalization  procedure  with  the  Bill  of 
Rights  (1934-36)  ;  New  York  secretary  of  the  Campaign  for  World  Govern- 
ment (1937-42)  ;  vice  president  of  the  World  Movement  for  World  Federal 
Government  (1947-48)  ;  co-author  of  Searchlight  on  Peace  Plans:  Choose  Your 
Road  to  World  Government,  Dutton,  1944 ;  1949.  At  present  working  on  the 
biography  of  the  late  Rosika  Schwimmer. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  President's  Commission  on  Immigration 
and  Naturalization :  I  am  here  as  an  individual  concerned  with  the  swift  erosion 
by  legislation  and  administrative  practice  of  our  long-cherished  rights.  I  wish 
to  identify  myself  with  those  who  condemn  this  act  both  in  general  and  in 
particular.  I  have  read  it  a  number  of  times  and  become  more  convinced  with 
each  reading  that  its  entire  spirit  is  offensive  and  contrary  to  American  tradi- 
tions of  freedom  and  human  dignity. 

Judge  Learned  Hand  only  a  few  days  ago  warned  with  an  eloquence  that 
deserves  repetition,  of  the  dangers  that  concern  us  here,  when  he  said:  "I  be- 
lieve that  that  community  is  already  in  the  process  of  dissolution  *  *  * 
where  nonconformity  with  the  accepted  creed,  political  as  well  as  religious,  is 
a  mark  of  disaffection  *  *  *  where  orthodoxy  chokes  freedom  of  dissent ; 
where  faith  in  the  eventual  supremacy  of  reason  has  become  so  timid  that  we 
dare  not  enter  our  convictions  in  the  open  lists  to  win  or  lose." 

I  am  sure  that  the  various  provisions  of  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  have  been 
brought  under  critical  review  by  persons  testifying  before  you  throughout  the 
country.  I  wish  to  deal  briefly  with  a  provision  of  the  act  which  probably 
has  not  been  dealt  with  by  others  in  these  hearings  since  no  large  group  of 
people  are  directly  affected.  I  feel  strongly  about  it  because  it  violates  a  funda- 
mental principle  of  our  Constitution. 

I  refer  to  section  337  (a)  in  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  which  provides  for 
the  naturalization  of  aliens  who  show  "by  clear  and  convincing  evidence"  that 
they  are  "opposed  to  the  bearing  of  arms  *  *  *  hy  i-eason  of  religious 
training  and  belief     *     *     *" 

This  section  goes  on  to  define  the  term  "religious  training  and  belief"  to 
mean  "an  individual's  belief  in  a  relation  to  a  Supreme  Being  involving  duties 
superior  to  those  arising  from  any  human  relation,  but  does  not  include  essen- 
tially political,  sociological,  or  philosophical  views  or  a  merely  personal  moral 
code." 

This  section  requires  not  only  that  an  alien  pacifist  prove  the  sincerity  of 
his  or  her  convictions  against  participation  in  war  in  any  form  but  puts  a 
religious  test  upon  the  motivation  of  such  conviction.  I  submit  that  this  is  a 
violation  of  the  first  article  of  our  Bill  of  Rights  which  declares  that  "Congress 
shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof     *     *     *" 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         293 

By  freedom  of  religion  we  have  always  understood  also  freedom  to  have  no 
religion.  Those  conscientiously  opjiosed  to  participation  in  war  in  any  form, 
wliether  iiiternation;il.  civil,  or  class  war,  as  a  matter  of  record  come  of  various 
backgrounds  and  include  both  relit;ious  and  nonrellRious  individuals.  They 
have  but  one  conviction  in  comnmn  and  that  is  the  belief  that  it  is  wrong  to 
destroy  huninn  life.  Cons^ress  is  properly  concerned  with  the  question  of  the 
sincerity  with  which  such  a  conviction  is  held;  but  it  is  a  violation  of  our  Con- 
stitution for  Congress  to  require  not  merely  sincerity  but  sincerity  based  on 
religious  belief. 

I  consider  that  the  present  wordin;;  in  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  as  also 
that  in  the  Internal  Security  Act  of  1950  violates  our  constitutional  provision 
and  traditions  of  i-eligious  freedom  and  separation  of  church  and  state.  Justice 
Jaclison  in  a  recent  Supreme  Court  dissent  (Zorach  case)  warned  of  the  violation 
of  this  tradition  when  he  said  :  "The  day  that  this  country  ceases  to  be  free 
for  irreligion  it  will  cease  to  be  free  for  religion — except  for  the  sect  that  can 
win  political  power." 

I  trust  that  in  your  recommendations  regarding  revision  of  the  McCarran- 
Walter  Act  you  will  urge  changes  in  the  language  of  section  387  (a)  that  will 
bring  it  into  conformity  with  our  Bill  of  Rights  and  restore  the  right  of  naturali- 
zation to  the  nonreligious  objector.  I  believe  this  would  be  achieved  by  amend- 
ing this  section  to  read  as  follows ;  "*  *  *  except  that  a  person  who  shows 
by  clear  and  convincing  evidence  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  naturalization  court 
that  he  is  opposed  to  the  bearing  of  arms  in  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United 
States  i)y  rea.son  of  religious,  ethical,  hiunimlturiun,  or  philosophical  training 
and  belief     *     *     *" 

The  issue  of  the  naturalization  of  alien  pacifists  has  been  the  subject  of  Su- 
preme Court  decision  on  at  least  five  occasions  (Schwimmer,  Macintosh,  Bland, 
Girouard,  and  Cohnstaedt)  and  of  Inspiring  majority  and  dissenting  opinions 
which  have  been  a  continuing  source  of  inspiration  to  those  engaged  in  the 
unequal  struggle  for  the  preservation  and  extension  of  human  freedom. 

Both  the  recent  past  and  the  ail-too  painful  present  show  clearly  that  the 
decisive  gage  of  a  nation's  political  health  is  its  treatment  of  its  dissenters. 
Dissent  and  dissenters  are  abolished  in  all  totalitarian  lands,  whether  of  the 
right  or  of  the  left.  And  when  that  happens,  the  great  indifferent  majority  of 
the  population  suddenly  discovers,  but  too  late,  that  with  the  rights  of  the 
dissenter  the  rights  of  all  have  been  abolished.  We  are  already  dangerously  far 
advanced  along  the  paths  of  repression. 

When  we  impair  our  freedoms,  we  do  moi'e  than  merely  injure  ourselves 
for  these  United  States  of  America  have  been  a  symbol  of  mankind's  aspirations 
for  nearly  200  years.  We  are  not  just  any  other  nation  sovereignly  free  to 
follow  the  current  fads  of  repression  and  witch-hunting.  For  to  the  extent  that 
we  limit  or  infringe  freedom  in  America,  we  have  shattered  the  dream  and  hope 
of  freedom  of  mankind  everywhere. 

Justice  Holmes'  oft-quoted  words  from  his  immortal  dissenting  opinion  in 
the  Schwiunuer  case  are  more  pertinent  today  than  when  they  were  written. 
He  said ;  "*  «  *  if  there  is  any  principle  of  the  Constitution  that  more 
imperatively  calls  for  attachment  than  any  other  it  is  the  principle  of  free 
thought — not  free  thought  for  those  who  agree  with  us  but  freedom  for  the 
thought  that  we  hate.  I  think  that  we  should  adhere  to  that  principle  with 
regard  to  admission  into,  as  well  as  to  life  within,  this  country." 

1  iiope  your  Commission  will  be  guilded  by  this  courageous  concept  of  Amer- 
icanism and  that  it  will  work  to  revise  the  McCarran-Walter  Act  in  the  spirit 
that  it  expresses. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  STEPHEN  J.  KOVRAK,  ATTORNEY,  IN 
BEHALF  OF  POLISH-AMERICAN  CONGRESS,  INC.  (EASTERN  DIVI- 
SION), AMERICAN  RELIEF  FOR  POLAND  (PHILADELPHIA  DIVI- 
SION),   POLISH    AMERICAN    CITIZENS    LEAGUE    OF   PENNSYLVANIA 

Stephen  J.  Kovrak, 
StlS  Torresdale  Avenue,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  October  28,  1952. 

1'kesident's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Natttkalization, 

Executive  Offlces,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Gentlemen:  I  am  submitting  herewith  a  statement  of  the  Polish  nationality 
group  expressing  their  views  on  the  present  quota  system  as  it  pertains  to  the 


294         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

Polish  nation,  and  also  the  other  countries  that  represent  the  minority  in  the 
field  of  immigration. 

The  organizations  that  I  mentioned  on  the  statement  represent  practically  all 
of  the  area  in  and  around  Philadelphia. 

It  shall  be  appreciated  if  you  will  give  our  views  your  kind  consideration. 
Thanking  you,  I  am 
Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     Stephen    J.    Kovbak. 
Enclosure:  Statement  (4). 

President's  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization, 

Executive  Offices, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Gentlemen  :  A  careful  review  of  our  quota  system  reveals  inequities  that 
should  be  considered  intelligently  on  behalf  of  the  Polish  nationality  group. 

The  total  annual  quota  proclaimed  under  the  new  act  is  154,657,  effective 
January  1,  1953.  This  total  when  compared  on  an  over-all  basis  shows  that  in- 
justice is  done  to  most  of  the  European  countries  because  of  the  fact  that  70 
percent  of  the  total  quota  is  allocated  to  three  countries,  namely :  Germany, 
Great  Britain,  and  Ireland,  this  factor  shows  how  inequitable  the  distribution 
is  in  our  method  of  the  quota  system.  It  is  certain  that  the  population  of  these 
three  countries  does  not  equal  70  percent  of  the  total  in  Europe.  Poland's  quota 
is  not  considered  in  the  same  comparison,  for  if  it  was  the  quota  would  be  con- 
siderably higher  than  the  mere  6,500  which  is  allocated.  Poland  is  not  the  only 
country  that  seems  to  be  discriminated  against,  hut  there  are  other  countries 
in  Europe  that  have  been  treated  in  much  the  same  manner,  they  are :  Italy, 
France,  Belgium,  Netherland,  and  others. 

The  bill  as  it  stands  continues  for  practical  pui*poses  the  quota  system  which 
was  enacted  into  law  in  1924.  This  quota  system  as  viewed  with  our  progress  and 
American  ideals,  is  long  since  out  of  date  and  more  than  ever  unrealistic  in  the 
face  of  present  world  conditions.  Country-by-country  limitations  create  a  pat- 
tern that  is  objectionable  to  large  numbers  of  our  finest  citizens  because  of  the 
inequities. 

The  over-all  quota  limitation  under  the  law  of  1924,  restricted  annual  im- 
migration to  approximately  150,000.  This  was  about  one-seventh  of  1  percent 
of  our  total  population  in  1920.  Since  1920  our  population  has  grown  so  that 
the  law  now  allows  us  one-tenth  of  1  percent. 

Since  the  Americans  of  English,  Irish,  and  German  descent  were  most  numer- 
ous, immigrants  of  those  three  nationalities  got  the  lion's  share,  moi'e  than 
two-thirds  of  the  total  quota.  The  remaining  third  was  divided  up  among  all 
the  other  nations  given  quotas. 

The  qnota  for  Poland  is  only  6,500,  as  against  the  138,000  exiled  Poles,  all  over 
Europe,  who  are  asking  to  come  to  these  shores. 

In  no  other  realm  are  we  standing  still,  as  we  are  in  the  field  of  immigration. 
We  do  not  limit  our  cities  to  their  1920  boundaries,  we  welcome  progress  and 
change  to  meet  changing  conditions  in  every  sphere  of  life,  except  in  the  field  of 
immigration. 

We  request  your  kind  consideration  of  the  Polish  quota. 

Respectfully  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  following  organizations :  Polish  Amer- 
ican Congress,  Inc.  (Eastern  Division),  American  Relief  for  Poland  (Philadel- 
phia Division),  Polish  American  Citizens  League  of  Pennsylvania. 

Stephen  J.  Kovkak. 


STATEilENT  SUBMITTED  BY  OTTO  A.  HARBACH,  PRESIDENT,  AMERICAN 
SOCIETY  OF  COMPOSERS,  AUTHORS,  AND  PUBLISHERS 

American  Society  of  Composers,  Authors,  and  Publishers, 

575  Madison  Avenue,  New  York  22,  N.  Y.,  October  28,  1952. 
Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield, 

Executive  Director,  President's   Commission   on  Immigration  and  Nat- 
uralisation, Executive  Offlce,  Washington  25,  D.  C. 
Dear  Mr.  Rosenfield  :  In  keeping  with  my  letter  to  you  under  date  of  October 
10,  I  accept  your  invitation,  extended  to  me  as  president  of  the  American  Society 
of  Composers,  Authors  and  Publishers  ( ASCAP) ,  to  file  with  you  my  views  on  the 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         295 

matter  of  our  country's  iuimi.^ration  and  naluralization  iinlicit's.  I  tako  advau- 
tajiv  of  this  opportunity  in  the  belief  that  my  membership  in  tlie  society,  dating 
from  VM4 — aiul  espeeiaily  my  exiK-iience  as  its  president  durinj,'  the  hist  '6  years — 
iiualilii's  me  to  spealv  witli  coiisiiU'rahle  autliority.  1  liope  what  I  say  may  be 
helpful. 

