Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings"

See other formats



^ - 


Given By 




*2d Sessfo?^} COMMITTEE PRINT 






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 

®2f ^°^?^^ssl COMMITTEE PRINT 

2d Session J 








SEPTEMBER 30, OCTOBER 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 


25356 WASHINGTON : 1952 





Philip B. Perlman, Chairman 

Eakl G. Harrison, Vice Chairman 

Msgr. John O'Geady 

Rev. Thaddeus F. Gitllixson 

Clarence E. Pickett 

Adrian S. Fishee 

Thomas C. Finucane 

Harry N. Rosenfield, Executive Director 

^^Srr. ^5AI5I 


House of Representatives, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 
Washington^ D. (7., October 23^ 1962. 

Hon. Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman^ President'' s G onimission 


Immigration and Naturalisation, 

Executive Oiflce, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Perlman : I am informed that the President's Commis- 
sion on Immigration and Naturalization has held hearings in a 
number of cities and has collected a great deal of information con- 
cerning the problems of immigi'ation and naturalization. 

Since the subject pf immigration and naturalization requires con- 
tinuous congressiojfTd study, it would be very helpful if this commit- 
tee could haveiKe transcript of your hearings available for its study 
and use, and/^r distribution to the Members of Congress. 

If this i^cord is available, will you please transmit it to me so that 
I may^^ke able to take the necessary steps in order to have it printed 
for the use of the committee and Congress. 
Sincerely yours, 

Emanuel Celler, Chairman. 


President's Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization, 

ExECUTi\'E Office, 
Washington, October 27, 1952. 

Hon. Emanuel Celler, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

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 American 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 some 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. 

Tliird: October 1, 1952, morning session. 

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

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, III.: 

Eleventh: October 8, 1952, morning session. 

Twelfth: October 8, 1952, evening se.ssion. 

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.: 

Twentj'-third: October 17, 1952, morning session. 

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

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

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

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

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

Thenty-ninth: October 29, 19^52, mornings session. 

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

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) 




tuesday, september 30, 1952 

first session 

New York, N. Y. 

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

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

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

Chairman Perlman. The Commission will be in order. 

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

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

We will insert in the record at this point the statement concerning 
the establishment 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 Pkesident 

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 vporld. 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 been successfully 
concluded, but the free world faces equally grave and equally heart-i'ending 





Boston, Mass. 
fifth session 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 9 : 30 a. m., pursuant to recess, in courtroom No. (>, Federal 
Courthouse Building, Boston, Mass., Hon. Philip B. Perlman, Chair- 
man, presiding. 

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman and the following Commis- 
.sioners: Msgr. John O'Gradv, Mr, Thomas G. P'inucane, Mr. Adrian 
S. Fisher. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. The Rever- 
end Daniel McColgan will be our first witness this morning. 


Reverend McColgan. I am Rev. Daniel McColgan, St. John's Semi- 
nary, 2101 Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton, Mass. I appear as rep- 
resentative of Archbishop Richard J. Cushing, archbishop of the dio- 
cese of Boston. The archbishop was so deeply concerned about this 
matter that he sent me to appear and read a statement he has Avritten 
to the Commission, 

The Chairman. You may read the statement. 

(There follows the statement read by the Reverend Daniel McCol- 
gan in behalf of Archbishop Cushing:) 

Archbishop's House, 

Brighton 35, Mass. 
Hon. Philip B. Perlman, 

Vhairman, President's Commission on Imimgration and Naturalization, 
Boston, Mass. 

Honorable Sir : The Archdiocese of Boston numbering about one and a half 
million souls is practically in its entirety composed of the children of people 
who left Europe diirinj; the past century. In their behalf and in l)ehalf of the 
thousands of silent souls who will, please God, come in increasing? numbers to 
add to the lustre of America's prestige, I write tlas note relative to the McCarran- 
Walter Immigi-ation Act of June 27, 11(52. 

It is my considered ojjinion that the act should be amended to purge it of 
several un-Christian and un-American provisions. .Specifically I would like to 
indicate that : 

1. Tlie lamentable national origins theoi-y of the Immigration Act of 1924 is 
(ontinued and made more rigid l)y the MeCarran-Walter Act. This theory was 



openly and avowedly designed to virtually exclude from the United States people 
from southern and eastern Europe. At least it assumed that people from these 
areas made less worthy Americans than northern and western Europeans. Now, 
the theory of national origins cannot be defended without recourse to the dis- 
credited and un-Christian tenets of racism. To sanction racism after we have 
fought a bitter and costly war to defeat it — is nothing short of fantastic. 

2. The provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act will make it practically im- 
possible to admit ordinary unskilled immigrants to our country. It virtually 
confines immigration to people with skills and the dependents of these persons 
accompanying them or already in the United States. Applied to Italy, a nation 
which has contributed so splendidly to the growth and defense of the United 
States, this provision would cut down immigration to a trickle. Italy cannot 
spare the skilled citizens described above. The unskilled southern Italians who 
need to emigrate could not find the sponsors required by the act. 

3. The McCarran-Walter Act gives the American consuls abroad virtually 
imlimited powers to exclude any immigrants who, in their judgment, are liable 
to become dependents or delinquents at any time during their natural lives. 
Furthermore, the McCarran-Walter bill fails to provide for an independent, fair 
hearing for the people who are threatened with denaturalization and deportation. 
I believe the McCarran-Walter bill should be amended to protect adequately the 
rights of those seeking admission to the United States as well as of those subject 
to deportation and denaturalization. 

The above indicated discriminatory and imdemoci'atic features of the McCar- 
ran-Walter law are to my mind a grave potential threat to our domestic develop- 
ment and our international leadership. I wish you and your fellow committee 
members strength and success in your efforts to effect redress. 
Cordially and sincerely, 

R. J. Gushing, 
Archbishop of Boston. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Father. 
Miss Alice O'Connor, you are the next witness. 


Miss O'Connor. I am Alice W. O'Connor, 19 Logan Street, Law- 
rence, Mass. I am secretary of the Massachusetts Displaced Persons 
Commission and supervisor of social service in the State division of 
immigration, 209 Tremont Building, Boston. 

I am appearing in my capacity as secretary of the Massachusetts Dis- 
placed Persons Commission. 

I have a prepared statement I wish to read. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Miss O'Connor. Public Law -114, passed by the Eighty-second Con- 
. gress on June 26, 1952, over the veto of the President of the United 
States, has many excellent provisions which will produce reforms long 
sought by persons interested in immigration procedure. It removes 
all absolute bars by race to entrance into the United States and into 
the citizenship of the United States thus, correcting the injustices 
caused by earlier laws and establishing a nondiscrimination policy 
whicli at least approaches the ideal in which most of the people of 
the United States believe. 

It grants equality in privilege to the woman citizen or alien in 
i-espect to nonquota or preferential status for spouse and to exemption 
from the literacy test. The correction of these inequalities has been 
long overdue. 


The u<re at wliicli an alien may apply for citizenship, IS. is compar- 
able to the aae when the male may he clnifted into the Army, instead of 
'21 as it has been in other years. 

There are other "(hkI values both to the resident alien, the alien 
temporarily here, and to the pros])ective citiaen in the act. Ordinarily, 
persons workin<i; in the immigrant field are accustomed to accept the 
bitter with the better and rejoice in small improvements in the law, 
even thon<2:h they ])ersonally deplore the underlyinfj racialist char- 
acter of the method of restriction. Perhaps the time has come now to 
stand fast in the assertion that, despite its obvious values. Public Law 
414 is basically wi'ou<i-in ])rinciple because it continues the spurious and 
discredited docti'ine of racialism or etlmic superiority by its main- 
tenance of the national origins quota. It refines that doctrine by the 
new formula of the Asia-Pacific triangle. 

