Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings"

See other formats




C» w^ - ^ » — / >J 1 ■^ ' 

Given By 




^^ ^ .7 /^.S 







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 

^o? ^°^?^^s^\ COMMITTEE PRINT 

2d Session J 







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 


25356 WASHINGTON : 1952 



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. 



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) 






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 



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 

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 

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) 


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 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. 



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 


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 

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 

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 


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 

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

(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, 


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 


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 

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. 


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 


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 


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. 



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? 



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. 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 

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- 

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 


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. 


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- 


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. 


Unlike 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- 


«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. 


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. 


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 In place of trial by the battle of publicity there should be 
substituted a fair and adequate administrative procedure. 


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


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. 


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 

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 


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. 



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 


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 

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 


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 


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 

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 


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

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. 


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 


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 


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 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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 


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. 


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. 


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 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 


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 

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. 



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 


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 


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 


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 ? 


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 

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 

Mrs. Horton. Yes. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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. 


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 

(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. 



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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 : 


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 : 



per square 


New popu- 
lation per 
square mile 




South Carolina 



New Mexico--- 



500, 000 
2, 000, 000 
1, 000, 000 





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. 


West Virginia-.. 
New Hampshire 







700, 000 
700, 000 
200, 000 
200, 000 
700, 000 
7(X), 000 
200, 000 


per square 



New popu- 
lation per 
square mile 


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



per square 


New popu- 
lation per 
square mile 


1, 000, 000 

1 , 000, 000 

2, 000, 000 
2, 000, 000 
2, 000, 000 









North Dakota . 


South Dakota . _ . . _ 


Iowa - . . 


Kansas .... 


Oklahoma _ . _ .. 


Nebraska. . . 


Montana _ __ 


Colorado ._ . 


Wyoming ... _ 


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



per square 


New popu- 
lation per 
square mile 

Washington _ 

2, 000, 000 
1, 000, 000 





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



per square 


New popu- 
lation per 
square mile 


2, 000, 000 




The Chairman. Thank you, sir, 

Mr. WaUer White, you are the next witness. 


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 


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 

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 

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. 


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. 


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 

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,, 

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;. 


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. 


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 


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 


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 

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 

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 

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. 


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 

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- 


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 ? 



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. 


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 

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 

]\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. 


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 

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 


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 

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- 

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 

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. 


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-^ 


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 


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- 

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 


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

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.) 




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. 


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. 


25::!.56— 52 o 


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 

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- 


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

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 

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 


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 

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 


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 

(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 


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 

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 

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- 

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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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. 


"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 ; 


"(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. 


"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- 


"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. 


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


"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. 


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 

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 

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 

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 


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 


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


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 

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 

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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 


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 

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- 


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. 


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 

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 


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 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 

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


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 


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 

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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


I^ations that have always used their quotas to tlie full and nations 
with special or emergency needs miglit receive temporarily preferential 

(''^) 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 

(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 

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. 


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 

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: 



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 


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. 



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 

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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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 


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. 


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 

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 

Tlie CiiAiR^r.vx. ]\lr. Read Lewis will be our next witness. 


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 


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 

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 

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- 

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. 


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- 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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 

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- 


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 

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 

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. 



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- 

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 

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 


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 ? 


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 

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 

(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- 


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- 


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." 


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 

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. 


(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 

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 


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. 


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 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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- 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 


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 

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 


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 

(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 


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. 


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 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- 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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. 


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. 




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 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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 

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. 



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 * ♦ *." 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 



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 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- 


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 

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 


■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 

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. 


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. 


I turn now to deportation. Over recent decades there have been many de- 
portations of alien residents 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." 


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. 


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." 


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 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 


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? 


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. 


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- 


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 


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 

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 


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. 


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 

(The prepared statement of Rev. Bernard Ambrozic, executive 
secretary, on behalf of the League of Catholic Slovenian Americans, 

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. 


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 

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 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- 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 who hapi»ily escape the tyranny engulfing all behind the iron 


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 

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 

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 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. 


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 : 



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 


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 


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 

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? 


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 

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. 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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. 



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 

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 

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 


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 

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 


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. 



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 


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. 


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- 


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. 


Dr. Counts. I am Dr. George S. Counts, vice cliairman of the 
Liberal Party and I am a professor at Teachers College, Columbia 

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. 


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 


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 


liartlships and siifferin<>s through which they have <i:one. Of course 
"\ve weren't responsible for those but we might have alleviated them 

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. 


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> 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 

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- 


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 


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: 


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 

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, 


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 

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 


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 

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.) 





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. 

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. 


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 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

(There follows the in-epared statement read by Representative 

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 



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 

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 

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 


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 

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 


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 

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- 

I hope that you gentlemen in your recommendations will solidly 
and unanimously condemn this outrage called the national origins 


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 

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 


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? 


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 

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, 


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 

"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 


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 

The Chairman. In such cases, is not the consul's rejection generally 
based on information derogatory to the individual, such as alleged 
subversive activities ? 