1  am  particularly  (omerned  that  you  should  laiow  of  the  impressive  proportion 
of  foreiirn-bt)rn  creators  of  music  who  are  Americans  by  adoption.  Of  our  3,U(X) 
writer  (composer  and  autlior)  members,  40D  have  come  to  our  country  from  the 
lauds  of  their  birth.  It  is  true  that  these  fiifted  makers  of  music  misht  have 
jrone  to  great  heights  in  their  native  lands.  In  fact,  some  of  tliem,  after  achiev- 
ing greatness  in  the  hinds  of  their  birtli,  found  changing  c-onditions  repugnant  to 
their  continued  activities  in  their  Immelands  and  have  come  to  America  for  the 
free  use  of  their  God-given  talent.  Genius  never  has  thrived  in  strait-jackets,  nor 
liave  iron  curtains  Ijeen  uood  sounding  boards  for  the  makers  of  musical  works. 
Arbitrary  fornuilas  for  the  exercise  of  creative  talent  caiuint  bring  forth  the  great 
works  tliai  residt  from  free  play  of  such  talents  in  unrestricted  surroundings. 

My  earnest  api>eal,  therefore,  is  that  the  potentialities  of  nnisic  as  an  important 
factor  in  your  problems  be  kept  in  mind.  We  are  in  agreement,  I  am  sure,  that 
the  exchange  of  musical  cultures  among  nations  is  an  irreplaceable  contribution 
to  world  friendship.  The  arts  know  no  national  barriers.  .Music  as  an  inter- 
naticuial  language  expressing  the  fundamental  emotions  common  to  all  mankind 
promotes  sympathetic  understanding  beyond  the  reach  of  orotocol  and  treaty. 

To  document  my  appeal.  I  send  with  this  statement  the  latest  edition  of  the 
ASCAP  Biographical  Dicticmary.  I  direct  your  attention  to  page  054,  the 
aiipcMidix  listing  our  writer  members  by  places  of  birth.  This  is  in  confirmation 
of  my  statement  as  to  the  impi'essive  proportion  of  foreign-born  members — the 
creators  of  music  who  have  found  in  America  their  ideal  place  of  expression. 

I  have  no  specific  recommendations.  I  know  only  that  it  is  imperative  for  the 
healthy  development  of  creative  talent  within  our  shores  that  we  encourage  the 
flow  of  such  talent  into  our  own  musical  life.  I  have  skimmed  through  the 
names  of  our  foreign-born  members  to  select  a  few  of  the  outstanding  contributoi's 
to  the  musical  riches  we  are  proud  to  call  our  own.  Here  they  are,  alphabetically 
arranged : 

From  Australia,  Percy  Grainger;  Austria,  Fritz  Kreisler  and  Arnold  Schoen- 
berg ;  Canada,  R.  Nathaniel  Dett,  Percy  Faith,  Eugene  Lockhart,  Geoffrey  O'Hara, 
Gitz  Rice;  Czechoslovakia.  Rudolf  Friml,  Gustav  Mahler:  England,  Bruno  Huhn, 
Will  Kossiter,  Leopold  Stokowski,  P.  G.  Wodehouse ;  France,  Raymond  Bloeh, 
Carlos  Salzedo ;  Germany,  Richard  Czerwonky,  Walter  Damrosch,  Lnkas  Foss, 
Gustave  Kerker,  Kurt  Weill ;  Hungary,  Leopold  Atier.  Erno  Balogh.  Bela  Bartok, 
Emmerich  Kalman.  Erno  Rapee.  Sigmund  Romberg.  Tibor  Serly  :  Ireland.  Padraie 
Coluin,  Victor  Herbert,  Charles  P..  Lawlor;  Italy.  Gian  Carlo  Menotti.  Domenico 
Savino,  Cesare  Sodero,  Pietro  Yon :  Mexico.  Alfonso  D'Artego,  Mme.  Maria 
Grever  ;  Netherlands,  David  H.  Broekman,  Richard  Hageman,  Peter  Van  Steeden  ; 
Poland.  Isidor  Acbron,  Leopold  Godowsky ;  Romania,  Jacques  Wolfe ;  Scotland, 
R.  H.  Burnside :  Russia,  Joseph  Achron,  Irving  Berlin,  Vernon  Duke,  INIiscba 
Elman,  Igor  Gorin,  Samuel  Gardner,  Jascha  Heifetz,  Mischa  Levitski,  Sergei 
Rachmaninoff,  Laznre  Saminsky.  Igor  Stravinski,  Efrem  Zimbalist ;  Spain.  Vin- 
cent (jomez  and  I\lanuel  Garcia  Matos:  Swit/ei'land.  Ei'iiesf  Bloeh.  Rudolph 
Ganz;  Tinion  of  South  Africa,  Paul  Kerby,  Josef  Marais;  Wales,  David  McK. 
Williams,  Alec  Templeton. 

Let  us  be  sure  that  in  any  changes  of  our  laws  we  do  not  make  it  possible  for 
a  situation  to  ai'ise  which  would  keep  from  our  country  another  generation  of 
Victor  Herberts,  P.ela  P.artoks.  Sergei  Rachmaninoffs.  Fritz  Kreislers — creative 
writers  whose  genius  will  thrive  in  the  free  atniosiibere  of  America. 

Let  lis  .set  an  example  to  other  countries  by  extending  a  warm  welcome  tn  any 
such  who  may  onme  knocking  at  our  door.  We  nuist  welcome  genius  regardless 
of  the  spoken  language  of  its  birtliplace  for  in  this  we  will  be  following  the 
American  tradition  and  adding  to  the  already  vast  -store  of  musical  riches 
created  in  this  country. 

Trusting  my  views  may  have  consideration  of  your  Commission,  I  am, 
Respectfully, 

[s]     Otto  A.  Harrach, 
President,  American  Socicfii  of  CfniiposfT/^, 

Aitthora  and  Piihlixhcrs. 


296         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED  BY  C.  JAMES  TODARO,  ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

1131  North  Sixty-third  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa., 

September  29,  1952. 
Mr.  Philip  B.  Peblman, 

Chairman,  President's  Commission  on  Immioration  and  'Naturalization, 
llJt2  C  Street  NW.  {Third  Floor),  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Mr.  Perlman  :  Unable  to  attend  the  hearing  scheduled  by  your  Commis- 
sion in  New  York  on  September  30  and  October  1,  1952,  I  am  addressing  you  this 
letter  in  order  to  get  on  the  record  my  views  on  the  immigration  policy  that 
should  be  adopted. 

Our  entire  immigration  policy  has  been  based  upon  the  premise  that  the  influx 
of  immigration  from  southern  and  eastern  European  countries  would  affect  and 
change  the  racial  and  religious  make-up  of  our  country's  population.  This  pur- 
pose was  masked  by  allegations  of  racial  inferiority  and  low  intelligence  of 
peoples  coming  from  these  countries.  To  prevent  the  so-called  racial  and  religious 
unbalancing  of  our  Nation,  the  intelligence  test  and  the  quota  system  were  de- 
vised. The  quota  system,  as  established,  was  based  upon  the  census  of  1890 
and  favored,  as  was  the  purpose  of  the  framers  of  such  legislation,  the  so-called 
superior  Nordic  races,  with  the  result  that  a  much  larger  quota  was  assigned  to 
England,  Germany,  and  the  Scandanavian  countries  which  have  never  used  up 
the  yeaiiy  quota  assigned  to  them.  The  alleged  inferiority  of  southern  and 
eastern  European  peoples  has  been  amply  refuted  by  the  accomplishments  of 
the  relatively  few  immigrants  from  these  countries  who  were  permitted  to 
establish  themselves  here. 

It  is  my  opinion  that  this  wholly  fallacious  and  unfair  policy  should  be  revised 
and  an  equitable  law  enacted.  I  believe  that  a  realistic  approach  to  the  problem 
should  eliminate  any  discrimination  by  first  determining  the  number  of  immi- 
grants that  could  be  absorbed  yearly,  and  establish  a  quota  for  each  of  the  coun- 
tries, based  upon  the  degree  of  overpopulation  existing  in  said  countries,  and  a 
method  of  selectivity  adopted  which  would  be  based  upon  the  moral  and  physical 
fitness  of  the  immigrants,  irrespective  of  their  racial  or  religious  background. 

The  present  McCarran-Walter  Act  and  previous  laws  are  a  serious  affront  to 
a  large  segment  of  good,  substantial  American  citizens  who  have  given  over- 
whelming proof  of  their  moral  and  intellectual  fitness,  and  their  loyalty  and 
devotion  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution. 
Respectfully  yours, 

C.  James  Todaro. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  WILL  MASLOW.  DIRECTOR,   AMERICAN 
JEWISH  CONGRESS,  COMMISSION  ON  LAW  AND  SOCIAL  ACTION 

Amehjican  Jewish  Congress, 
Commission  on  Law  and  Social  Action, 
15  East  Eiffhty-fourth  Street,  Neiv  York  28,  N.  Y.,  October  29, 1952. 

Mr.  Philip  Perlman, 

Chairman,  PresidenVs  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization, 
Executive  Offices  of  the  President, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Mr.  Perlman  :  I  am  enclosing  copies  of  a  memorandum'  prepared  by  the 
American  Jewish  Congress  analyzing  the  racist  beginnings  of  the  national  origins 
quota  system  as  contained  in  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924. 

You  will  recall  that  the  American  Jewish  Congress  was  represented  by  a  state- 
ment submitted  in  its  behalf  by  Rabbi  Simon  Kramer  at  the  opening  of  the  Com- 
mission's hearings  last  month  in  New  York  City.  We  believe,  however,  that 
this  additional  memorandum  will  be  of  interest  and  assistance  to  the  Commission 
in  its  deliberations  and  we  ask  therefore  that  it  be  incorporated  into  the  Com- 
mission's permanent  record. 

If  you  believe  it  necessary  I  should  be  happy  to  appear  before  the  Commission 
to  explain  or  amplify  any  of  the  statements  or  findings  contained  in  this 
memorandum. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(S)     Will  Maslow. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         297 

American  Jewish  Congress 

Ax  Analysis  of  the  ILvcist  Origins  of  the  National  Origins  Quota  System 

OP  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924 

(Submitted  to  the  President's  Commission  on  Naturalization  and  Immigration, 

Washington,  D.  C,  October  29,  1952) 

memor.\ndum  on  racist  background  of  the  national  origins  quota  system 

lutroduction 

In  August  1948  the  American  Jewish  Congress  testified  before  the  Subcom- 
mittee To  Investigate  Immigration  and  Naturalization  of  the  Senate  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary  and  opposed  continued  use  of  the  national  oriiiius  (piota  system 
as  a  negation  of  democratic  principle.  Since  that  time  we  have  consistently 
maintained  that  the  national  origins  formula  saddles  this  country  with  an  immi- 
gration admissions  polity  which  impairs  our  domestic  well-being  and  embarrasses 
our  Government  in  the  conduct  of  its  foreign  relations. 

The  national  origins  forninla,  as  conceived  in  1924  and  as  administered  today, 
permits  the  entry  of  immigrants  not  in  terms  of  personal  character,  worth,  qual- 
ity or  suitability  but  exclusively  in  terms  of  geographic  origin.  Place  of  birth  has 
been  demonstrated  time  and  time  again  to  be  completely  irrelevant  to  any  con- 
sideration of  any  individual  fitness.  Because  of  the  rigidities  of  this  system, 
because  of  its  blind  allocation  of  the  largest  share  of  the  annual  allotment  of 
visas  to  those  nations  in  which  there  is  the  least  demaud  for  immigration, 
thousands  uiK)n  thousands  of  visas  are  wasted  each  year.  This  waste  is  doubly 
tragic  in  a  time  of  almost  unprecedented  need  for  immigration  opportunities 
for  peoples  from  depressed  and  overcrowded  sections  of  the  \\  orld. 

It  is  regrettable  that  so  thoroughly  discredited  a  principle  should  only  recently 
have  been  rewritten  into  our  immigration  laws  tiy  the  McCarran-Walter  Act 
adopted  by  the  Eighty-second  Congress.  As  President  Truman  noted  in  liis 
veto  of  that  bill :  "Our  present  quota  system  is  not  only  inadequate  to  meet 
present  emergency  needs,  it  is  also  an  obstacle  to  the  development  of  an  en- 
lightened and  satisfactory  immigration  policy  for  the  long-run  future." 

I'roponents  of  the  national  origins  formula  insistently  deny  that  it  embodies 
a  discriminatory  intent.  The  racist  objectives  of  those  who  devised  and  urged 
this  sy.stem  however  are  clearly  disclosed  by  a  review  of  the  events  leading  up 
to  the  framing  of  the  national  oi-igins  plan  and  by  analysis  of  its  legislative 
history,  including  the  hearings  and  reports  of  the  Senate  and  House  Committees 
on  Immigration,  the  debates  on  the  floor  of  the  Congress  and  the  statements  of 
those  responsible  for  its  drafting.  This  memorandum  proposes  to  provide  such 
a  review. 

Circumstances  have  altered  considerably  in  the  generation  and  more  that  has 
elapsed  since  1924.  We  have  acquired  a  substantial  body  of  experience  relating 
to  inunigration  not  available  to  the  framers  of  the  national  origins  principle. 
In  the  interim  our  methods  of  social  analysis  have  become  more  refined  and  our 
natiotial  ideas  and  purposes  have  become  clarified  and  strengthened.  The  sum  of 
these  changes  requires  critical  reappraisal  of  the  premises  upon  which  our 
immigration  law  is  built.  We  submit  that  fair  and  dispassionate  scrutiny  of  the 
beginnings  and  development  of  the  national  origins  j)rinciple  and  of  the  motives 
and  purposes  which  it  expresses  must  yield  the  conclusion  that  the  national 
origins  formula  is  racist  in  conception  and  operation  and  that  it  is  repugnant 
to  our  natioiuil  ideals. 