It should be emphasized, however, that while the Asia-Pacific tri- 
angle formula is new, the method of quota by race— rather than coun- 
try of birth — was initiated when the first repeal of the Chinese exclu- 
tion acts was made law. 

The formula of restricting innnigration by quota has no taint of 
racialism. The original ]jroposition of a quota was the recommenda- 
tion of the Immigration Commission in 1911 and when the first quota 
law of 1921 went into effect, it was based on a straight percentage quota 
on the census of 1910. 

The racialism on the theory of the superiority of one nationality over 
another was put into the law by the national origins formula. This 
racial theory had been foreshadowed as far back as 1890 when the 
restrictionists proposed a literacy test as a means of limitation. The 
late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, in a speech before 
Congress on March IG, 1890 (56 years ago), advocated a literacy 
test, because it "will bear most heavily upon Italians, Russians, Poles, 
Hungarians, Greeks, and Asiatics, and lightly, or not at all, upon Eng- 
lish-speaking immigrants or Germans, Scandinavians, or French." He 
further comm(mts that the specified people who will find difficulty in 
])assing the literacy test "are elements which no thoughtful or patriotic 
man can wish to see multiplied among the people of the United 

This is iiativism or Xordic superiority in its most outspoken phase. 
Before the national origins formula was enacted into law, there w'as 
extensiA^e and intensive propagandizing on the superiority of Nordics, 
the nonassniiilability of Southern or Eastern Europeans. Books by 
the dozen, by iMadison Grant, William McDougall, Stoddard and oth- 
ers, ))ublicized that now entirely discredited theory. Furthermore, the 
novelist Kenneth Roberts in his own autobiography explains how he 
was paid by the Saturday Evening Post to write a series of articles 
which were openly anti-migrant and ])ro-Xordic. The law was en- 
acted in the era when isolationism was popular; when the return to 
normalcy was the political slogan of the hour. To correct this fiaw 
in the law, therefore, requires not a single battle with its author and 
senatorial proponent, but a long, considered campaign of education 
to balance at least 23 year.s of the bland accej)tance of a theory so 
closely akin to that of the Nazi doctrine of Hitler, that we should be 
ashamed to continue it at all, let alone refine it by elaboration into 
Asia-Pacific triangles and such. 

25356 — 52 21 


An additional clause in the bill which restricts quota migration to 
100 for island possessions also falls within the racialist stigma. Spe- 
cifically, this will cause the most hardship to natives of the British 
West Indies who have now been waiting a long, long time for quota 
numbers although there was no numerical restriction. They have 
waited presumably because there is not enough personnel to handle 
the cases and also because of the very strong interpretation of the 
"likely to become a public charge" clause in regard to them. It could 
justly be claimed that this section is other evidence of the racial 
bias which has blemished the act. 

In the determination of quota to which an immigrant is chargeable, 
the act appears to have inflicted an undue penalty upon the alien 
who was born in the United States but who subsequently lost his 
American citizenship. He, under the law, is to be considered under 
the quota of the country in which he is a citizen or subject, or the last 
foreign country in which he is in residence. This not only takes a 
number in the quota, but it is an unnecessary penalty on persons who, 
for the most part, lost their citizenship because they were taken to a 
foreign country when children and conscripted into military service 
because of the war. A person born in the United States was born in 
the Western Hemisphere. There appears no legal reason why the law 
could not be interpreted to grant such a person nonquota status even 
if he has lost his status as a citizen. Since most of these lost citizen- 
ship cases were Italian nationals and many of them used every human 
effort to assert their American nationality, the artificial assignment to 
them of places in a tight quota, is evident prejudice against this ethnic 

While is it impossible to discuss detail as presented by the law, par- 
ticularly since tlie regulations which will implement it are still un- 
published, it is necessary to discuss the new method of selection, or 
restriction, in addition to quota which is set up by allocation of quotas 
under section 203. Fifty percent of all quota is reserved and given 
priority for persons whose services are determined by the Attorney 
General to be needed urgently in the United States because of high 
education, technical training, specialized experience, exceptional 
ability of such immigrants and to be substantially beneficial prospec- 
tively to the national economy, cultural interests or welfare of the 
United States. However, in order for this allocation of the immi- 
grant visas to be an efficient tool for selectivity there would first of 
all have to be a desire on the part of Americans to seek the services 
of such immigrants. 

Nothing in the experience of those who were concerned with the 
displaced-persons program warrants optimism about the desire for 
placement in America of persons of high learning, and so forth. 
The IRO carefully classified occupational skills, compiled data 
on the so-called elite and even had excellent salesmen with case 
histories, photographs, references, diplomas, and so forth, for the 
intelligentsia they could suggest for placement. Special agencies 
labored on the program. Despite all this. Ph. D's are still dishwash- 
ing, doctors still scrubbing floors. The study made by Maurice Davie 
of the refugees who came prior to the displaced persons and numbered 
about 250,000 in an 11-year period, shows a slightly better average of 
placement and less downgrading. Since then, many learned profes- 


sions — the law, medicine, pharmacy, and so forth — have tif^litened 
their regidations for licensinj^. States have established citizenship as 
a condition precedent to licensin<^. It is true that Public Law 414 does 
not deal with refugees, but it is directed to quota countries, Europe and 
elsewhere, and, therefore, they would have the language element to 
face plus the question of transfer of skills from the European economy 
to the .Vmerican one. Moreover, there appears to be, neither within 
the Innnigration and Naturalization Service nor in the Consular Sei-v- 
ice, any body of men trained to know occupational skills or 
cjualified to evaluate who is of high education, specialized experience, 
antl so forth. If oU percent of available quotas are to be devoted to 
people who come to the United States because of the occupations 
Avhich they will pursue, it might appear that the placement of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service should be returned to the 
Department of Labor which presumably would know about labor 
conditions and what management, industry, and labor desire from 
Europe. There also is needed a definition as to what is meant by 
"specialized experience'' and "exceptional abilit}"." 

Slieepherders, for example, of Basque national origin, are appar- 
ently not within this group. Special legislation granting nonquota 
status to this group has already been passed. The detail of bringing 
this group here is worth passing mention. 

Public Law 414 uses the device of occupational skills as a secondary 
method to restrict immigration. Such a method has been suggested 
by some students of migration as a substitute for weighted quotas but 
not in addition or in any but a small experimental area to see how it 
works out. 

Its use, as set forth in Public Law 414, will cause a virtual mora- 
torium in migi\ation at a time when our national policy sees migration 
as a part of a program for a peaceful world. 