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 

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. 


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 


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 


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 

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 

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. 


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. 


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) 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 

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 


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 

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 

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. 



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 ont 
the rostrictivc intcriJi-ctntioii of the Service. The law, moreover, speaks of "any country," 
not of countries under Communist controL 


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 

(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 


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 


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 


(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 
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 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. 


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 

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 ? 


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 


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 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 


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 

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? 


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 


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. 


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 

(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'ee. Tlie blood shed in its defense has 
come no less from those whose forefathers were of Anglo-Saxon heritage than 


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. 


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, 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 


c'ari>enters, 2,00(1 nuH-liaiiies in various trades, 145 macliinists, 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, 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 

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 


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' 

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 


with people, the destinies and lives of the people, unless yon provide 
discretion and place it in tlie hands of wise and prudent adminis- 

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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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 

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 

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 


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? 


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- 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 



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- 

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. 


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 

^^'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 


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 


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 

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 

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 


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 : 


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.) 





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. 


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 



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. 


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- 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 

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. 


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 


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 


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- 


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 

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 

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 



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 ? 


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. 


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 


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 

1 Messapp on Refugeo DiiiiPRP Intellectuals. AU\ Refugee Chinese Intellectuals, Inc. 
5.^7 rifth Avenue. New York 17, N. Y. 


[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 

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 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 

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- 


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 

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 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, 

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 

I shall write you again about the i)rogress of .lean's application from time to 

Yours sincerely, 

(Signed) Tsinforn C. Wong. 


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- 

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 

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 


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")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. 


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 


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, 

The Chairman. Both may be inserted in the record at this point. 


( 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 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." 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 


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" 

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- 


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 


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 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 


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 


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? 


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 


(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 


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] 









A?ric'ilture .- . 







2, 336 






?. 335 

3. fi78 






Industry and transport 




Credit, etc 


Public administration 


Various . 





S,731 7.795 

1,619 1 9.414 



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 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 


in Italy 

Nortlieni It-.ily 
Central Italy.. 
Southprn Italy 
Insular Italy. 

Total .. 

CO, 1» 





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. 


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 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. 

The ajre distribution of the Italian population can be tabulated as follows: 

Age groups 


10 to 20 

15 to 20 

21 to 34 

35 to 44 

45 to 54 

65 to 64 

65 and over 


Apr. 21, 1936 

Thousands of 


8. 567 

42. 021 











Dec. 31, 1949 

Thousands of 

3. 863 

46. 421 











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), 


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 ; 



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 


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. 


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. 


Great Britain 


Mediterranean countries 

Continental countries 


U. S. A 

Central America 






Other South American countries. 












21, 277 

' 9, 668 


55, 261 










17, 454 


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. 



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. 


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. 


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 : 




Libya - - 

118, 718 

72, .500 


. 58.500 

45, 000 

25, 000 


. 73, 718 

Eritrea - 


Somaliland . - - - ' . -- 


Ethiopia - - - -. 



268, 718 


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 





Number of 

_ 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 


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- 

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. 


In 1047, approxiiimti'ly .".".000 Ttnlinn rofiijict's were iiiiiintiiiiicd in 10S camps.'quently, tlif niovi'iiu'iil in thi' caiiiits was the fdUowiiig : 




10, 149 
14. 883 



1948 - 


1949 - 

24, 622 



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. : 


Total number of refu- 
gees accommodated 

Number of Oiulian 

Aversa -_. 



Capua _ ...... 


PontecagTiano (S. Antonio) . 




Total - - 



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 



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- 

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 


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. 


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. 



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 


Farm population 

Arable land 

Farm pop- 
ulation per 
100 hectares 
of arable 





of hectares 




10, 612 


71, 735 




10, 753 



12, 947 
21, 134 


15, 770 

3, 739 

5. 213 

129, 43S 
11, 875 






Russia _ ... 









TT. S. A_- 




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. 



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 

(&) 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 

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 : 





Transport and communications 


Credit and insurance 

Manual workers generally 

Office workers. 


346, 368 

966. 046 
45, 611 


404. 047 
58, 571 

1, 860, 109 







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. 


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 : 






Class 1 --- 







Class 2 - 


Class 3 - 


Class 4 


Class 5 --- 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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 


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 ? 


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 


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 

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 


Archpriest George Grabbe (reading his own statement) . May I add 
some observations to the statement of His Eminence Metropolitan 

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 


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 


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 

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- 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 


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- 


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 


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. 



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 

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 


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. 


The CiiAiK.MAX. Tlmnlc you very much. 
Is Mrs. Koe liere? 


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 

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 

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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


Colonial West liidiiins were then jihiced under the quota of tlieii' "mother 

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. 


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 

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. 


2. The exist iiiy ari-an^ement« has worked to promote aiuieable iuIer-Americaii 

'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 


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 

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. 



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 

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 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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. 


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, 

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- 

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 


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. 


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 


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