We  are  nut  unmindful  of  the  racist-ins] tired  restrictions  aimed  at  Asian  races 
in  tlie  Inunigration  Act  of  1924  or  of  the  racist  libels,  directed  at  Asian  groups 
in  the  debates  leading  up  to  the  adoption  of  that  law.  That  bias  was  so  pro- 
nounced that  such  races  were  completely  barred  from  the  country  and  were 
allotted  no  immigration  quotas  whatever.  But  we  believe  that  the  "antioriental 
bias  of  our  immigration  system  is  a  matter  of  such  notoriety  as  to  recpiire  little 
emphasis  here  to  bring  it  to  public  attention.  This  memorandum  therefore  is 
confined  to  a  discussion  of  the  little  known  and  less  well  understood  racist  bias 
against  southern  and  eastern  Europeans  embodied  in  the  national  origins  quota 
system. 

BacJiffronnd 

Ethnic  discrimination  iu  our  immigration  law  has  been  accomplished  l>v  three 
technicpK's  other  tliau  outright  exclusion  as  in  the  case  of  the  Japanese  and 
Chinese,   namely,    literacy    tests,    a    percentage   quota    system   and    finallv    the 


298  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

national  origin  quota  system.  The  first  attempt  to  limit  immigration  which  had 
its  base  in  racial  and  ethnic  bias  other  than  that  directed  at  the  Chinese  and 
Japanese  occurred  in  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress.  Until  that  time  Federal  re- 
strictive legislation  had  been  directed  against  contract  laborers  (27  Stat.  569, 
(1S93)).  paxipers  (18  Stat.  477.  (1882))  and  diseased,  incane,  and  criminal  im- 
migrants (26  Stat.  1084  (1891)).  Although  in  the  period  1835  to  1S60  the 
Nationalists  and  Know-Nothings  sought  State  and  Federal  legislation  against 
foreigners  and  attempted  to  exclude  immigrants  completely,  the.v  had  ])een  un- 
successful. In  fact,  national  legislation  to  protect  immigrants  from  the  dan- 
gers of  the  travel  of  that  day  were  passed  during  this  period  (vol.  39,  Doc.  No. 
758,  Reports  of  the  Immigration  Commission,  61st  Cong.,  3d  sess.  :^1910)). 

In  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress  (1896),  however,  a  bill  providing  for  the  exclusion 
from  the  United  States  of  persons,  physically  capable  and  over  16  years  of  age, 
who  could  not  read  and  write  some  langiuige  was  introduced.  This  literacy  test, 
until  it  became  a  part  of  our  immigration  laws  in  1917,  was  a  favorite  legislative 
goal  of  congressional  restrictionists  and  for  many  years  most  of  the  contro- 
versies concerning  the  racial  and  ethnic  basis  of  our  population  revolved  around 
the  adoption  of  such  a  test.  The  literacy  test,  introduced  in  the  Fifty-fourth 
Congress,  as  well  as  all  subsequent  literacy  tests,  was  specifically  directed  at 
southern  and  eastern  European  immigrants.  These  so-called  new  inunigrants 
in  contrast  to  the  old,  namely  those  from  northern  and  western  Europe,  had 
only  started  to  come  to  the  United  States  in  large  numbers  in  1880.  The  re- 
port of  tlie  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration  of  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress,  which 
contained  tables  attempting  to  show  that  the  immigrants  from  southern  Europe 
had  a  higher  ratio  of  illiterates,  criminals,  paupers,  and  slum  dwellers  than 
their  northern  and  western  colleagues,  explained  the  purpose  of  the  literacy  test 
in  this  period  in  these  words  : 

"*  *  *  the  literacy  test  will  affect  almost  entirely  those  races  whose  immi- 
gration to  the  United  States  has  begun  within  recent  time  and  which  are  most 
alien  in  language  and  origin  to  the  people  who  founded  the  13  colonies  and  which 
built  the  United  States  *  *  *"  ( S.  Kept.  No.  290,  54th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  22, 
23  (1896)). 

President  Cleveland  vetoed  the  bill.  However,  agitation  for  the  inclusion  of  a 
literacy  test  in  our  immigration  laws  continued.  Bills  providing  for  a  literacy 
test  were  introduced  in  almost  every  session  of  Congress  and  were  vetoed  by 
Presidents  Taft,  Cleveland,  and  Wilson.  The  motives  behind  this  legislative 
agitation  were  aptly  summed  up  in  the  1923  Report  of  the  Commissioner  General 
of  Immigration.     At  page  28  the  report  stated  : 

"Even  a  casual  survey  of  congressional  discussions  of  the  immigration  problem 
during  the  past  quarter  of  a  centur.v  demonstrates  very  clearly  that  while  the 
lawmakers  were  deeply  concerned  with  the  mental,  moral,  and  physical  quality 
of  immigrants,  there  developed  as  time  went  on  an  even  greater  concern  as  to  the 
fundamental  racial  character  of  the  constantly  increasing  numbers  who  came. 
The  record  of  alien  arrivals  year  by  year  had  shown  a  gradual  falling  off  in  the 
immigration  of  northwest  European  peoples,  representing  racial  stocks  which 
were  common  to  America  even  in  colonial  days,  and  rapid  and  remarkably  large 
increase  in  the  movement  from  southern  and  eastern  European  countries  and 
Asiatic  Turkey.  Immigration  from  the  last-named  sources  reached  an  annual 
average  of  about  750.000  and  in  some  years  nearly  a  million  came,  and  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  general  belief  in  Congress  that  it  would  increase  rather  than 
diminish.  At  the  same  time,  no  one  seems  to  have  anticipated  a  revival  of  the 
formerly  large  influx  from  the  'old  sources'  as  the  countries  of  northwest  Europe 
came  to  be  known. 

"This  remarkable  change  in  the  sources  and  racial  character  of  our  immigrants 
led  to  an  almost  continuous  agitation  of  the  immigration  problem  both  in  and  out 
of  Congress,  and  there  was  a  steadily  growing  demand  for  restriction,  particularly 
of  the  newer  movement  from  the  south  and  east  of  Europe.  Dnrmfi  the  f/rcatcr 
part  of  this  period  of  agitation  the  so-called  literaen  test  for  aliens  vas  the 
favorite  weapon  of  the  restrictionists  and  its  widespread  poniilaritii  apnears  to 
have  heen  based  quite  largely  on  a  belief,  or  at  least  a  hope,  that  it  would  reduce 
to  some  extent  the  stream,  of  neiv  imniifjration,  ahottt  one-third  of  which  was 
illiterate,  without  seriously  interfering  tvith  the  coming  of  the  older  type,  among 
whom  illiteracy  was  at  a  minimum."     [Italics  supplied.] 

In  1911,  a  report  by  the  Immigration  Commission,  the  Dillingham  Commission, 
set  up  ]>ursuant  to  the  Immigration  Act  of  1907  recommended  "the  exclusion  of 
those  unable  to  read  or  write  in  some  language"  as  "the  most  feasible  single 
method  of  restricting  undesirable  immigration."    It  also  suggested  "the  limita- 


COMMISSION    OX    lAIMIGRATIOX    AND    NATURALIZATION         299 

tion  of  the  iiiuiilicr  of  ('■•ich  r.-ico  iiiMivint;-  cadi  .Ncai-  to  a  certain  lun'oentage  of 
tlip  aveniK^  of  tJiat  race  airivins  diirinu  a  fjivcii  period  of  years."  (Conclusions 
and  HtH'onmiendations  of  the  Immigration  ( 'onuuission.  \).  40,  lUlO).' 

In  1917  the  agitation  for  a  literacy  test  culminated  in  the  passage  over 
President  Wilson's  veto  of  the  Immigration  Act  of  1917  excluding  aliens  over  16 
years  unable  to  read  in  any  language. 

Quota  si/stems 

After  World  War  I  inunigration  continued  to  he  one  of  Congress'  chief  con- 
cerns. During  the  congressional  sessions  of  1919,  1920,  and  1921  various  restric- 
tive bills  were  introduced.  These  hills  employed  the  quota  or  percentage  tech- 
nique which  was  one  of  the  recommendations  of  the  1910  Dillingham  Commis- 
sioin.  that  is,  they  provided  for  quotas  for  each  nationality  to  be  determined  on 
a  basis  of  a  certain  percent  of  the  numl)er  of  foreign  born  in  the  United  States 
on  a  certain  date.  The  crucial  question  and,  of  course,  the  sub.iect  of  almost 
all  debate  and  discussion,  both  on  the  floor  of  Congress  and  during  the  hearings 
on  the  various  quota  bills  up  to  and  including  the  hearings  on  the  1)111  which  was 
to  become  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924 — was  what  date  was  to  be  selected  as  the 
so-called  quota  base.  As  has  been  shown,  the  so-called  new  immigration,  that 
from  southern  and  eastern  Europe,  began  to  arrive  about  1S8(),  and  except  for 
the  war  period  continued  in  ever  increasing  numbers  until  about  1920.  During 
the  same  i)eriod,  the  old  immigration,  that  from  northern  and  western  Europe, 
declined  to  some  extent.  From  1914  immigration  from  southern  and  eastern 
l^urope  was  about  four  times  as  large  as  that  from  northern  and  western  Europe 
(S.  Rep.  No.  9ri0,  SOth  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  1948).  Thus  it  can  be  easily  seen  that 
.selection  of  the  year  1890  as  the  quota  base  would  inevitably  limit  the  num^ier 
of  immigrants  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  and  give  preference  to  immi- 
grants from  northern  and  western  Europe.  Correspondingly,  selection  of  1920 
as  the  base  would  require  giving  recognition  in  the  quota  to  the  large  numbers 
of  foreign  born  from  southern  and  central  Europe  who  had  reached  these  shores 
since  ISSO  and  thus  would  insure  large  quotas  for  southern  and  central  Europe. 

As  is  shown  below,  the  Federal  lawmakers  of  that  period  were  not  unaware 
of  tlie  significauce  of  the  choice  of  date  for  a  quota  base,  nor  were  they  at  all 
shy  about  publicly  espousing  a  particular  date  solely  because  it  had  the  effect 
of  limiting  immigration  from  certain  portions  of  the  world. 

The  first  quota  act  was  enacted  and  signed  by  President  Harding  in  1921 
(42  Stat.  5).  It  set  a  ceiling  of  about  350.000  immigrants  annually  by  limiting 
the  number  of  any  nationality  admitted  to  3  percent  of  foreign-born  persons 
of  such  nationality  in  the  United  States  as  determined  by  the  census  of  1910. 

The  House  report,  accompanying  the  hill  (H.  R.  4075)'  which  later  became 
the  Immigration  Act  of  1921  expressly  gave  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  adopting 
1910  as  a  quota  base,  the  fact  that  by  so  doing  a  preference  was  given  to  the 
so-called  old  immigration.     The  House  report  pointed  out  tliat — 

"The  1910  figures  are  available  and  give  a  substantial  base  established  on 
what  is  known  as  the  "old  immigration,"  which  has  become  more  permanently 
fixed  in  the  United  States  than  the  "new  immigration"  which  came  in  large 
numbers  during  the  decade  from  1900-1910  and  was  coming  in  still  larger 
numbers  during  the  year  following  1910,  and  has  been  suspended  by  the  European 
war  and  has  been  resumed  since  July  1920"  (H.  Rept.  No.  4,  67th  Cong.,  1st 
sess.,  1921). 

Illustrative  of  the  thinking  of  the  State  Department,  the  ma.iority  of  the 
House  Immigration  Committee  and  particularly  of  Albert  Johnson,  chairman 
of  the  committee,  as  to  the  type  of  inunigrants  to  be  expected  from  southern 
and  central  Europe  and  the  desirability  and  necessity  of  restricting  such  immi- 
gration, are  the  following  abstracts  of  State  Department's  reports  Avhich  were 
made  a  part  of  the  House  committee's  report  accompanying  H.  R.  407;")  and 
presented  to  the  House  by  Representative  Johnson.  At  page  11,  appendix  A. 
the  House  report  states : 

"Warsaic. — Attention  is  directed  to  the  character  of  the  ma.iority  of  the 
persons  who  are  now  leaving  Poland  for  the  United  States.  Only  by  a  visit 
to  the  Ellis  Island  station  will  it  be  possible  for  one  in  the  Tinited  States  to 
comprehend  the  nature  of  these  people,  if  he  has  never  seen  them  in  their  native 
environment.     At  the  present  time  it  is  only  too  obvious  that  they  must  be  sub- 


X- * '^^o  ^^^P®*"^ *'^  ^^^  Immigration  Commission.     Dictionary  of  Racos  or  reoplps  (S    Dor 
ISO.  6(>2    61st  Cong     3d  sess.,  p.  171)  clas.sifiecl  Jews  as  a  race  under  the  terms  "Hebrew," 


'Jewish,"  or  "Israelite 
25.35«— 52 2(» 


300         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

normal,  and  their  normal  state  is  of  very  low  standard.  Six  years  of  war  and 
confusion  and  famine  and  pestilence  have  racked  their  bodies  and  twisted  their 
mentality.  The  elders  have  deteriorated  to  a  marked  degree.  Minors  have 
grown  into  adult  years  with  the  entire  period  lost  in  their  rightful  development 
and  too  frequently  with  the  acquisition  of  the  perverted  ideas  which  have  flooded 
Europe  since  1914     *     *     *. 

"A  second  predominant  feature  in  the  whole  movement  of  these  emigrants 
of  all  classes  is  their  reason  for  proceeding  to  the  United  States.  A  pitiably 
small  percentage  is  moving  with  a  fixed  purpose. 