Moreover, Public Law 414 requii-es that consideration must be given 
first to this 50 percent of the quota and that applications under this 
particular allocation are taken in the order in which the petition 
for the peison is filed. On the other hand, persons who come under 
the preferential quota are taken in order of their priority of registra- 
tion on quota waiting lists. It seems, therefore, that no only does this 
new venture get 50 percent of the quota, but that it will wipe out in 
practice the vvaiting lists now over-long for different short-quota 
countries. There is a 5-year waiting list on the Iranian quota. 
Persons on the Italian quota are now being taken if they registered 
before June 1949. This new alhx-ation would appear to eliminate 
<\\\ tliat has been gained b}' priority in waiting lists. Quota inuui- 
grants who remain abroad have already been defrauded of their chance 
at the quotas by the provisions in the law that take quota numbers 
for every adjustment of illegal entry and which by the device of 
mortgaging quotas in advance for displaced persons have fi-ozen 
some small quotas into oblivion for the lifetime of those now on waiting 

The law continues, strengthens, and further sharpens the penalties 
of the Alien liegistration Act of 1940. When one considers that the 
United States grew and prospered for 143 years before any Congress 
thought it necessary to make a law to count the aliens and that that 
j)eriod coincided with our period of greatest migration, it makes one 


realize why taxes are hi<ili. The new peiiaUy of deportation for fail- 
ure to file an address report, the i-equirenient to carry an alien card and 
the other penalties for neo;lect to file an address report are completely 
alien to the American philosophy of life. One of the things that the 
<lisplaced persons have found admirable in America is the fact that 
liiey do not have to report to jwlice stations and show documentation. 
This act would tend to make them lose some of their enthusiasm as to 
our way of life here. Of course, the neglect to fill out an address 
report is an act mala prohibita and not mala in se. The penalty 
deportation is a heavier penalty than is exacted for most crimes 
involving moral turpitude and even if the law specifies that the penalty 
will not be inflicted unless the failure to register is willful, the adjudi- 
(•ation of the nonwillfulness of the act will cost the Government time 
jind money for inspectors, warrants of arrest, hearings, and the like, 
and it will certaiiily cause loss of time for working aliens. 

When the alien registration law went into effect in ID-IO, the Govern- 
ment i^ut on a tremendous program to make aliens aware of the law. 
So far as any comparable program now exists, it has not yet reached 
radio, the press, or social agencies in this area, although the penalties 
for nonperformance are much more severe. In regard to the children 
who came into the United States at earlier than 14 years of age, and 
upon whose parent or guardian responsibility of registration is placed, 
I may state that the private social agencies who have handled the 
orphan children have, to my knowledge, completely ignored this proce- 
dure. The law further makes it a misdemeanor for the alien not to 
have at all times in his personal possession his alien registration re- 
ceipt card. Does this mean that the aliens who are fighting for us in 
Korea must carry their alien registration cards on their ])erson, and 
are there immigration inspectors detailed to check up on this group? 

There are, therefore, valid objections to Public Law No. 414 in that 
it violates the principles for which America stands because it continues 
and defines a doctrine of racialism which is scientifically out-dated and 
ethically wrong. It should be condemned also for the things it omits 
to do. It has no provision whatsoever to help in the relief of the over- 
popidated parts of Western Euro{)e and the serious refugee ])roblems 
elsewhere. There is no place in it where there is a single provision 
which would permit an orphan to enter the United States whether 
that orphan was or was not adopted by an American citizen. It also 
totally omits any disci-etionary ]:)Ower to correct an error made on the 
part of the Government, but not on the part of the alien. Such errors 
do exist, and there should be some power within the administration to 
correct them without the need of a special bill through Congress. Nei- 
ther does it, except so far as it apparently continues the Board of 
Immigration Appeals, permit any discretionary power in the treat- 
ment of deportation cases. There is no review whatsoever of any con- 
sular decisions, and the suggestion often made of a Board of Review^ 
in the Consular Service similar to that of the Board of Inuniiraiion 
Apjieals has a))j>arently been completely ignored. 

This law will, of course, act as a moratorium toward innnigration. 
The 50 percent allocated for special skills, and so forth, will naturally 
hold up proceedings even if such ])ersons can be found in the small 
quota countries. It offers no solution whatsoever toward the refugees 
who are left in Europe nor to the countries like Italy which had never 


had the benefit of any a))i)iv('iable amount of refugee legislation and 
which have suffered tieniendous war damage and in whicli ()vei'j)()])u- 
lation is a grave peril not only to the country itself, but to our lio])es 
for the resistance of the A\'estern AVorld to connnunism. 

All these facts have l)een brought to the attention of Congress many 
times. It is to be hoped that our innnigration ])olicy may be reas- 
sessed in view of onr tradition and national ideals. Presumably, the 
committee which was provided for in this law will report before April 
30. Unless there is a critical and interested pnblic to study the rec- 
ommendations they make, it is idle to hope for a more satisfactory 
solution than was shown in Public Law 414. The most saddening 
thing about the passage of that law was not that it was passed, but 
that the Senators who carried the load of opposition to it practically 
talked to tliemselves as did the oi)])onents in the House. 

The road ahead, therefore, is not a hviei battle, but a long hard cam- 
paign to arouse public interest. 

The Chairman. Miss O'Connor, would you for the record describe 
briefly the Displaced Persons Connnission of Massachusetts, how it 
was created and what it is now doing? 

Miss O'Connor. The Massachusetts Displaced Persons (V)mmission 
was appointed by the Governor to assist the Federal Displaced Per- 
sons Commission in the placement of displaced persons within the 

The Massachusetts Displaced Persons Commission didn't fill out 
any assurances, but we have helped displaced persons and people who 
have come here in their adjustment here. We have helped them with 
the re])orts they have to make, to take out their first papers, handle 
complaints, and so forth. We have done it with very little money. 
It has been an unpaid thing. The Governor has provided the use of a 
telephone and one stenographer, which we have until June. It has 
been entirely an appointed body, appointed by the Governor, of people 
either interested in the displaced persons because they were inter- 
ested in the refugees or in a national or ethnic group, or because they 
had some interest in seeing that newcomers didn't get pushed around. 

The Cttaikmax. How many members are on your State commission ? 

Miss O'Connor. Seven. They will continue through the calendar 

The Chairman. How has the program turned out in Massachu- 

Miss O'Connor. I think that of about 5,000 displaced persons who 
have come here, the great majority of them have succeeded in material 
success, in the sense that they now own an electric washing machine 
or an ice chest, and they have a flat in which there is furniture, and 
they don't have to sleep on the floor. Some of them have come up in 
earnings from $80 a montli to $(;r) a week. Materially they have pros- 
pered. Spiritually they have prospered, too, because the first thing 
that they all seem to do is connect themselves Avith the church of their 
own faith, and they seem to be very anxious to build and to get into 
the particular church for their needs. 

Of course there have been failures. Some of the failures are due 
to the person themselves, some are due to conditions they couldn't con- 
trol. But by and lai'ge there has been far more success than failure, 
and very nnich more has been contributed to the State than we have 
spent in doing anything for them. 


I think they have been about as fine a group of immigrants as I 
have seen, and I must say that I have been in this work for 34 years, 
so I have seen a great many different groups of newcomers, and it 
would seem to me you have fine material, excellent character, and a will 
to succeed in this group. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Congressman Kennedy is here now to appear before us with his 
views on this subject. 


Representative Kennedy. I am John F. Kennedy, Representative 
from the Eleventh Congressional District of the State of Massachu- 
setts in the United States House of Representatives. 

I have a statement I should wish to read. 

The Chairman. The Commission will be glad to hear you. Congress- 
man Kennedy. 

Representative Kennedy. I am grateful for the opportunity to 
appear before this committee which is performing the vital task of 
reexamining our country's immigration policy. 

i\jnerica was built by immigrants — men and women who came to 
these shores because they were the victims of persecution. Men and 
women who came to these shores in search of religious freedom. 

There was until 1920 relatively little limitation on immigration. It 
was a reasonable conclusion at that time that some limitation was 
necessary. Unrestricted immigi-ation was rapidly resulting in unset- 
tled employment conditions, and seriously threatening the standard of 
living of our working men and women. 

Woi'ld War II, the ever present Communist danger: the increase in 
our population, the technological advances which we haV-e made, and 
the increased productivity of our farms and industries have changed 
the picture which existed in the twenties. 

Now it is almost universally recognized that the United States can 
absorb a substantial number of immigrants each year. No longer does 
labor fear that the immigrant will cause unemployment or a lower 
wage. We have substantial labor shortages in a number of fields. 

The present limit of 154,000 immigrants is but one-tenth of 1 percent 
of our present population. 

I have already called for, and I respectfully hope this Commission 
will also endorse a bill which calls for the issuance in the next 3 years 
of 300,000 special nonquota immigration visas to nationals and refugees 
of certain European countries. 

This would authorize the admission, among others, of 117,000 Ital- 
ians, 22,000 Greeks. 

I hope the Commission will agree that such a measure would repre- 
sent a significant aid to one of Europe's most pressing problems, over- 
population in some countries, and would be a shining example of 
constructive leadership by our country. 

We are the leader of the free world and as such, other countries are 
looking to us and will follow our example. 

The example, however, we have set in passing the McCarran-Walter 
Immigration Act is unfortunate. This bill is un-American and dis- 


criminatory. It virtually freezes immigration from Eastern and 
Soiitliern Europe and the Mediterranean area, and sets up barriers 
wliich did not formerly exist; and, in additi(m, it places new barriers 
in the i)ath of those from the Caribbean area. 

Specifically, there are these principles and provisions, among others, 
Mhich should be changed. 

The quota system adopted by this legislation is not based (m the 
merits of the applicant for entry but on his nationality. This prin- 
ciple of national origin constitutes an unjustified application to for- 
eigners of a philosophy we specifically condemn by legislation such as 
FEPC for our own citizens. 

Not content with that basis of quotas, its proponents have fixed the 
quotas on a United States white population of 94 million taken from 
the census of 1020. When this figure is broken down to percentages 
determined by foreign ancestry, it successfully restricts immigration 
from Southern and Eastern Europe. 

Application of this formula when coupled with the restrictive provi- 
sions adopted in 1920 operates to permit entry of only 154,000 immi- 
grants a year. Of that mmiber, for example, 65,361 are permitted to 
enter from Britain, only 5,645 from Italy. 

Italy with its entire population crowded into an area no larger than 
the State of California can hope for no appreciative help from this law 
in helping to solve what is obviously one of its major problems. This 
is obvious discrimination against a specific racial group. It is a con- 
spicuous example of the unfairness of the use of the system of national 

Instead of this system we should adopt some quota based on an 
appropriate numerical total adapted to current needs both here and 
abroad. Within such a total we should establish priorities and prefer- 
ences based on many factors aside from nationality, such as character, 
background, and special skills. 

In addition, I urge the Commission to adopt the principle that un- 
used quotas are transferable. Britain, for example, generally uses 
less than 10 percent of its quota and yet it and Northern Ireland 
receive over 40 percent of the total available places. In the years 1930 
to 1948, moreover, 2,151,372 quota numl)ers wei'e wasted — quota num- 
bers which could have been used by deserving citizens of Italy, Poland, 
Portugal, Greece, Lithuania, and other European countries. If Brit- 
ain's unused quota alone should be transferred to those countries whose 
quotas were exhausted, it would enable, even under our present law, 
more than 60,000 immigrants to enter the United States. I urge, 
furthermore, abolition of the 1920 census figures as the basis for deter- 
mining the number of entrants. If we decide to base any of our figures 
on population we should at least use the latest census figures. 

The operation of the Displaced Persons Act militates against fair- 
ness in application of our immigration laws. 

Future quotas of many countries were used up in order to admit 
displaced persons, many of whom were fleeing from the Soviet. Some 
were used up for as much as 140 years. For instance, no Lithuaniai^ 
can come to this country before 2087, no Latvian before 2074, and not 
one Pole before 1999. 

Finally, it would appear that at least five additional factors should 
receive serious consideration. Summarized briefly they are : 


1. Preference should be given to those immigrants Avho are a part of 
a famil}^ unit ah^ead}'- residing in the United States. 

2. Preference should be given to refugees who are persecuted for 
their opposition to totalitarian regimes. 

3. Safeguards to protect us from any possible communistic or other 
subversive infiltration should be maintained as well as exclusion on 
grounds of health and morals. 

4. Provide a less technical and less expensive method of review. 
This will ])revent possible capricious action by administrative officials. 
A second look at man's case is fundamental to our system of justice. 

5. Provide a uniform method of review from a consul's decision. 
There has been much confusion as to the method of appeal from denial 
of a visa. An immigrant should not be obliged to retain a lawyer to 
wade through a maze of technical difficulties. 

In conclusion may I express the fervent hope that this Commission 
will take a positive forward-looking step toward a new and enlightened 
immigration policy which will serve before all the world as a bright 
example of American democracy at work. 

I am very grateful to the Commission for the opportunity to testify 
before them this morning. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Congressman, you remarked in your statement 
that there are "substantial labor shortages in a number of fields." Do 
you consider that labor might be affected adversely through additional 
immigration by means of increasing, or using unused, quotas? 

Representative Kennedy. Of course, we do have a tremendous high 
level of Nation-wide employment, even though we in New England 
suffer from such serious unemployment in the textile and shoe indus- 
tries, which is due principally to dislocation. As a Nation we do 
have high employment and we do have it in sx)ecial categories where 
these immigrants could fit. Of course, that is a pressing fear with 
many and it nnist be taken into consideration in judging how many 
immigrants we can afford to admit a year. 

The Chairman. Have you any particular ideas as to the number 
which could be admitted to the country annually and absorbed in 
the labor market ? 

Representative Kennedy. No, I don't. I suppose it would really 
depend on the extent of unemployment. Whether you could use a 
sliding scale or not, I wouldn't be in a position to say. I think there is 
more than the question of number. I think it is Avhere the number 
should be assigned. We already have a reasonable number that can 
be admitted. Of course, my feeling is tliat it is not apportioned fairly. 
I think that is inqjortant. Even if we should not decide to increase 
the number each year we should make sure the number of j^eople who 
do come to the United States are apportioned on a fair basis and not 
on a basis that is antiquated and favors some nations over some others 
whose problems are more pressing. Obviously, with Great Britain 
enjoying a large quota number it hardly uses since she sends people 
instead to a large number of countries in its commonwealth where they 
are anxious to receive them, such as Australia, while Italy is suffering 
from a major problem of overpopidation, we should certainly consider 
reassigning or reapportioning the immigration quotas. Wliether we 
should increase the number by a great many is something the Com- 
mission Avill have to study. 


The Chairman. In view of your criticism of the national-orijriiis 
quota system, a criticism which has simihiriy been expi-essed by some 
otlier Memljers of t]ie Coiiiiress who have testified, how (k) you ac- 
count for the fact that this act was passed over the President's veto? 

Representative Kp:nxedt. We are not always riiiht in the House. 
We passed a lot of bills over the President's veto wliich I consider 
to be unfortunate. Merely because the House takes favorable action 
on a bill, even by a two-thirds majority, does not mean that they were 
wiser than the President. In this case I think the Pi-esident was wiser. 
In addition, the composition of the House in some ways would not be 
as concerned about the inequities of the McCarran-Walter bill as some 
of us who come from areas of the country which have large immiorant 
groups and large groups which are of immigrant extraction. I think 
those two factors are combined in this case. 