"Hundreds,  both  Jewish  and  Christian,  or  of  no  religious  profession,  have 
been  asked  why  they  wish  to  go  to  America.  The  answer  almost  invariably  Is, 
'Please,  mister,  we  have  rich  relatives  there.  We  can  find  an  easier  life.'  These 
are  not  the  Europeans  of  a  sturdier  day,  who  in  family  conference  sternly 
resolved  on  the  great  adventure  and  set  forth  on  imknown  wastes  to  the  new 
America  across  the  seas.  These  are  not  those  who  hewed  the  forests,  founded 
the  towns,  fought  the  savages,  breasted  the  storms  of  wilderness,  conquered  the 
wastes  and  built  America.  These  are  beaten  folk,  spirits  broken,  in  effect, 
driven  from  their  European  habitat  into  the  west.  They  have  no  desire  to  form 
and  build.  They  will  exist  on  what  has  been  prepared  for  them  by  a  better 
people     *     *     *. 

"kumania  , 

"Bucharest. — A  large  number  of  undesirable  aliens  are  applying  for  permission 
to  proceed  to  the  United  States.  Besides  being  as  a  class  economic  parasites, 
tailors,  small  salesmen,  butchers,  etc.,  they  are  not  unsympathetic  with  Bolshevik 
ideas     *     *     *_ 

"The  class  of  persons  who  form  the  majority  of  emigrants  from  Besarabia 
offer  no  particular  value  to  our  country  as  productive  labor,  but  rather  increase 
our  burden  of  petty  middlemen  with  ideas  of  moral  and  business  dealings  difficult 
to  assimilate  wifh  our  own. 

"RUSSIAN    CAUCASUS 

"Tiflis  *  *  *  tjjg  great  bulk  of  emigi-ants  to  the  United  States  from  this  dis- 
trict are  highly  undesirable  as  material  for  future  American  citizens.  They  are 
not  only  illiterate,  but  the  years  of  unsettled  conditions  which  they  have  been 
forced  to  live  have  caused  them  to  lose  the  habit  of  work.  Their  physical  and 
moral  courage  is  greatly  depleted,  as  well  as  their  physical  constitutions.  The 
bulk  of  them  have  been  habituated  either  to  lawlessness  or  to  the  exercise  of 
violence  in  the  name  of  the  law  for  so  long  that  if  not  actually  impregnated  with 
Bolshevism  they  are  good  material  for  Bolshevik  propaganda. 

"Our  restrictions  on  immigration  should  he  so  rigid  that  it  tvonid  be  impossible 
for  most  of  these  people  to  enter  the  United  States.  Refereixce  is  especially  made 
to  Armenians,  Jeics,  Persians,  and  Russians  of  the  ordinary  classes,  all  of  which 
have  been  so  driven  hither  and  thither  since  Idllf  that  they  cannot  be  regarded  as 
desirable  populations  for  any  country.  There  are,  of  course,  many  individual 
creeptions.     [Italics  supplied.] 

"MESOPOTAMIA 

"Bagdad. — It  is  estimated  that  5,000  Armenians  and  20.000  Assyrians  would 
proceed  Immediately  to  the  United  States  but  for  the  lack  of  funds  and  present 
restrictions.  Rigid  restrictions  are  recommended,  in  vicir,  of  the  fact  that  the 
present  popnlation  of  the  United  States  is  becoming  too  heterogeneous. 

"The  prospects  for  1921  are  that  there  will  be  a  small  immigration  from 
Belgium  proper  but  an  increased  number  of  Poles  and  Czechoslovaks  and  other 
central  Europeans  passing  through  its  ports  practically  all  bound  for  tlie  United 
States.  The  severest  kind  of  control  should  be  exercised  over  these  immigrants 
from  central  Europe  as  this  type  of  immigrant  is  not  desirable  from  any  point  of 
view  at  this  time." 

As  part  of  his  testimony  during  the  hearings  by  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Immigration.  Sixty-sixth  Congress,  third  session.  1921,  Representative  Johnson 
included  additional  State  Department  reports,  allegedly  transmitted  to  him  b.v 
Wilbur  Carr  of  the  consular  service.  These  reports  also  dwell  on  the  so-called 
inferior  "quality"  of  the  new  immigration,  for  example  the  report  states  with 
respect  to  emigrants  from  Italy,  Netherlands,  Poland,  and  Turkey  as  follows : 


COMMISSION    OX    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         301 

"ITALY 

'•A  large  proportion  of  alit'iis  from  this  district  goinj:  to  the  United  States 
are  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of  the  American  Government.  This  is  not  due 
to  any  Bolshevist  or  Communist  tendency  on  their  part,  hnt  to  their  standards  of 
living  and  their  characteristics,  which  render  them  unassiinilable. 

"Practically  all  the  emigrants  from  this  district  are  of  the  peasant 
class.  For  the  most  part  they  are  small  in  stature  and  of  a  low  order  of 
intelligence     *     *     *. 

"NETHERLANDS 

'•Rotterdam. — The  great  mass  of  aliens  passing  through  Rotterdam  at  the 
present  time  are  Kussian  I'oles  or  Polish  Jews  of  the  usual  ghetto  type.  Most 
of  them  are  more  or  less  directly  frankly  getting  out  of  Poland  to  avoid  war  con- 
ditions.    They  are  filthy,  un-American,  and  often  dangerous  in  their  habits. 

"POLAND 

"Warsaw. — Concerning  the  general  characteristics  of  aliens  emigrating  to  the 
United  States  from  Poland  and  the  occupation  and  trade  followed  by  them  re- 
IX)rts  indicate  such  to  be  substantially  as  follows : 

******* 

'•(e)  At  the  moment  90  percent  may  be  regarded  as  a  low  estimate  of  the  pro- 
portion representing  the  Jewish  race  among  emigrants  to  America  from  Poland. 

"(/)  Tlie  unassimilability  of  those  classes  politically  is  a  fact  too  often  proved 
in  the  past  to  bear  any  argument. 

"turkey 

'Conjitantinoplc. — The  emigrants  from  this  part  of  the  world  are  exclusively 
raw  laborers,  waiters,  and  servants  who  are  intellectually  incapable  of  being 
dangerous."  (Statement  by  Representative  Johnson,  hearings  before  Senate 
Committee  on  Immigration  on  H.  R.  14461,  p.  10,  66th  Cong.,  3d  sess.,  1921.)" 

That  the  views  of  Chairman  Johnson  of  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration 
were  shared,  at  that  time  l)y  his  counterpart  in  the  Senate,  Senator  Reed,  chair- 
man of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  is  shown  by 
the  following  revealing  statements  made  by  the  latter  during  the  course  of  the 
Senate  hearings  on  S.  4303,  dealing  with  immigration  of  contract  labor,  Sixty- 
seventh  Congress,  fourth  session,  1923. 

"Senator  Reed  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Emory,  would  it  conflict  with  the  success 
of  your  scheme  [1.  e.,  contract-labor  scheme]  to  limit  the  nationalities  with 
which  these  contracts  might  be  made  so,  if  possible,  to  get  labor  from  those  na- 
tions whose  people  assimilate  better  with  Americans?  (p.  21). 

"Senator  Reed.  Assume  that  the  British  quota  will  be  exceeded  this  year,  and 
that  there  will  be  a  large  numl)er  of  British  subjects  turned  away,  cannot  we 
make  adjustment  of  the  quota  which  will  let  them  in,  without  opening  up  the 
large  number  of  those  from  the  Mediterranean  countries  and  others  who  do  not 
assimilate?"  [italics  supplied]   (p.  21),- 

"It  would  not  help  the  farmer,  would  it,  to  increase  the  population  of  Polish 
Jews  on  the  east  side  of  New  York  or  increase  the  number  of  Greeks  that  came 
over  and  settle  in  our  cities ;  you  do  not  mean  that  kind  of  immigration,  do  you, 
Mr.  Silver?"   (p.  75). 

Altliough  the  Quota  Act  of  1921  expired  by  its  terms  on  June  30,  1922,  it  was 
extended  for  2  years  by  the  act  of  May  11,  1922. 

During  the  entire  time  the  law  was  in  effect,  there  was  continuous  agitation 
to  curtail  immigration  further,  and  considerable  time  was  given  by  committees 
of  both  Houses  of  Congress  to  the  discussion  of  legislation  to  be  put  into  effect 
as  its  expiration. 

During  this  period.  Dr.  Harry  II.  Laughlin,  of  the  Carnegie  Institute,  was  ap- 
pointed eugenics  agent  by  the  House  Conmiittee  on  Immigration  and  Naturali- 
zation. On  November  21, 1922,  at  the  hearings  by  the  committee,  Laughlin  issued 
his  famous  Analysis  of  America's  Modern  Melting  Pot.  This  was  supposed  to 
be  a  study  of  the  "occurrence  of  tiie  degree  of  specific  degeneracy  within  the  na- 
tivity and  racial  gi-oups  of  the  United  States  so  as  to  ascertain  "the  effectiveness 
of  the  immigration  laws  and  regulations  in  keeping  out  the  legally  excluded  classes 
and  a  study  of  *  *  *  the  effect  of  the  present  immigration  situation  and 
policy  in  reference  to  race  conservation  in  the  United  States"  (hearings,  p.  730). 


302  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

The  study  involved  a  computation  of  the  so-called  socially  inadequate  persons 
in  all  the  custodial  institutions  in  the  country.  These  included  lunatics,  lepers, 
feeble  minded,  drunkards,  epileptics,  the  deaf,  the  crippled,  tubercular,  and  the 
dependent  poor.  These  .aroups  were  analyzed  and  divided  on  the  basis  of  nativity 
and  racial  origin.  Laughlin  then  arrived  at  a  ratio  which  he  called  a  particular 
nationality's  quota  fulfillment.  This  was  a  figure  reached  by  comparing  the 
ratio  a  particular  nationality  group  bore  to  the  total  population  with  the  ratio 
that  the  social  inadequates  of  that  nationality  group  bore  to  the  total  number  of 
social  inadequates  in  the  institutions  of  the  country.  A  quota  fulfillment  of  over 
100  indicated  that  the  ratio  of  social  iuadeciuates  of  a  particular  racial  origin  to 
the  total  number  of  social  inadequates  of  all  racial  origins  in  institutions  exceeded 
the  ratio  the  persons  of  the  particular  racial  origin  in  the  United  States  bore  to 
the  total  population  of  the  United  States. 

With  respect  to  insanity,  Laughlin  concluded :  "Making  all  allowances  for  any 
possible  shock  or  strain  on  personality  due  to  immigration  and  the  shifting  of 
homes  and  social  condition  and  the  differential  occupations  and  economic  pros- 
perity this  high  incidence  shows  that  the  immigrants  of  the  present  generation 
have  a  higher  incidence  of  mental  instability  than  was  possessed  by  our  founda- 
tion families."  '     - 

Dr.  Laughlin  discussed  the  sub.iect  of  immigrant  crime  as  follows : 

"The  countries  which  run  lowest  in  crime  are  those  which  have  contributed 
most  of  the  elementary  foundation  of  the  population  of  the  United  States — such 
as  Great  Britain,  Scandinavia,  Ireland,  Germany,  and  the  Netherlands.  North- 
western Europe  as  a  whole  fulfilled  her  quota  only  83.85  percent ;  Great  Britain 
only  37.97  percent,  Canada,  a  kindred  country,  6r».49  percent.  Those  immigrant 
groups  that  run  high  in  crime  are  from  the  countries  of  southern  and  eastern 
Europe.  This  part  of  Europe  as  a  whole,  fulfilled  her  quota  by  141.25  percent. 
Italy  shows  218.49  percent ;  Spain  660  percent.  /«  fact  the  so-called  old  immicira- 
tion  or  foundation  stocks  run  rclnfirclji  Into  in  criwc.  irhcrcas  the  neir  inimifira- 
tion  from  southern  and  eastern  Eurone  runs  relatirely  hi'^'h  in  this  type  of  sorinJ 
defect  as  ve  find  it  in  custodial  institutions  of  the  Vnited  8tates  '*  *  *" 
[Italics  sup])lied.] 

"The  studies  in  crime  covered  the  most  degenerate  and  antisocial  types  of 
conduct.  Because  of  the  higher  incidence  of  criminalistic  conduct  in  this  country 
shown  by  the  new  immigration  compared  to  that  shown  by  the  present-day  immi- 
grants from  the  nations  which  supplied  our  foundation  stocks,  it  makes  one 
wonder  ichether  this  lack  of  adjustment  is  due  to  differences  in  social  traininff 
and  ideals — the  Southern  European  having  teen  trained  to  one  set  of  ideals  and 
finds  in  America  a  neiv  hasis  of  conduct  to  govern  him,  while  the  Northern  and 
Western  European  finds  here  the  same  requirements  u-hic-h  he  has  heen  used  to 
meeting  in  his  countr-j/.  Is  this  a  difference  in  training  or  a  biological  difference 
in  the  natural  reactions  of  the  stocks?  Is  one  more  law-a))iding  than  the  other? 
If  the  difference  is  in  the  training  and  customary  conduct,  then  we  must  either 
change  our  own  ideals  and  legal  standards  or  require  a  change  on  the  part  of 
immigrants.  *  *  *  If,  however,  the  failure  to  meet  our  requirements  in  refer- 
ence to  conduct,  not  involving  crime  is.  in  the  eases  fotmd  and  reported  sta- 
tistically based  upon  fundamental  hereditary  differences,  then  the  admission  of 
such  persons  means  the  change  of  the  ultimate  inborn  social  capacities  of  the 
Americans  of  the  future  to  the  degree  measured  by  tlie  relative  numbers  by  such 
persons  who  may  become  parents  in  this  coimtry"  (hearings  before  the  House 
Committee  on  Immigrations,  p.  742,  67th  Cong.,  Bd  sess.  (Nov.  21.  1922).  serial 
7c). 