I think it is obvious that we on the Eastern seaboard are more inter- 
ested in that provision of the law. A lot of the immigrant groups 
have settled in the Eastern Ignited States, and we are probably more 
conscious and concerned al)out the inequities of the present system. 

As I say, even more important than increasing the number, we 
should be considered with the way the number is a])portioned. And I 
think it is obviously unfair due to our present problems and the present 
problems of Asia. It seems to me the House acted in very bad judg- 

The Chairman. Some of those who have come before the Commis- 
sion already have suggested that the unused quotas be distributed 
among those countries where there is a pressing demand for migi-a- 
tion to this country. Do you think that ought to be considered? 

Rei)resentative Kexxedy. Yes; I think that is one of the solutions, 
maybe not the best but ])ei"haps the most })racticable. If we decided 
we could accept this number each year I think it is only fair we should 
accept them. Once again I go back to the case of the British in 
comparison to Poi'tugal or Greece, which are being discriminated 
against in relation to Britain, when the British do not have a problem 
approaching that of the other countries. It doesn't seem to me we 
should take advantage of the situation of IDi^O which goes back to an 
early period of history in our country. That should be a major 
source of concern in our country. 

Conmiissi(Mier O'Grady. What effect, if any, does our present quota 
system have on our foreign policy and mutual-aid programs, espe- 
cially, with refei-ence to countries like Greece and Italy? 

Representative Kennedy. I am sure it must be difficult for the 
Italians to undei'stand wdiy their country has a quota less than one- 
tenth that of Great Britain, when especially Great Britain's quota is 
unusued and they, the Italians, have people by the hundreds and 
thousands who want to leave and come over here. An important part 
of our foreign ])olicy is to equalize, and, of course, the second point 
is that we are not in the position ourselves to solve the innnigration 
problems of Italy or Greece, but by adopting a fairer and more 
equitable method ourselves we can set an example for other countries 
and persuade them to adopt a juster policy for those who desire to 
come. I thiid^ the practical help we can give is in our example to 

The Chairman. Thank you, (>)ngressman Kennedy. 

Senator Lodge, vou are the next witness. 



Senator Lodge. I am Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., United States Sena- 
tor from the State of Massachusetts, and my home is in Beverly, Mass. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. The Commission will be 
glad to hear from you. 

Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I appreciate the 
opportunity to appear here today to make a brief statement concern- 
ing one aspect of our immigration policy which I know is of profound 
interest to you, and also is of profound concern to a great many people 
here in Massachusetts — and which is of profound importance to the 
whole of the American people, whether they know it or not. 

I refer to the so-called national-origins quota system, the perpetua- 
tion of which is perhaps the most notorious feature of the recently 
enacted McCarran- Walter Immigration Act. It was this unjust and 
discriminatory continuation of the national-origins quota system 
which compelled me to vote to send the McCarran Act back to com- 
mittee and, when this failed, to vote for the much fairer Lehman- 
Humphrey substitute bill. I was also recorded, of course, as sup- 
porting the President's veto of the McCarran bill in the closing days 
of the last session of Congress. 

I had what was known as a "live pair." In other words, the two 
people, the two Senators who would have voted to override the Presi- 
dent would have been there if I hadn't had the pair. So let's get that 
point cleared up once and for all. There has been too much propa- 
ganda about that. 

I regard the national-origins quota system as repugnant to many 
millions of Americans and contrary to the best interests of the United 
States. Take, as just one example, what this measure means to the 
people of Italy. The McCarran Act prepetuates against the Italians 
all the injustices originally included in the Quota Act of 1924 and the 
national-origins formula adopted in 1929, designed to bar from this 
countr}' people born in Southern and Eastern Europe. How the 
National Quota Act worked out can be seen in the case of Italy. For 
the period from 1900 to 1910, Italian immigration amounted to 2,044,- 
877, or an average of over 200,000 a year. By the act of 1921, it was 
reduced to 42,000 a year. Under the national-origins legislation it was 
further reduced to 5,800 a year. The national-origins concept has 
fastened into our immigration laws the vicious and odious fallacy that 
the peoples of Southern and Eastern Europe are somehow inferior to 
their neighbors in other areas of Europe. It is nothing short of in- 
credible that we should again have enacted into law such a slur on the 
patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large number of our 

What has been said about Italy might also be said with equal truth 
about Greece, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, and I think 

Our national strength here in America, our prosperity, our advance 
in the arts, sciences, and professions; our progress in industry, our 
spiritual leadership, our military genius — in fact, our progress in 
every other worth-while human endeavor — none of these is the prod- 
uct exclusively of one racial or national strain or of one religious 


ftiitli. We in the United States have grown strong because of the 
flow of sturdy innnigrants who with their descendants have brought 
strength and prosperity and security to this country. Every race, 
every nationality, has contributed to the welfare and the strength of 
our countiT. They have discharged all the duties of citizenship — 
including the highest duty of all, which is to bear arms in the defense 
of their country. 

When we want allies to fight side by side with us against com- 
jnunisui, we v.elconie Italians, Greeks and Turks, and people from 
Southern and Eastern Europe. The descendants of immigrants from 
these countries win our highest decorations for bravery in combat, 
l^ut when we revise our immigration policy, we in effect tell these 
l)eoples that they are not the stuff of which red-blooded Americans 
are made. 

It is my earnest hope that in the next Congress aggressive steps 
will be taken to revise completely this racist, restrictionist and reac- 
tionary piece of legislation. The hands of those who will work for 
this objective will greatlj' be strengthened if your Commission pre- 
pares detailed, objective, and constructive recommendations for the 
improvement of the whole concept of our immigration policy. This 
could indeed be a public service of the highest order. 

Let me just add, Mr. Chairman, that in the last 3 weeks three things 
have happened in my own personal experience to illustrate the point 
1 nudce. 

1 attended a meeting the other night in honor of a young man whose 
])arent.s were both born in Italy. He is a wonderfully bright fellow 
to represent Amei'ica. He got the highest marks ever received in 
Harvard, all the time he was there. Now, is a boy like that an asset 
to the United States of America? I am not talking about justice to 
Italy. I am talking about the advantages to the whole of the 
American people. 

There is another boy who got the Distinguished Service Cross for 
flying over Korea. It is that kind of boy wdio is an asset to the 
United States. 

We dedicated a park in Beverly in honor of a young corporal of 
Italian descent, and several gentlemen from the Marine C'orps in 
Washington came up to award posthumously the Congressional Medal 
of Honor to his father and mother and his incredible bravery made 
you proud to be a member of the, human race. 

1 say now that it is absolute folly not to let people like that come 
to America, not only from the standpoint of those people but from the 
standpoint of the best interests of the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. 

The Chairman. In view of your criticism of this act, which is simi- 
lar to criticism that has been expressed by other Members of Congress 
who have testified, how would you explain the action of the Congress 
in passing this legislation over the President's veto? 

Senator Lodge. Well, you are asking me to go into the motives of 
the House and Senate, and I am delighted to try to do it. 

I think in this [)articular case, insofar as an enlightened immigration 
policy is concei-ned, the attitude of the average Dixiecrat, let's say, 
springs from ignorance. I just think they don't understand the con- 
tributions the people of the different countries make and have made 


to America, and I tliiiik they don't understand wliat it is that America 
is all about because the thing that makes America is the Declaration 
of Indejjendence and the belief in the idea of all men being created 
equal, and the di^'ine nature of man and the brotherhood of man. 
America isn't television sets and skyscrapers and it isn't any particu- 
lar race. 

Now, in scmie sections of the country that isn't understood. They 
have an idea in their mind of a monolithic state in which everybody 
does everything exactly alike. There is nothing un-American about 
speaking a foreign language. There is nothing un-American about 
going to a nonpublic school. Our country is not a monolithic country 
in which everybody is supposed to be alike. Our country is like a 
structure of many stones of many different shapes bound by cement. 
We ai'e a country of many different nationalities cemented bj- the belief 
in the brotherhood of man and the common need of an ideal. That 
isn't understood in every section of the country. Many Congressmen 
and Senators are reflecting the ignorance of their constituents. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. As a distinguished member of the Foreign Rela- 
tions Committee of the Senate, would you care to enlighten this Com- 
mission as to some of the important international impacts, if any, of 
our immigration law ? 

Senator Lodge, Of course, it has a tremendous international impact. 
You don't convince foreign nations of your good faith and of your 
regard for them if you treat some of them on an inferior basis from 
others. It stands to reason that you don't. 

I don't think you try to make yourself popular with the Marshall 
plan because I don't think you can buy friendship. What we were 
trying to do was make some of these nations strong in oi'der that they 
could defend themselves. You don't make nations strong if you imply 
by your actions in immigration laws that you don't consider them to 
be equal peoples. I think it does our foreign relations great harm. I 
think it is on a parallel with our failure to enact civil -rights legislation, 
(^ur failure to do that causes our foreign relations great harm. It isn't 
just harm to the individual, although that is true too, but our failure to 
do that causes people all through the world, where the civil rights issue 
is dominant, to wonder about our sincerity. 

Commissioner Fisher. If unused quotas were to be made available 
only on a European basis, what in your judgment, would be the effect 
on the Middle East and other areas ? 

Senator Lodoe. I mentioned Italy. 

The Chairman. But doesn't that have a European versus non- 
European flavor, which is a thing we have to face in the United Xa- 
tions every day ? 

Senator Lodge. I certainly do think so. It is a dilennna that 
everybody faces. My offhand answer is that the situation in Italy 
is so obviously different from that which exists in India. The relief 
of the surplus population in Italy would probably provide you such 
immediately happy results that I think one would be justified in say- 
ing that that was on a different footing. But you are not going to stop 
the protests from India, because I was at the United Nations 2 years 

The Chairman. Are you saying that there are emergency situa- 
tions that might be dealt with distinctly from a long-range innnigra- 
tion policy for the United States? 


Senator Lodge. Not only that. That is true. But I think that the 
nations that have supported our policies and stood with ns are entitled 
to son)e consideration. Now Italy is in the North Atlantic Pact and 
Italy is settino- up an army of which the military ex])erts speak very 
hio-hly. On the other hand when the tio-htinir he.<r;in in Korea, a 
nation like India, which could have made suhstantial conti'ibutions 
of troops, didn't do so. Yon can't overlook things like that. 

Mr. KoSENFiKLi). If you pursue that point, Senator, is not India 
the crucial point in the war for minds of men in the Far East so that 
there are difl'erent considerations, each in its own I'ealm, important 
to the United States forei«in policy'!? 

Senator LoniiE. That is true. Of course you ouii'ht to remember 
two wrongs doirt make a ri^ht. 1 am not for en<i"a<i'inii: in anythiug 
punitive with repird to India. In the Held of foreiuii jwlicy we have 
an obligation toward Italy that we haven't got toward India. 

The CiiAiinrAN. Thank you very nnich. Senator. 

Senator Lodge. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Prof. Oscar llandlin. 


Professor Handlin. I am Oscar Handlin, associate professor of 
hi.story at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

I have studied the subject of immigration for some Ki years and 
liave written extensively on it. I have a prepared statement I should 
like to read to the Connnission. The conclusions that I will attem})t 
to pi'esent here in rather summary form I shall document more fully 
if the Commission should so desire. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear your statement. 

Professor Handlin. I wish in these comments to address myself to 
one aspect of the President's mandate to the (bmmission, namely to 
the place of the national-origins quota in the American immigration 
sj'stem. I believe that device embodied in the laws of 1921 and li)'24 
and reaffirmed this year in the McCarran-Walter Act, is incongruous 
with the present needs, interests, and asi)irations of the American 
people. I believe it stands in the way of enactment of a realistic im- 
migration code that might further the domestic and foreign objec- 
tives of the United States. I believe that, without that device, a 
more effective mode of selection might be devised along principles 
already recognized in our legislation. 1 may say, I have reached 
these conclusions after 10 years of study and writing on the subject. 

In presenting these views I wish to emphasize the degree to which 
our situation now differs from that of the early 1920's when the quota 
system was devised. We do not now hold the views then prevalent as 
to the nature of our country's social and economic order or as to 
America's proper place in the world. The national-origins quota is 
anachronistic because the assumptions on which it rested are anachron- 

The framers of the legislation of 11)21-24, assumed that mankind 
was divided into biologically distinct races ca))aV)le of mingling with 
one another only within very narrow limits. It was argued that the 
traditional American jiolicy of free immigration had been appro{)riate 


in an era in which the bulk of immigration originated in the Nordic 
countries of Northern and Western Europe, because Englishmen and 
Germans were close kin of the original Anglo-Saxons and therefore 
easily Americanized. But the new immigration from Southern and 
Eastern Europe brought to our shores people who were racially dif- 
ferent, and inferior, and therefore became Americanized only with 

Such arguments were supported by reference to the difficulties new 
immigrants encountered in the course of their adjustment. People 
like the Italians, the Greeks, and the Poles, it was claimed, were more 
inclined than the old immigrants or then the native stock, to be illit- 
erate, paupers, criminals, diseased, and the source of corruption in 
politics. Among the new immigrants, it was said, were a dispropor- 
tionate number of anarchists and other disaffected individuals likely 
to be subversive of the American Government. It was on the basis 
of such arguments that the quota system favored the countries of 
Northern and Western Europe over those of Eastern and Southern 

It will not be necessary here to refute the racist basis of these con- 
tentions. We have come a long way in the last oO years and no 
reputable scientist now holds the views such men as Madison Grant 
once made current. I wish instead to emphasis the extent to which 
our own social experience in the last 30 years has demonstrated the 
falsity of the arguments I have just summarized. We have, after all, 
lived for more than three decades with these "subhumans"; and we 
have not found them wanting as men or as citizens. The successive 
investigations of education, of crimes, pauperism, housing, and in- 
temperance have revealed that defects in the social environment rather 
than national origin is the determining factor in these social disorders. 
The children of the new immigrants have become as respectably 
American as those of the old. Two wars have tested the American 
descendents of the new immigrants ; and I know of no evidence that 
they gave less than their share in loyalty and in sacrifices. 

In sum, it seems to me, the distinction between the old and the new 
immigrants was invalid; the latter have proved themselves as capable 
of becoming Americans as the former. Any presumption therefore 
that the nations of northwestern Eui'ope ought to receive larger quotas 
than those of southeastern Europe because their emigrants were more 
readily Americanized is unjustified by ovir own experience. 

Indeed I would go further. I see no evidence that the specific 
qualities of an immigrant's racial or cultural heritage do much eithei- 
to advance or to retard his adjustment to American institutions and 
the American environment. Rather, the success of that adjustment 
would seem to depend upon the extent to which opportunities were 
open to the newcomers and the time available to them to take ad- 
vantage of those opportunities. For example, the Armenians, the 
Syrians, and the other near eastern folk who reached the United 
States at the beginning of this century were undoubtedly more alien 
to American language, customs, and culture when they arrived than 
were the immigrants from the British Isles. But the passage of time 
lias effaced that original difference; and the one group has supplied us 
with as worthy citizens as the other. 