Dr.  Laughlin  appears  to  have  answered  the  questions  as  to  whether  the  ne"w 
immigrants'  allegedly  higher  crime  rate  was  hereditary  in  the  affirmative.  He 
said : 

"After  making  due  allowance  for  the  ma.ior  factors  which  should  be  considered 
in  the  interpretation  of  these  statistics,  the  logical  conclusion  is  that  the  dif- 
ference in  institutional  I'atios  by  races  and  nativity  groups  found  by  these 
studies  represent  real  differences  in  social  values,  which  represent,  in  turn,  real 
differences  in  the  inborn  values  of  the  family  stocks  from  which  the  immigrant 
springs"  (Id.  at  pp.  752-755). 

Dr.  Laughlin's  summary  and  conclusions  were  as  follows  : 

"The  outstanding  conclusion  is  that  making  all  logical  allowances  for  environ- 
mental conditions  which  may  be  favorable  to  the  immigrant,  the  recent  immi- 
grants as  a  whole  present  a  higher  percentage  of  inborn  sociallg  inadequate 
qualities  than  do  the  older  stocks"  (Id.  at  p.  755).     [Italics  supplied.] 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION         303 

Probably  influenced  by  the  Laughlin  report,  the  House  Committee  on  Immi- 
gration, in  February  1924,  favorably  reported  out  a  bill,  H.  R.  6540,  which 
used  the  census  of  1890  as  the  base  and  reduced  the  quota  from  its  1921  figure 
of  3  percent  to  2  percent.  The  House  report  accomi)anyiiig  II.  R.  0540  ex- 
plained the  reason  for  the  change  in  these  words : 

"An  impelling  reason  for  the  change  is  that  its  desire  to  slotv  doicn  the 
streams  of  the  tiipe  of  immigrants,  whieli  are  not  easily  assimilated.  Nat- 
uralization does  not  necessarily  mean  assimilation.  The  naturalization  proc- 
ess cannot  tvork  well  mth  the  continued  arrival  in  larf/e  numbers  of  the 
so-called  neto  immigrants.  The  new  type  crowds  in  the  larger  cities.  It  is 
■exploited,  it  gains  but  a  slight  knowledge  of  America  and  American  situations, 
it  has  grown  to  be  a  great  undigested  mass  of  alien  thought,  alien  sympathy, 
and  alien  purpose.  It  is  a  menace  to  the  social,  political,  and  economic  life 
of  the  country.  It  creates  alarm  and  apprehension  *  *  *."  (Reoort  No. 
176,  p.  3,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  Feb.  9, 1924.)      [Italics  supplied.] 

The  minority  report  filed  by  Representative  Sabath  condemned  the  adop- 
tion of  the  1890  census  as  a  quota  base.    It  stated  : 

"It  is  curious  to  note  that  taking  the  census  of  1890  as  a  liasp,  Germany 
would  be  comparatively  in  the  most  favorable  position  and  Belgium,  Bohemia 
(Czechoslovakia),  Yugoslavia,  Poland,  and  Russia  with  whom  we  were  allied 
during  the  late  conflict  in  the  most  unfavorable.  The  obvious  purpose  of  this 
discrimination  is  the  adoption  of  an  unfounded  anthropological  theory  that 
the  nations  which  are  unfavored  are  the  progeny  of  fictitious  and  hitherto 
unsuspected  Nordic  ancestors,  while  those  discriminated  against  are  not  clas- 
sified as  belonging  to  that  mythical,  ancestral  stock.  No  scientific  evidence  worthy 
of  consideration  was  introduced  to  substantiate  this  pseudo-scientific  purpose. 
It  is  pure  fiction  and  the  creation  of  a  journalistic  imagination  *  *  *.  The 
majority  report  indicates  that  some  of  those  who  have  come  from  various  coun- 
tries are  nonassimilable  or  slow  to  assimilation.  No  facts  are  offered  in  support 
of  such  a  statement.  The  preponderance  of  testimony  adduced  before  the  com- 
mittee is  to  the  contrary.    What  is  meant  by  assimilation  is  difficult  of  definition." 

Secretary  Hughes  wrote  the  House  committee  inter-alia  that  the  1890  census 
which  had  the  effect  of  reducing  immigrants  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe 
from  44.6  to  15.3  percent  of  the  total  would  be  likely  to  offend  Italy,  Rumania, 
and  other  countries  which  considered  the  legislation  "as  an  unjust  discrimina- 
tion, de  facto  if  not  de  jure,  enacted  to  the  detriment  of  a  friendly  nation." 
Letters  of  protest  from  these  countries  were  received  (65  Congressional  Record 
5586,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924),  and  formed  the  basis  of  much  debate  in  Con- 
gress, the  gist  of  which  consisted  of  protests  against  foreign  dictation  and  ex- 
hortations to  resist  foreign  influences.     (Id.  at  pp.  6462,  6466.) 

Secretary  of  State  Hughes'  letter  was  followed  by  an  exchange  of  correspond- 
ence between  him  and  the  House  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Committee 
(hearings,  pp.  1193-1227,  68th  Cong.,  1st  and  2d  sess.,  1924),  resulting  in  so 
many  changes  that  a  new  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  (H.  R.  7995).  As 
reported  out  of  the  House  Immigration  Committee,  the  bill  provided  a  base  quota 
for  each  nationality  of  100  immigrants,  plus  an  additional  number  to  be  de- 
termined on  the  basis  of  2  percent  of  the  foreign  born  of  such  nationality,  resident 
in  the  United  States  as  determined  by  the  census  of  1890.  A  majority  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Immigration  explaining  the  selection  of  1890  as  the  base 
date  stated : 

"Since  it  is  the  axiom  of  political  science  that  a  government  not  imposed  by 
external  force  is  the  visible  expression  of  the  ideals,  standards,  and  social  view- 
point of  the  people  over  which  it  rules,  it  is  obvious  that  a  change  in  the  character 
or  composition  of  the  population  must  inevitably  result  in  the  evolution  of  a  form 
of  government  consonant  with  the  base  upon  which  it  rests.  //,  therefore,  the 
principles  of  individual  liberty,  yuardcd  by  a  constitutional  government  created 
on  this  continent  nearly  a  century  and.  a  half  ago,  is  to  endure,  the  basic  strain  of 
our  population  must  be  maintained  and  our  economic  standards  preserved. 
[Italics  supplied.] 

"With  the  full  recognition  of  the  material  progress  which  we  owe  to  the  races 
from  southern  and  eastern  Europe,  we  are  conscious  that  the  continued  arrival 
of  great  numbers  tends  to  upset  our  balance  of  population,  to  depress  our  stand- 
ard of  living,  and  to  unduly  charge  our  institutions  for  the  care  of  the  socially 
inadequate.     [Italics  supplied.] 

"If  immigration  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  may  enter  the  United 
States  on  a  basis  of  substantial  equality  with  that  admitted  fi-om  the  older 
sources  of  supply,  it  is  clear  that  if  any  appreciable  nund)er  of  inuuigrants  are 


304         COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION 

to  be  allowed  to  land  upon  our  shores  the  balance  of  racial  preponderance  must 
in  titne  pass  to  those  elements  of  the  population,  ivho  reproduce  more  rapidly  on 
a  lower  standard  of  living  than  those  possessing  other  ideals.  [Italics  supplied.] 
"We  owe  impartial  justice  to  all  those  who  have  established  themselves  in  our 
midst.  They  are  entitled  to  share  in  our  prosperity.  The  contribution  of  their 
genius  to  the  advancement  ol:  our  national  welfare  is  recognized.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  American  people  do  not  concede  the  right  of  any  foreign  group  in  the 
United  States  or  government  abroad,  to  deniand  a  participation  in  our  possessions, 
tangible  or  intangible,  or  to  dictate  the  character  of  our  legislation. 

"How  can  we  frame  a  restrictive  immigration  law  to  meet  the.se  conditions? 

"The  adoption  of  the  1890  census  will  accomplish  an  equitable  apportionment 
between  the  emigration  originating  in  northwestern  Europe  and  in  southern  and 
eastern  Europe,  respectively.  This  principle  has  been  embodied  in  the  bill 
presented  by  your  committee.  Late  arrivals  are  in  all  fairness  not  entitled 
to  special  privilege  over  those  who  have  arrived  at  an  earlier  date  and  thereby 
contributed  more  to  the  advancement  of  the  Nation"  (report  to  accompany  H.  R. 
7995,  pp.  13-14,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924). 

A  minority  report  was  filed,  vigorously  protecting  the  discriminatory  purpose 
of  the  bill  in  these  words : 

"The  obvious  purpose  of  this  discrimination,  however  much  it  may  now  be 
disavowed,  is  the  adoption  of  an  unfounded  anthropological  theory  that  tlie 
nations  which  are  favored  are  the  progeny  of  the  fictitious  and  hitherto  unsus- 
pected Nordic  ancestors,  while  those  discriminated  against  are  not  classified  as 
belonging  to  that  mythical  ancestral  stock.  No  scientific  evidence  worthy  of 
consideration  was  introduced  to  substantiate  this  pseudo-scientific  proposition. 
It  is  pure  invention  and  the  creation  of  a  journalistic  imagination.  All  we  know 
is  that  these  immigrants  are  all  human  beings  and  none  of  them  is  regarded  by 
the  majority  of  the  committee  as  undesirable  as  long  as  they  meet  the  test  of  the 
act  of  1917.     *     *     » 

"The  majority  report  insinuates  that  some  of  those  who  have  come  from  foreign 
countries  are  nonassimilable  or  slow  of  assimilation.  No  facts  are  offered  in 
support  of  such  a  statement.  The  preponderance  of  testimony  adduced  before 
the  committee  is  to  the  contrary,     •i'      *     * 

"The  majority  report,  in  like  manner,  treats  with  scant  courtesy  the  official 
communication  addressed  to  our  Department  of  State  by  the  diplomatic  repre- 
sentatives of  Italy  and  Rumania.  These  courteous  communications  which  asked 
that  there  be  no  discrimination  in  our  legislation  against  nationals  of  these 
several  governments  are  treated  as  an  attempt  on  their  part  to  inerfere  with 
Congress.  Our  own  history  is  replete  with  examples  where  we  protested  against 
similar  acts  of  discrimination  against  our  nationals  in  other  lands  and  our 
action  received  the  enthusiastic  support  of  the  American  people.  These  gov- 
ernments are  in  no  way  seeking  to  control  our  legislation.  They  are  merely 
doing  what  any  self-respecting  nation  would  do  under  like  circumstances.  They 
are  asking,  in  manner  consonant  with  their  dignity  and  ours,  that  we  shall  not 
discriminate  against  their  nationals." 

"The  suggestion  contained  in  the  majority  report,  that  the  adoption  of  the 
1890  census  would  accomplish  an  equitable  apportioinnent  between  immigration 
originating  in  northern  and  western  Europe  and  that  emanating  from  southern 
and  eastern  Europe  is  based  on  a  palpable  injustice.  *  *  *  jj-  likewise 
ignores  the  important  consideration  that  it  has  been  our  proud  boast  that  hitherto 
we  have  not  distinguished  between  men  because  of  their  race,  creed,  or  nationality. 

"We  of  the  minority  make  no  distinction  between  the  various  geograpliical 
divisions  of  Europe  and  entertain  no  prejudice  against  the  various  nationalities. 
We  seek  to  judge  men  by  their  inherent  worth  and  the  manner  in  which  they 
perform  their  duties  of  life."  (H.  Rept.  350,  pt.  2,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.  (1924), 
pp.  4-7,  14-17). 

Heated  debate  on  the  floor  of  the  House  followed  the  introduction  of  H.  R. 
79r5,  on  the  question  of  whether  to  adopt  the  1890  census  as  provided  therein,  or 
to  continue  the  use  of  the  1910  census,  as  provided  in  the  1921  quota  act.  At 
about  the  same  time,  the  Senate  began  consideration  of  its  own  restrictive 
immigration  bill.  S.  2576,  which,  as  amended,  was  later  passed  and  substituted 
for  the  House  bill  and  renamed  H.  R.  7995.  (See  65th  Congressional  Record, 
6644;  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924.) 

The  Senate  bill  as  originally  reported  out  of  committee,  adopted  the  census 
of  1910  as  its  base.  The  debate  in  that  chamber  approximated  the  pattern  of  the 
House.  In  both,  rabid  xenophobia  and  attempts  to  demonstrate  the  inferiority  or 
undesirability  of  the  so-called  new  immigrants  marked  the  speeches  of  almost  all 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         305 

proiioiients  of  the  1890  quota  base.  The  major  tlieiue  of  these  speakers  was  the 
alleiLced  inability  of  the  new  imniif^rants  to  assimihite.  (See,  for  example,  65 
C"oni,'ressional  Record  5824.  51)58.  (t-l()1.  and  6465.)  Advocates  of  this  concept  of 
iKinassiiuilability  constantly  soufiht  fo  point  out  that  the  new  inuuifj;rants  crowd 
into  the  cities  forming  Jilien  c-olonies,  makinj;  no  attempt  to  learn  Eiif;lish  (Id. 
at  pp.  5954-6461)  or  to  become  naturalized  (see  Id.  at  pp.  5824,  (5541)  and  read 
foreign  language  newspapers  which  perpetuate  alien  customs  and  prejudices. 
A  typical  conunent  was  that  of  Keitresentative  Smith  of  Idaho: 
"Alien  colonies  in  the  I'nited  States  sjieaking  foreign  tongues,  maintaining 
foreign  comniuiiity  interests,  reading  only  newspapers  printed  in  their  own 
language,  are  un-American  and  a  menace  to  the  liepublic,  and  the  fewer  "for- 
eignjzed  aliens"  we  have  in  America,  the  better     *     *     *. 

"In  the  minority  report  of  the  committee  containing  the  views  of  Mr.  Sabath 
and  Mr.  Dickstein,  it  is  argued  that  this  measure  is  discriminatory,  in  that  it 
applies  the  principles  of  exclusion  rather  than  discrimination.  As  far  as  pos- 
sible, it  is  our  national  policy  to  maintain  the  United  States  for  our  native  born 
and  naturalized  citizens  and  their  descendants  to  the  end  that  in  so  doing  we 
are  serving  our  own  best  interests.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  further  tightening  of 
restrictive  provisions  looking  to  the  exclusion  of  aliens  from  certain  countries 
of  southern  Europe  and  the  Orient."  (65  Congressional  Record  5698,  68th  Cong., 
1st  sess.,  1924.) 

Attempts  to  demonstrate  the  inferiority  of  immigrants  from  southern  and 
eastern  Europe  were  frequent.  Constant  reference  was  made  to  the  report  of 
Dr.  Laughlin  quoted  herein  at  page  12  to  the  effect  that  the  new  immigrants 
furnished  more  than  their  share  of  the  socially  inadequate.  (Sec  65  Congres- 
sional Record  5647,  5648,  5679,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924.)  At  one  point  Rep- 
resentative Watkins,  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  Johnson  bill  inserted  into  the 
Record  the  complete  text  of  Laughlin's  analysis  of  the  immigrants  crime  rate, 
in  which  Laughlin  concluded,  "The  so-called  old  immigration  from  foundation 
stocks,  run  relatively  low  in  crime,  whereas  the  new  immigration  from  southern 
and  eastern  I^urope  runs  relatively  high  in  this  type  of  social  defect  as  we  tind 
it  in  custodial  institutions  of  the  United  States."  (65  Congressional  Record 
5678-5679,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924.) 

Much  discussion  of  the  alleged  racial  qualities  of  the  new  immigrants  took 
place.  The  remarks  of  Representative  Smith  are  representative  of  this  type 
of  debate. 

"It  is  disclosed  by  those  who  have  studied  the  situation  that  the  universality 
of  the  habit  of  lying  is  something  which  impresses  almost  every  traveler  in  the 
south  of  Europe.  They  lie  in  preference  to  telling  the  truth,  even  when  there 
is  no  question  of  advantage.  The  American  youth  is  trained  from  infancy  to 
the  belief  that,  whatever  happens,  the  truth  must  be  told.  South  of  Europe 
people  feel  that  if  any  important  matter  is  at  stake  such  as  his  own  personal 
being  or  the  name  of  the  race,  the  truth  is  subsidiary  and  must  be  sacrificed 
to  greater  ends     *     *     *(Id.  at  5699). 

"These  people  .sJiow  themselves  to  be  masters  of  every  trick  and  artifice.  False 
afladavits,  assumed  names  and  plain  lying  are  all  used  with  the  greatest  effect. 
There  is  a  little  book  published  and  distributed  throughout  southern  Europe  which 
contains  full  instructions  as  to  the  proper  answers  to  make  to  the  immigration 
authorities  in  order  to  best  insure  admission.     *     *     * 

"They  have  no  fundamental  rules  of  hygiene  and  they  do  not  know  how  or 
do  not  care  to  keep  their  rooms  in  decent  condition.  There  is  very  little  ventila- 
tion by  day  or  by  night.  The  food  is  often  meager  and  lacking  in  nourishment. 
As  a  result  of  these  conditions  there  is  a  great  deal  of  disease  particularly  tuber- 
culosis among  these  people.  They  carry  the  germs  of  this  dreaded  disease  on 
their  clothes,  and  people  ignorant  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  aliens  live 
are  laying  them.selves  liable  to  the  contraction  of  the  same  form  of  disease  in 
coming  into  close  proximity  to  them.  (Id.  at  5701.)  Less  than  one-fourth  of 
the  aliens  coming  to  this  country  become  citizens,  the  general  intention  of  even- 
tually returning  to  their  native  land  after  acquiring  a  fortune  has  much  to  do 
with  this.  Those  of  southern  Europe  are  proud  of  their  allegiance  to  their  rulers 
ajid  are  loath  to  give  it  up.     (Id.  at  5701.) 

"If  there  is  not  a  stringent  restriction  on  Greek  immigration  to  the  United 
States,  it  is  predicted  by  well  known  authorities  that  in  five  years  the  Greeks 
will  have  complete  monopoly  of  our  lines  of  profitable  business  with  which  people 
of  other  nationalities  cannot  successfully  compete.     (Id.  at  5701.) 

"Surgeons  of  the  United  States  Public  Health  Service  who  have  made  examina- 
tions at  our  ports  of  entry,  declare  that  the  best  class  of  immigrants  from  the 


306  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

medical  point  of  view  come  from  northwest  Europe,  the  poorer  from  the  Mediter- 
ranean, east  and  west  Asia,  and  that  pronounced  deterioration  in  tlie  general 
physique  of  the  immigrants  has  taken  place  in  recent  years.  If  that  is  so,  even 
the  requirement  of  a  physical  examination  will  bear  more  heavily  upon  the 
southern  and  western  Europeans.     *     *     *"     (Id.  at  5703.) 

Anti-Semitism,  although  not  overtly  expressed,  was  implicit  in  remarks  such 
as  those  of  Senator  Heflin,  who  speaking  in  favor  of  restricting  immigration  and 
discussing  the  non-assimilability  of  the  new  immigrants  said : 

"I  have  a  newspaper  clipping  in  my  pocket  given  me  by  a  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  telling  about  the  arrest  of  a  Negro  in  New  York  in  the  subway,  I 
believe  by  an  Irish  policeman,  and  he  was  astounded  to  hear  that  Negro  speak 
in  Yiddish.  The  Irishman  spoke  in  Yiddish  and  they  took  the  Negro  to  a  judge 
who  tried  him  in  Yiddish  and  the  story  was  that  the  Irishman  had  to  adopt  that 
language  to  hold  his  job  in  that  section  of  the  city."     (Id.  at  6734.) 

The  debate  displayed  a  general  preoccupation  with  race  and  blood.  A  sense 
of  Nordic,  Anglo-Saxon  superiority  masqueraded  as  an  unusual  solicitude  for 
American  democratic  traditions  and  institutions.  According  to  proponents  of  the 
1890  census  these  traditions  could  only  be  preserved  by  persons  of  the  same 
stocks  that  originally  created  them.  These  points  of  view  were  well  expressed 
in  the  remarks  of  Representatives  Young,  Michener  and  Gilbert. 

"It  is  interesting  also  to  trace  the  various  settlements  in  the  United  States 
from  the  racial  standpoint.  The  first  settlements  in  the  East  at  Jamestown  and 
Plymouth  Rock  were  from  Great  Britain,  and  for  a  considerable  time  thereafter 
the  predominating  immigration  was  from  England.  Then  came  additions  from 
Holland,  Sweden  and  Germany.  About  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century 
there  was  a  decided  increase  of  immigration  happily  of  Teutonic  or  Celtic  Mood. 
Large  numbers  came  from  Celtic  Ireland,  and  later  in  the  eighties  and  nineties 
there  was  a  great  influx  from  Norway,  Sweden,  Denmark  and  Germany.  These 
immigrants  of  Teutonic  and  Celtic  blood  were  readily  assimilated.  They  did  not 
change  American  character,  because  they  came  from  stocks  which  were  largely 
Teutonic  and  Celtic.  It  is  plain  that  American  institutions  are  safe  so  long  as 
immigrants  come  here  who  are  substantially  of  the  same  Mood  as  those  races 
which  came  here  during  colonial  days  and  up  to  three  decades  ago.  [Italics 
supplied.] 

"But  what  about  assimilating  people  of  other  bloods,  such  as  Slavs,  Greeks, 
Assyrians  and  Armenians?  There  are  doubtless  very  good  people  among  these, 
but  if  people  of  excitable  or  revohitionary  types  are  admitted  without  limit, 
what  will  the  influence  be  upon  American  character,  and  American  institutions, 
say  in  50  or  100  years  or  300  years.  We  owe  so  much  to  the  generations  which 
have  gone  before,  we  should  if  we  are  patriotic,  have  serious  thought  for  the 
generations  in  America  which  will  follow  us,  (Young,  65  Congressional  Record, 
6154.) 

"I  have  no  prejudice  against  the  peoples  from  southern  Europe.  We  remember 
the  splendor  and  glory  of  ancient  Rome ;  we  know  of  Greek  culture  of  the  past ; 
at  the  same  time  we  cannot  forget  that  the  early  pioneers  to  our  shores,  the 
men  and  the  women  who  sought  America  for  the  express  purpose  of  building 
for  themselves  houses  where  they  could  be  free,  where  they  could  prosper  did  not 
come  from  southern  Europe.  The  early  pioneers  *  *  *  were  men  and 
women  from  northern  Europe     *     *     * 

''It  is  true  that  under  the  Johnson  bill  the  quota  from  northern  Europe  will 
be  larger  than  the  quota  from  southern  Europe  and  this  is  as  I  'believe  it  should 
be.     The  Nordic  people  laid  the  foundation  of  society  in  America.     *     *     * 

"In  the  early  days  of  the  Republic  we  were  in  a  way  a  one  jieople — Anglo- 
Saxon — today  we  ai'e  a  collection  of  racial  groups,  no  one  of  which  outnumbers 
all  the  others,  and  our  supreme  task  is  to  weld  together  these  several  people  into 
one  group  with  a  single  national  consciousness  distinctly  American.  During 
the  last  few  years  assimilation  has  not  kept  pace  with  immigration,  we  are 
suffering  from  national  indigestion,  and  must  now  prescribe  a  reasonable  diet." 
(Michener,  65  Congressional  Record  5909.) 

"About  50  percent  of  our  population  are  de.scendants  of  the  original  Revolu- 
tionary stock  and  another  300  percent  are  closely  related  to  this  original  stock 
by  nationality,  tradition,  and  ideas  of  government,  and  this  30  percent  came 
from  the  Nordic  races  of  northern  and  western  Europe  the  same  as  most  of  the 
colonial  settlers,  and  these  two  groups  accommodate  themselves  to  similar  cus- 
toms, manners,  and  ideas  very  easily  and  are  therefore  the  reason  for  favoring 
the  quotas  imder  the  Johnson  bill  on  the  census  of  1890."     (Gilbert  id.  at  6263.) 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         307 

'J lie  iKilioiKil  (»i(iin-s  </i)()lii  Clinton 

During  the  debate  on  the  question  ol'  wiiether  to  adopt  the  1890  or  the  1910 
census  as  a  i)asis  for  the  i>ercentafie  (luota  ininiifiration  system  the  national 
oriizins  (juota  jihin  was  introduced  as  an  amendment  to  botii  tlie  House  and  tlie 
Senate  hills.  This  system  was  tn  l)e  based  not  on  tlie  numtier  of  foreifin-ltorn 
residents  in  a  country  in  a  ji'ven  year  but  on  the  "national  origins"  of  the  people 
comprising  the  population  of  the  United  States  in  1920.  Each  nationality  under 
this  system  was  to  receive  a  quota  which  would  bear  the  same  ratio  to  the 
total  pernnssible  yearly  innnigratinn  as  jiersons  of  those  national  orig^ins  bore 
to  the  total  po])ulation  in  the  United  States  in  1912(1. 

Representative  Rogers  who  iiUroduced  the  natioiuil  origins  amendment  in  the 
House  (see  65  Congressional  Record  (illO-6111.  (JMth  Cong.  1st  sess.,  1924)  attrib- 
uted the  idea  to  Senator  Retxl  of  I'ennsylvania.  In  suggesting  the  national 
ttrigins  propo.sal  Rogers  stated  at  page  r).S47  : 

"Gentlemen,  I  am  a  restrictionist.  1  am  not  trying  to  trick  you  by  proposing 
an  unworkable  or  fantastic  substitute  in  the  hope  of  defeating  this  bill.  I 
am  a  sincere  and  practicing  restrictionist  of  immigration.  I  have  voted  for  the 
literacy  test  and  for  every  restrictive  measure  that  has  come  before  the  House 
in  the  last  6  or  7  years.  I  believe  in  a  very  limited  and  carefully  selected 
immigration.  I  am  not  proposing  this  plan  as  a  fraud  on  the  Nation  *  *  *." 
(Cu)  Congressional  Record  .1847,  (J8th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924.) 

Later  on  he  elaborated  on  the  basic  philosophy  of  the  national  origins  bill  as 
follows : 

"My  ob.iection  both  to  the  committee  proposal  carried  in  section  10  and  to  the 
minority  jiroposal  advanced  as  a  substitute  for  section  10,  as  well  as  to  the  pro- 
posal advanced  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Jacobstein],  yesterday 
on  the  chart  which  was  furnished  us  all,  is  that  they  all  base  quotas  on  foreign- 
born  in  the  United  States  and  upon  no  one  else.  There  are  about  80.000,000 
American-born  in  the  I'nited  States,  as  I  recall,  and  about  20,000,000  or  25,000,000 
foreign-born.  Why  in  the  world  in  a  matter  of  this  moment  we  should  establish 
our  immigration  policy  upon  the  basis  of  the  foreign-born  alone  I  cannot  for  the 
life  of  me  understand.  I  am  not  suggesting  that  we  should  not,  with  propriety, 
consider  the  foreign-born  here  as  one  element  in  determining  the  quotas.  I  do 
mean  to  insist  that  we  are  entitled  to  consider  those  of  us  who  were  born  here 
as  another  element  in  determining  the  quotas.  But  no  plan  except  the  "national 
origins"  plan  recognizes  this  elementary  point.  1  do  not  know  how  many  men  of 
foreign  birth  there  are  in  this  House.  However,  many  there  are,  I  am  sure  they 
are  as  patriotic  and  efficient  citizens  as  those  of  us  who  are  American  horn,  but 
no  more  so.  Let  us  assume  there  are  10  men  of  foreign  birth  in  this  House. 
Is  there  any  reason  that  occurs  to  any  man  here  why  the  other  425  of  us  should  be 
excluded  altogether  in  making  up  a  quota?  Why  the  quotas  of  immigration  and 
why  those  born  here  in  this  country  should  be  superciliously  disregarded  is  alto- 
gether beyond  me.     I  simply  cannot  understand  the  reasoning." 