The evidence of our own experience thus destroys the argument 
that has sometimes been used in defense of the national-origins quota, 


the argument tlint the system aims simply to perpetuate the existing 
distribution of racial stocks in the United States in order to ease the 
problems of assimilation. Those problems arise not from the traits 
the immigrants bring with them but from the conditions they meet 

Furthermore, without questioning the sincerity of those who use 
this argiunent, it must be pointed out, that the quotas themselves 
reveal no intention to preserve the existing distribution of population; 
they reveal rather a desire to revert to some former distribution. 
The act of 192-i thus pushed the temporary base year back to 1890 
and emphasized disproportionately the population distribution of 
1790. And, signiticantly the McCarran-Walter Act of this year did 
not seize the opportunity revision afforded to advance the base year 
to 1950 as it might easily have done. 

In its persistence, as in its origins, I cannot regard the national- 
origins quota in any other light than as an unfavorable judgment of 
the ability of the new immigrants to be Americanized. This unmerited 
slur upon a large and worthy segment of our population serves no 
useful function and ought to disappear from our statute books. 

Particularh' it stands in the way of a realistic policy gaged to 
our present needs and interests. The f ramers of the quota system had 
in mind a world of free movement; their task, they thought, was to 
build a dam to hold back the onrushing tide. 

The world familiar to the men of 1920 has, however, disappeared ; 
and it is only confusing the issue to imagine that the alternative to 
our present restrictions is a restoration of the kind of immigration we 
knew before the First World War. Even had we no regulations, the 
volume of the flow would not rise to its old. levels, for we no longer 
live in the old world of free movement. The governments of large 
parts of the world deny their citizens the right of exit. In most Euro- 
pean nations a variety of social and economic laws tend to hold people 
where they are. And the costs of transportation have moiaited so 
rapidly that only a small proporton of potential emigrants could ever 
atiord the expense of making the crossing. 

We must therefore think of future policy not in terms of the old 
mass migrations, undertaken without direction or guidance, on their 
own, by hundrecls of thousands of individuals. Whatever the limits 
we set upon it the immigration of the future will involve much smaller 
numbers, and it will consist largely of persons sponsored by families 
or by American philanthropic organizations and brought across under 
carefully planned conditions. 

Viewed in this perspective, how can immigration affect the needs 
and interests of the United States? Here, too, the contrast between 
our own conditions and those of 19i20 is illuminating. The old law 
came within a context of beliefs on the nature of the American econ- 
omy that are no longer widely held. The men who enacted that law 
had lost confidence in our capacity to expand. Again and again they 
stated that immigration had been tolerable or useful in an earlier era 
when free land was still available. But, they warned, we had reached 
the limits of our resources, the frontier was closed, and further immi- 
gration would lead inevitably to overpopulation, unemployment, and 
the degradation of the conditions of labor. 

The experience of the past three decades has been instructive. Far 
ivora declining, our productivity has expanded at an unprecedented 


pace in both industry and agriculture. During these years of reha- 
tively slight immigration, we have had periods of prosperity and 
periods of depression ; we have seen unemployment rise to the neigh- 
borhood of 10 million, and then virtually disappear; labor's standard 
of living has fallen and then risen again. None of these fluctuations 
since 19:^0 was remotely connected with immigration. 

That should lead us' to regard skeptically the argument that there 
was ever a coimection between immigration, and depressions, un- 
employment and the conditions of labor. In the past, unemployment 
varied not with the volume of immigration but with the business cycle ; 
the conditions of labor depended not on the number of newcomers, but 
on labor's ability to organize and to protect its own interests. So 
too, in the future, I cannot see how immigration, in any practical 
sense, will affect the rate of unem])loyment in the labor force of over 
60 million; and, given the continued vigilance of our labor unions, I 
do not fear that the addition of a limited number of new hands in any 
segment of our economy will drive down the rates of pay. 

On the other hand, we can and ought to take advantage of the 
possibility of profiting from immigration. Certainly in the past 10 
years, we have suffered from shortages of particular kinds of labor 
in various parts of the country. I clo not mean to argue that immi- 
gration was the only way in which those shortages could be relieved. 
But I would argue that innnigration was a convenient, expeditious, 
and cheap way of doing so, and one in accord with the traditional 
ideals of our country. 

So, too, with our future population policy. I do not believe it 
inevitable that our population will begin to decline in the near future. 
But given present factors and a persistently declining native birth 
rate, I believe it highly probable our population will shortly level 
off and then begin to fall. That Avould have serious domestic reper- 
cussions and might actually affect our security in a world in which 
powers hostile to us continue to increase their population. 

Again, I do not believe innnigration to be the only way of counter- 
acting the influence of a falling birth rate. But I do believe this a 
convenient and expeditious way of doing so. A moderate flow of new- 
comers, regulated in terms of our changing needs, would add social 
and economic strength to our Nation. 

The national-origin.s-quota system does not give us such a flow. 
It is rigid, maintaining the same fixed limits from year to year, what- 
ever our needs. And it dissipates well over half the available places 
earmarked for countries which no longer produce any substantial 
number of immigrants. 

Finally, I wish to refer to the relationship of immigration policy 
to our changing place in the world. The quota system was enacted by 
the same legislators who rejected the League of Nations and it had the 
sup})ort of the public opinion that through the 1920's also favored 
American withdrawal from world politics. All these measures were 
aspects of a connnon urge, understandable in the light of the dis- 
appointments of the war and the ])eace, but unrealistic in terms of our 
future. That urge was to withdraw from all contacts with the evil 
world beyond our borders. The immigrants who carried that foreign 
woi'ld to our own shore.s, from this viewpoint, threatened our isolation. 
Certainly, it would be foolhardy to take those old dead dreams as 
our vision of the future. We are totally and inextricably involved 


with tlie politics of the whole world; and the welfare and ojnnions of 
many stian<>e peoples from Korea in the West to Turkey in the East 
is our innnediate direct concern. We need only look at our foreign-aid 
budget to know how inn)ortant to us is the prosperity of Greece and 
Italy. If our immigration policy can, in the least measure, assist 
those countries in deilling with the problems of displacement and 
recovery, we would be shortsighted in the extreme to allow ancient 
prejudices to stand in our way. 

More important. We are engaged throughout the world in a strug- 
gle for allies against a shrewd and ruthless enemy who does not hesi- 
tate to make millenial promises. In this contest for the control of 
opinions we enjoy an initial advantage derived from the reputation 
we earned as the mother of republics, the light of liberty, and the 
refuge of the oppressed throughout the world. We must not w^aste 
that advantage. 

The quota system w^as, in its origins, and remains now, a refiection 
the earth in an order of national origins it informs them that some 
are more fit to become Americans than others. And that raises an 
uneasy question in their minds: Is our belief in democracy coupled 
with the reservation that it is workable only in favored ciimes and 
in the hands of favored men or is this a way of life open to all i 

The quota system was, in its origins, and remain now, a reflection 
u|)on the Americanism of many of our own citizens; it stands in the 
way of a rational consideration of the present utility of innnigration; 
and it is an unnecessary burden in our dealings with the rest of the 
world. I urge upon the Connnission the desirability of examining the 
possibility of its elimination. The present law already contains indi- 
cations of how total numbers could be limited and selections made in 
other ways. AVithout the national-origins quota, these could more 
etfectively serve our needs and implement our ideals. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rosexfip:lu. I would like to pursue for a moment. Professor 
Handlin, two points you made. First, with regard to your general 
anthropological assumption of the quota system as to assimilability 
of various groups within the broad politics of the United States, are 
you aware of any more recent studies than the 1910 and 1920 studies 
that went into the biological and anthropological assumptions? 