Continuing,  Representative  Rogers  stated  : 

"The  national  origins  plan  vaults  completely  over  the  controversy  as  to  whether 
the  admission  quota  should  be  based  on  the  census  of  1890  or  on  that  of  1910 
and  lands  upon  broader  grounds  where  larger  considerations  come  into  play. 
My  i)lan.  based  on  the  foreign-born  population  as  disclosed  by  any  census,  is  inde- 
fensible. The  same  argument  must  l)e  urged  against  the  proposal  that  we  take 
all  four  of  the  most  recent  censuses,  average  the  foreign-boi-n.  and  base  the  quota 
upr)n  the  average.  The  general  principle  is  fallacious.  It  is  certainly  an  attrac- 
tive proposition  that  we  should  instead  proportion  otir  admission  of  immigrants, 
not  to  the  numbers  of  racial  or  national  representatives  composing  the  alien 
colonies  or  foreign  groups  now  in  the  country  but  to  tlie  quantities  of  the  various 
racial  and  national  elements  which  have  passed  the  refining  test  of  the  melting 
pot  and  have  become  amalgamated  in  the  structure  of  the  American  Nation." 
(Id.  at622G.) 

There  was  little  debate  on  the  proposed  national  origins  amendment.  Never- 
theless it  w^as  defeated  in  the  House. 

Senator  Reed,  chairman  of  the  Senate  rommiltee  on  Immigration,  introduced 
the  national  origins  amendment  formally  in  the  Senate  (sec  05  Congressional 
Record  (>P.W,  08th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924) .  Reed  stated  on  the  floor  that  he  thought 
the  1921  quota  law  discriminatory  since  it  discriminated  against  American-born 
and  against  the  nations  of  northwest  Europe  (f^re  Id.  at  5048). 

In  the  course  of  exi)lainiiig  the  national  origins  amendment  Reed  continuall.v 
denied  any  desire  to  discriminate.  At  page  5408  of  G5  Congressional  Record  he 
discussed  the  national  origins  sj'Stem  in  these  words  : 


308  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION 

"What  I  want  to  do  is  not  to  discriminate  against  the  Italians,  not  to  discrim- 
inate against  the  Russians  or  the  Poles,  and  I  cannot  say  that  too  often ;  but 
what  I  want  is  to  end  the  discrimination  against  the  American  born,  and  I  want 
to  end  the  discrimination  against  the  nations  of  northwest  Europe.     *     *     * 

"It  is  evident  to  the  Senate  as  it  is  to  me,  that  our  quotas  ought  to  roughly 
correspond  with  the  national  origin  of  our  whole  population.  We  can  afford 
to  be  generous  about  it  and  include  foreign-born  who  are  not  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  Let  us  take  everybody  who  at  the  time  of  the  last  census  lived 
in  this  area  we  call  the  United  States,  whether  he  was  born  here  or  born  some- 
where else,  or  whether  he  is  a  citizen  or  an  alien.  Let  us  take,  and  treat  us  as  a 
group  of  human  beings  each  of  whom  is  entitled  to  be  reflected  in  the  quotas  we 
establish.  If  we  do  that  then  our  quotas  must  necessarily  resemble  this  appor- 
tionment of  the  whole  population  in  1920,  disregarding  as  they  themselves 
would  wish  to  be  disregarded  the  Negro  population  of  the  country,  because 
they  do  not  want  and  we  do  not  want  to  allow  great  immigration  from  African 
sources.  *  *  *  three  methods  have  been  suggested  for  attaining  the  result 
of  dividing  the  quota  according  to  our  whole  population  and  its  origins.     *     *     * 

"But  there  is  then  even  a  better  way  it  seems  to  me  of  getting  at  it,  and  that 
is  to  determine  for  ourselves  here  in  Congress  what  is  the  aggregate  amount  of 
immigration  we  want  to  come  in.  Suppose  we  fix  it  at  3(K),000.  Then  let  us  say 
that  the  300,000  shall  be  divided  up  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  national 
origins  of  our  population." 

However,  Reed  also  inserted  as  a  part  of  his  remarks  concerning  the  national 
origins  quota  system  a  report  by  John  B.  Trevor^  entitled  "The  Immigration 
Problem"  which  followed  almost  verbatim  the  House  report  accompanying 
H.  R.  7995  (see  pp.  15-16,  supra),  and  a  speech  by  Henry  A.  Curran,^  Commis- 
sioner of  Immigration  at  Ellis  Island  before  the  Economic  Club,  March  25,  1924. 
In  that  speech  (65  Congressional  Record  5475,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924)  Mr. 
Curran  had  stated : 

"The  third  outstanding  feature  of  the  law  will  center  about  the  question  of 
whether  we  shall  take  more  immigrants  from  northwestern  Europe  and  fewer 
from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe,  or  vice  versa.  As  to  this  there  is  a  hot 
fight  on.  The  present  quotas  are  based  on  the  number  of  foreign-born  in  the 
United  States  according  to  the  census  of  1910.  The  Senate  committee  proposes 
to  continue  the  1910  basis,  while  the  House  committee  takes  for  its  basis  the 
number  of  foreign-born  who  were  here  in  1890.  If  the  Senate  committee's  pro- 
posal is  adopted,  the  immigrants  from  Russia,  Poland,  the  Balkans,  and  the 
Mediterranean  countries  will  form  just  as  big  a  part  of  a  year's  immigration 
as  they  do  now,  whereas  if  the  House  committee's  proposal  becomes  law  there 
will  be  a  smaller  proportion  from  those  parts  of  Europe  and  a  greater  proportion 
from  northwestern  Europe  and  the  British  Isles.  The  natives  of  the  southern 
and  eastern  countries  of  Europe  charge  that  assenting  to  the  1890  measure  will 
work  a  discrimination  against  them,  and  they  have  put  forth  a  very  powerful 
propaganda  to  that  effect.  We  have  not  heard  very  much  from  the  natives  of 
the  northwest  of  Europe  and  the  British  Isles. 

"For  my  own  part  I  do  not  see  why — whichever  year  we  use — we  should 
measure  the  immigrants  wholly  by  the  foreign-born  in  America.  Why  not  pay 
some  attention  to  the  American-born  in  America.  Have  you  who  are  American- 
born  no  say  in  this  thing?  Must  we  always  measure  the  future  of  our  own 
country  by  the  number  of  foreigners  who  are  here?  Is  it  true  that  the  United 
States  is  already  a  collection  of  foreign  colonies  rather  than  a  nation  of  native 
Americans? 

"*  *  *  We  have  got  to  be  united  and  homongeneous  unless  we  want  to 
crumble  and  go  down  under  the  old  adage  "United  we  stand — divided  we  fall." 
We  have  too  much  in  American  of  foreign  points  of  view,  foreign  loves,  foreign 
hates,  foreign  newspapers,  foreign  colonies  and  foreign  propaganda     *     *     *. 

''The  Irish,  Scotch,  and  Enrilish  are  buncoed,  the  German)^  are  rooked,  and  the 
Norwegians  and  Swedes  are  trimmed  out  of  their  fair  share  of  the  annual  immi- 
gration to  the  United  States  and  this  pilfering  reaets  direetlij  to  the  unearned 
profit  of  the  immigration  from  Russia,  Poland,  and  Italy,  if  you  take  1910  as  a 


2  According  to  Who's  Who  in  America,  1945  edition.  Trevor  is  an  attorney  who  served 
as  associate  counsel  for  subcommittee  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  as 
chairman  of  the  board  of  American  Coalition  of  Patriotic  Societies,  1927-33,  was  active 
in  the  movement  to  restrict  immigration,  and  was  a  member  of  tlie  board  of  directors  of 
the  Eugenics  Research  Association.  Curran  has  served  as  borough  president  of  Man- 
hattan, 1920-21  ;  deputy  mayor,  1938-30  :  and  chief  magistrate.  Since  1945  he  has  been 
a  justice  of  the  Court  of  Special  Sessions  in  New  York  City. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION  309 

basis.  The  discrimination  favors  roughly  the  Russians,  Poles,  and  Italians, 
although  it  is  from  those  quarters  that  all  the  shouting  comes.  When  the  truth 
is  told  the  shoe  is  on  the  other  foot. 

"Of  course  there  are  those  who  contend  that  the  southern  and  the  eastern 
European  immigration  is  superior  to  that  of  northwestern  Europe  and  the  British 
Isles.  The  ansu-cr  is  that  it  is  not.  For  just  one  last  case  in  point:  A  ship 
came  in  from  Sweden  last  summer  with  about  1,000  Swedish  immigrants  aboard, 
and  out  of  the  irhole  thousand  we  had  to  detain  onlg  ttoo  *  *  *  In  that  week 
a  ship  came  in  from  the  Mediterranean  with  about  1,000  immigrants  aboard, 
of  whom  we  had  to  detain  500.  Half  of  that  shipload  was  apparently  unfit  for 
admission.  Scores  of  them  had  to  be  deported.  These  two  ships  tell  the  story 
from  the  practical  point  of  view  of  Ellis  Island"  (id.  at  5476).  [Italics 
supplied. 1 

The  remarks  of  Trevor  and  Curran  inserted  by  the  author  of  the  national 
origins  clause  effectively  give  the  lie  to  Reed's  disavowal  of  the  discriminatory 
intent  implicit  in  his  national  origins  plan.  Both  men's  remarks  reveal  a  con- 
viction that  immigrants  from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  were  inferior  and 
unfit  for  admission.  Similarly  revealing  was  a  colloquy  between  Curran  and 
Reed  held  during  the  hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Immigration  of  the 
United  States  Senate  on  restrictive  immigration  bills.  At  page  30  of  the  hearings 
Curran  stated : 

"I  have  always  thought  that  the  census  of  1890  was  much  nearer  to  measuring 
stock  reflection  than  the  census  of  1910.  I  am  perfectly  sure  of  that.  The 
census  of  1910  measures  only  a  very  recent  immigration  and  either  of  these  two 
censuses  mea.sure  the  foreign-born.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  test  of  the  kind 
of  immigration  we  want  to  make  us  homogeneous  and  less  disunited  is  the  role 
of  the  American-born  *  *  *  but  to  say  that  1890  is  discrimination,  it  might 
iust  as  well  be  said  that  1910  is  a  discrimination  against  70  or  75  percent  of 
the  American  people  if  you  are  interested  in  national  stocks." 

In  reply  Senator  Reed  countered : 

"Mr.  Curran,  /  think  most  of  us  are  reconciled  to  the  idea  of  discrimination. 
I  think  the  American  people  want  us  to  discriminate;  and  I  don't  think  dis- 
crimination in  itself  is  unfair,  because  our  duty  is  to  the  American  people  and 
we  owe  no  duty  to  be  fair  to  all  nationals.  If  that  is  so  we  would  have  to  repenl 
our  Chinese  exclusion  law.  We  have  got  to  discriminate.  The  only  question 
that  I  think  worries  the  committee  is  whether  the  Use  of  the  1890  census  or  the 
u.se  of  the  method  based  on  naturalization  is  the  more  plausible  method  of  attain- 
ing that  discrimination  which  is  the  object  we  are  all  seeking.  If  you  will  look 
at  the  table  on  page  37  of  my  proposition  [national  origins],  here  you  will  see 
that  the  figures  that  my  bill  will  result  in  are  almost  identical  tcith  the  result 
you  tvould  get  if  you  took  5  percent  of  1890.  The  question  we  are  tackling  is 
which  is  the  more  plausible,  the  more  reasonable,  and  more  defensible  method 
of  attaining  that  end.  Practically  all  of  us  are  agreed  that  that  is  an  end  that 
should  be  attained."     [Italics  supplied.] 

Other  Senators  also  viewed  the  national  origins  amendment  as  achieving  the 
same  discriminatory  result  as  the  adoption  of  the  1890  census.  The  remarks  of 
Senator  George  in  the  Senate  on  April  16, 1924,  are  typical.     He  stated  : 

"I  don't  take  his  [Senator  Reed's]  amendment  nor  the  census  of  1890  upon 
any  reason  other  than  this :  Both  the  census  of  1890  and  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  seem  to  me  to  admit  the  largest  number  of 
assimilable,  wholly  assimilable,  easily  assimilable  races  into  the  United  States 
and  to  exclude  those  races  or  the  people  from  those  nations  that  are  with  most 
diffimlty  ab.sorbed  into  our  life  without  injury  to  us"  (05  Congressional  Record 
C467). 

The  national  origins  amendment  was  passed  by  a  voice  vote  in  the  Senate 
(65  Congressional  Record  6472.  6Sth  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924)  after  almost  no  debate, 
and  the  entire  Senate  bill  S.  2576,  as  amended,  was  thereupon  passed  and 
substituted  for  H.  R.  7995  (see  id.  at  6644).  Section  8  (b)  of  the  substitutefl 
bill  provided  for  a  nationality  quota  of  2  percent  of  the  foreign-born  of  that 
nationality  in  the  United  States  in  1890  up  until  1927,  nt  which  time  the  national 
origins  formula  based  on  a  yearly  inimigration  total  of  15(),(»00  would  take  cfteet. 

The  House  and  Senate  bills  thereupon  went  to  conference.  The  Senate  con- 
ferees were  David  H.  Reed,  Henry  W.  Keyes,  and  William  J.  Harris.  The 
conferees  from  the  House  were  Albert  Johnson,  sjionsor  of  the  18!)0  (piota  bill 
and  chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration:  William  Vaile,  Bird  .1. 
Vincent,  and  John  E.  Raker.  The  l)iil  as  recommended  by  the  conferees  rejected 
the  Hou.se  1890  quota  formula  and  recommended  the  adoption  of  the  Senate 


310  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND   NATURALIZATION 

national  origins  version.  There  was  no  elucidation  in  the  statement  of  the 
House  conferees  which  accompanied  the  conference  reiwrt  H.  R.  688  as  to  why 
they  abandoned  the  1890  House  formula  in  favor  of  the  Senate's  version.  It 
may  be  surmised,  however,  that  the  House  conferees  were  impressed  by  Senator 
Reed's  argument  that  the  national  origins  provision  would  achieve  the  same 
results  as  the  1890  quota. 

The  House  did  not  accept  the  conference  report  because  it  thought  a  certain 
provision  of  the  conference  bill  might  interfere  with  their  desire  to  eliminate 
Japanese  immigration  completely  (65  Congressional  Record,  8248-8249,  8279, 
6Sth  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  1924).  They,  therefore,  recommitted  the  bill  to  the  con- 
ference committee  (Id.  at  8249).  There  was  little  or  no  discussion  at  that  time, 
of  the  House  conferees'  adoption  of  the  Senate  national  origins  provisions.  After 
recommittal,  the  bill  was  again  reported  out  of  conference  with  the  national 
origins  formula  still  intact.  (See  65  Congressional  Record  8627,  68th  Cong.,  1st 
sess..  1924.)  After  a  i)eriod  of  debate  almost  none  of  which  was  devoted  to  the 
national  origins  foi-mula  H.  R.  7995  was  passed  by  both  Houses  (Id.  at  86.52, 
8.589). 

Conclusion 

Perhaps  the  most  significant  fact  about  the  legislative  history  of  the  national 
origins  quota  system  is  the  scant  consideration  and  little  debate  which  marked 
its  passage.  This  was  in  marked  contrast  to  the  extensive  amount  of  time  and 
discussion  which  was  spent  on  the  consideration  of  the  various  base  year  quota 
formulas.  The  comparative  absence  of  openly  racist  and  discriminatory  remai-ks 
concerning  the  national  origins  formula  when  considered  in  the  context  of  the 
total  legislative  picture  at  the  time  of  its  passage  does  not  indicate  an  absence 
of  discriminatory  intent  on  the  part  of  the  legislators  who  enacted  it.  All  the 
discriminatory  and  frankly  racist  remarks  quoted  herein  at  pages  17-20  whicli 
expressed  the  feelings  of  the  House  and  Senate  on  the  1890  bill  were  equally 
expressive  of  their  sentiments  and  intents  with  respect  to  the  national  origins 
quota  system.  The  Senators  and  Congressmen  who  voted  for  the  national  origins 
formula  were  aware  of  the  discrimination  against  various  nationalities  implicit  in 
the  formula.  And  they  intended  such  discrimination.  This  is  shown  by  the 
following  facts:  (1)  The  Congressional  Record  is  replete  with  tables  com- 
paring the  various  nationality  quotas  under  the  national  origins  formula  and  the 
1890  and  1910  based  quota  formulas.  These  tables  show  generally  that  the 
number  of  each  nationality  admissible  under  a  quota  system  based  on  the  1890 
census  closely  approximated  those  made  admissible  by  national  origins  formula 
(E.  G.  Id.  at  6758,  6317).  By  and  large,  the  two  systems  achieved  the  same 
result.  This  was  confirmed  by  sijokesmen  for  the  national  origins  formula  in- 
cluding its  sponsor.  Senator  Reed.  (See  p.  25,  supra.)  (2)  The  vote  in  both 
Houses  on  the  national  origin  formula  was  almost  identical  with  that  on  the 
question  of  whether  to  use  the  discriminatory  1890  census  as  a  base.  Of  the  71 
persons  who  voted  "No"  on  use  of  the  1890  census  only  five  voted  "Yes"  on  na- 
tional origins  provision.  (See  65  Congressional  Record  6257,  8652.  68th  Cong.) 
Thus  it  can  be  seen  that  only  five  Congressmen  thought  the  bill  as  passed  con- 
taining the  national  origins  provision  was  better  than  the  1890  census.  Albert 
.Johnson,  sponsor  of  the  1890  formula,  was  among  the  conferees  who  agreed 
to  the  adoption  of  the  Senate  "national  origins  provisions,"  and  shepherded  the 
conference  bill  to  i^assage  in  the  House. 

All  these  factors  indicate,  as  Senator  Reed  pointed  out,  that  the  national  origins 
provision  was  designed  to  reach  and  did  reach  the  same  ends  as  the  1890  quota. 
In  Senator  Reed's  view,  the  national  origins  formula  merely  provided  a  more 
publicly  defensible  method  of  discriminating  than  did  the  1890  formula.  The 
American  people  are  not,  however,  to  be  so  easily  deceived.  Closer  examination 
of  the  background  and  effect  of  the  national  origins  system  disclose  it  to  be 
hardly  less  offensive  or  more  defensible.  The  fact  of  discrimination  is  not  to 
be  so  easily  cloaked  by  mere  change  in  the  trappings  of  the  law.  The  racism 
of  the  national  origins  system  stands  as  a  continuing  affront  to  democratic 
peoples  throughout  the  world.  Its  deleterious  effect  uiwn  our  morale  and  our 
prestige  will  not  be  overcome  until  we  repudiate  its  underlying  principles  and 
enact,  instead,  an  immigration  law  affirming  our  belief  in  the  equality  of  all 
men. 

Respectfullv  submitted. 

October  29,  1952. 

Will  Maslow, 
General  Counsel,  Americap,  Jewish  Congress. 

Of  Counsel,  Lois  Waldman. 


COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATURALIZATION         311 

STATEMENTS  SrBMITTEI)  BY  EDNA  C.  CURTIS,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. ; 
FLOKKXCE  J.  ("ASAXOVA.  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. ;  EVA  BACOX,  BROOKLYN, 
N.  Y. ;  JANET  R.  RHODES,  VALLEY  STREAM,  LONli  ISLAND,  N.  Y. ; 
ilRS.  EDNA  C.  HARRIS,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. ;  FLORENCE  I.  LUDERMAX, 
lUiOOKLYN,  N.  Y.  ;  KATHRVN  E.  HA  SKINS,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. ;  GEN- 
EVIEVE CUMNER,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. ;  VIOLA  A.  WORTMAN,  BROOK- 
LYN, N.  Y. 

(  T'he  following  was  submitted  by  each  of  the  above :) 

My  name  is and  my  address  is 

I  wish  to  testify  in  support  of  the  innnigrntion  laws  of  the  I'nited  States  as 
a  citizen  of  this  country.  I  am  not  a  technician  in  this  field,  but  I  believe 
in  majority  rule,  and  I  trust  the  judgment  of  Congi-ess  which  passed  the 
Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  over  the  veto  of  the  President  by  a  majority 
of  more  than  2  to  1.  I  think  we  should  give  this  law  a  chance  to  worlc,  ajid 
that  we  should  not  forget  that  this  law  was  enacted  after  a  4-year  study 
of  the  problem  by  .Congress  during  wliich  everyone  who  wanted  to  testify  was 
heard.  If  there  is  anything  wrong  with  this  law,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  it  was  supported  by  all  of  the  experts  in  the  Department  of  State  and 
the  Department  of  Justice,  a  fair  period  of  its  operation  will  bring  out  its 
defe<'ts.  I  hope  Congress  will  not  be  misled  by  the  minority  opponents  of 
the  law,  as  it  repre.sents  tlie  will  of  the  majority  of  our  people. 


STATEMENT  SUBIMITTED  BY  MRS.  ELAINE  HERNE,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 

385  CUNTON  Avenue,  Brooklyx  3S,  N.  Y., 

November  8,  1952. 
Mr.  IIakry  N.  Rosenfield, 

J'rcsidcnt  Committee  on  Immif/ration, 

Washinyton,  D.  0. 

I)E.\K  Mr.  Rosenfield  :  As  an  American  voter,  I  wish  to  testify  in  support  of 
the  immigration  laws  of  the  United  States.  I  believe  in  majority  rule  and  I 
trust  the  judgment  of  Congress  which  passed  the  Immigration  and  Nationality 
Act  over  the  veto  of  the  President  by  a  majority  of  more  than  2  to  1. 

I  tldnk  we  should  give  this  law  a  chance  to  work.  It  was  enacted  after  a 
4-year  .study  of  the  problem  by  Congress.  If  anything  is  wrong  with  it  a  fair 
period  of  its  oi)eration  will  bring  out  its  defects. 

I  hope  Congress  will  not  be  misled  by  the  minority  opponents  of  the  law  as  it 
represents  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Labor  cannot  absorb  tremendous  numbers.     Even  the  present  unemployment 
compensation  is  a  strain. 
Respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)      (Mrs.)  Elaine  Herne. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MRS.  MAUDE  RAWLINS,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 

385  Clinton  Avenue,  Brooklyn  38,  N.  Y. 

November  8,  1952. 
Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield, 

President  Committee  on  Immif/ration, 

Washington,  D.  C. 
Dear  Mr.  Rosenfield:    As  an  American  voter,  I  wish  to  testify  in  support  of 
tlie  immigration  laws  of  the  United  States.     I  believe  in  majority  rule  and  I  trust 
the  judgment  of  Congress  which  passed  tin;  Imnugration  and  Nationality  Act 
over  the  veto  of  the  President  by  a  majority  of  more  than  2  to  1. 

I  think  we  should  give  this  law  a  chance  to  work.  It  was  enacted  after  a 
4-year  study  of  the  problem  by  Congress.  If  anything  is  wrong  with  it  a  fair 
period  of  its  operation  will  bring  out  its  defects. 

I  hope  Congress  will  not  be  misled  by  the  minority  opponents  of  the  law  as  it 
represents  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 


312  COMMISSION    ON    IMMIGRATION    AND    NATTJRALIZATION 

Labor  cannot  absorb  tremendous  numbers.     Even  the  present  unemployment 
compensation  is  a  strain. 
Respectfully  yours, 

(Siffned)      (Mrs.)   Maudk  Rawlins. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  MRS.   BETSEY   BUELL  BRADISH, 

BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 

35  Stephens  Court,  Brooklyn  26,  N,  Y., 

November  10,  1952. 
Mr.  Harrt  N.  Rosenfield, 

President,  Commission  on  Immigration, 

WasJiington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  This  letter  is  to  testify  to  my  support  of  the  immigration  laws  of 
the  United  States,  as  a  citizen  of  this  country.     As  a  citizen  it  is  my  urgent 
desire  that  the  McCarran  bill  may  be  given  a  trial  as  it  now  stands,  as  it  repre- 
sents the  will  of  the  majority  of  our  people. 
Respectfully, 

(Signed)      (Mrs.  H.  W.)  Betsey  Buell  Bradish. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MRS.  CHARLES  N.  LANE,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 

896  Sterling  Place,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y., 

November  13,  1952. 
Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield, 

Executive  Dlrectur,  Commission  on  Immigration, 

Washington,  D.  C: 

As  a  citizen  of  this  country  I  wish  to  testify  asjainst  this  Commission  and  in 
support  of  the  immigration  laws  of  the  United  States.  The  act  passed  by  Con- 
gress (McCarran-Walter  Act)  over  the  President's  veto  should  be  given  a  chance 
to  work,  especially  as  there  is,  I  understand,  a  provision  for  amendment  within 
the  bill  itself. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     In  a  L.  C.  Lane. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  LUCY  H.  GUARDENIER,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 

1195  Union  Street,  Brooklyn  12,  N.  Y., 

November  13,  1952. 
Mr.  Harry  N.  Rosenfield, 

President's  Commission  on  Immigration,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  My  name  is  (Miss)  Lucy  H.  Guardenier,  and  my  address  is  1195 
Union  Street,  Brooklyn  25,  New  York. 

I  wish  to  testify  in  support  of  the  immigration  laws  of  the  United  States  as  a 
citizen  of  this  country  who  is  proud  to  state  that  she  is  a  DAR. 

I  am  not  a  technician  in  this  field,  but  I  believe  in  majority  rule,  and  I  trust 
the  judgment  of  Congress  which  passed  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act 
over  the  veto  of  the  President  by  a  majority  of  more  than  2  to  1.  I  think  we 
should  give  this  law  a  chance  to  work  and  that  we  should  not  forget  that  this 
law  was  enacted  after  a  4-year  study  of  the  problem  by  Congress  during  which 
time  everyone  who  wanted  to  testify  was  heard.  If  there  is  anything  wrong 
with  this  law,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  was  supported  by  all  of  the  experts 
in  the  Department  of  State  and  the  Department  of  Justice,  a  fair  i)eriod  of  its 
operation  will  bring  out  its  defects.  I  hope  Congress  will  not  be  misled  by  the  mi- 
nority opponents  of  the  law,  as  it  represents  the  will  of  the  majority  of  oiir  people. 

This  Commission  is  supposed  to  make  its  final  report  on  January  1,  1952.  The 
McCarran-Walter  bill  does  not  go  into  effect  until  December  24,  1952.  How  can 
a  commi^^s'on  report  on  a  law  that  has  only  been  in  effect-for  6  days? 

My  opinion  is  not  only  that  of  a  citizen  but  also  of  a  DAR  and  of  a  retired  New 
York  City  teacher. 

Respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)      (Miss)  Lucy  H.  Guardenier. 


BOSTON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 

3      ■Ifilllilll 

3  9999  06352  477  9