Professor Handlin. Yes. If you will allow me to do so, however, I 
think it would be worth calling to the attention of the Commission 
certain defects in the re])ort of the Innnigration Connnission that was 
presented in 1911 and did a great deal to influence the opinion entered 
as to the formulation of this law. That report was presented in 42 
volumes. I don't suppose many people living today have read those 
42 volumes. I have. The report of the Commission was sunmiarized 
for the Congress in two supplementary volumes and I shall simply 
em])hasize here that those summary volumes were not at all summaries 
of the report of the Connnission. Their conclusions on many impor- 
tant subjects ran directly counter to the evidence that is contained in 
the reports of the Connnission itself. For instance, on the suoject 
of illiteracy, the body of the Connnission's report revealed no reliable 
correlation between the degree of illiteracy and the differential of 
old and new immigi'ation ; but the summary volume went ahead and 

253nfi — 52 22 


reported as if the findings did so provide a difference between the old 
and the new immigration. 

Furthermore, the report of the Commission rested upon a certain 
scheme of anthropological classification. I find no present scientific 
support for the discarded certain anthropological data in the body of 
the report itself that ran counter to its conclusion. 

I make this point because these very substantial 42 volumes have 
often been taken as a "bible" on this subject. They have not to my 
knowledge been seriously reexamined by anyone else in the last 40 
years, and I think the conclusions in those volumes are open very 
seriously to question throughout. 

Mr. KosENFiELD, The Commission would be glad to get any com- 
ments on w^hat you referred to as the old "bible" of 1910, if you could 
afford us the privilege of your comments on that material, since you 
have studied it. It would be extremely helpful for the Commission 
to have your comments on the report of the Commission of 1907 as 
well as on the underlying concepts and justifications of the national 
origins system. 

Professor Handlin. I shall be happy to provide that material in a 
written memorandum. In addition, there has been a long list of 
community studies of varying localities that have examined the adjust- 
pients of various ethnic groups and have looked into such questions as 
literacy, amount of education, commercial standing, and so on. 

I have in mind, for instance, a very long and extensive study of the 
city of New Bridgeport, Mass. That was published some 4 or 5 years 
ago by Yale University Press, under the title "Yankee City Series." 
i find in the results of that study no correlation between this division 
and the division as to old and new immigrants, and the actual experi- 
ence of immigrants or their children in the city of New Bridgeport. 
That is, if you range the ethnic groups according to age, literacy, and 
prosperity. You find differences. Some better than others and some 
higher than others. But that list did not correspond in any way with 
the kind of distinctions that are recognized in the quota law. That 
is, the people highest on those lists of achievements were not necessarily 
the people highest in the immigration quota. Nor were the same 
groups highest in all the various lists. These conclusions are 

They were reaffirmed and similarly stated in a study of Greenwich 
Village. That was under Tanby Caroline Webb 15 years ago. I 
,could supply you again Avith a list of comparable studies. 

Mr, RosENFiELD. Tlie Commission would be very grateful if you 
will furnish that. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What do you consider the role of the uni- 
versities can be today in making known such facts as you have 
-described ? 

Professor Handlin. First is research, which is study and which I 
'jliiroached to you earlier. That is, the whole problem has been ob- 
scurred perhaps necessarily by prejudices or bitter feelings, and it 
seems to me the university is one of the places in which the actual 
.effects of policy can be examined with some detachment and, I trust, 
that the kinds of research we carry forth will provide facts and the 
insights that will enable policy-making bodies to act appropriately. 

Jn the sec^ond place, I think of the function of the university in this 


connection in a more directly educational way. That is, in spreading 
these facts and information and giving at least a small element of our 
own population an awareness of the nature of their past, the part that 
immigration played in it and the potentialities it has for the future, 

I may say that at Harvard, which is by no means a university 
infiltrated excessively by new innuigrants, the course I offer in history 
attracts an undergraduate student body of almost 200. This seems 
to me to be an indication of — now that a quarter of a century has gone 
by and some of all the bitterness has been decayed or eliminated, 
although not all of it — the fact that increasingly our own people are 
becoming aware of what is involved in the subject and of its own 

As I said recently in print, I think the McCarran-Walter Act, which 
I regard as an unfortunate act in all but a few respects, was only the 
beginning of a process of i-ethinking of our immigration needs and 
our policy toward this process. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Professor. 

(The memorandum referred to above and provided by Professor 
Handlin appears in appendix : Special Studies.) 

Statement SuBiciTTEo By Rev. Samuel Tyler, .Jr., Episcopal Trinity Church, 

Boston, Mass. 

Mr. EosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, I should like to insert in the record 
at this point telegrams sent to the Commission by two witnesses who 
are unable to testify in person. Rev. Samuel Tyler, Jr., and Congress- 
man Christian A. Herter. 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

(The telegram from Rev. Samuel Tyler, Jr., Episcopal Trinity 
Church, Boston, is as follows:) 

Chairman, the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Federal Courthouse, Post Office Building, Boston, Mass.: 
Very sorry, but impossible to be present at hearing this morning. Our com- 
mittee which has resettled 1,100 displaced persons in last 2 years, strongly urges 
passage of emergency legislation to enable those displaced persons remaining in 
Europe to come to this country following the President's recommendation of 
100,000 a year for the next 3 years. 

Rev. Samuel Tyler, Jr. 

Statement Submitted By Hon. Christian A. Herter, A Representative In 
Congress From The State Of Massachusetts 

(The telegram from Congressman Christian A. Herter, 73 Tremont 
Street, Boston, Mass., a Representative in the United States Congress, 
is as follows:) 

Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman, President's Commission on Immiijration and Naturalization, 
Federal Building, Boston, Mass.: 
Please record me in favor of revising the McCarran Act. My reason for voting 
to sustain the President's veto was because sections of this law definitely dis- 
criminate against worthy inunigrants from Greece, Italy, and other southern 
European countries, as well as .Jamaica and other West Indian areas. The 
progressive features as to providing for the admission of immigi-ants from 
Asiatic nations should be retained. 

Congressman Christian A. Herter, 

73 Tremont Sti-eet, Boston, Mass. 

The Chairman. Rabbi Judah Nadich. 



Kabbi Nadk'H. I am Rabl:)i Judali Nadich, 12 Royal Road, Brook- 
line, Mass. I appear here in behalf of the Jewish Community Coun- 
cil of Metropolitan Boston and 10 other organizations which are listed 
in my prepared statement which I should like to read to the Commis- 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Ral)bi Nadich. Mr. Chairman and members of tlie Commission, I 
appear before you today in behalf of tlie Jewish Community Council 
of Metropolitan Boston ; the Boston Chapter of the American JeAvish 
Committee; New England Region, American Jewish Congress; New 
England Region, Anti-Defamation League of Biiai B'rith; Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society; Boston Section, Jewish Labor Committee; 
Department of Massachusetts, Jewish War Veterans; Bridgeport, 
Conn., JeAvish Community Council; Connecticut Jewish Community 
Relations Council ; Hartford, Conn., Jewish Federation and the New 
Haven, Conn., Jewish Community Council. 

One of the prime purposes of all of these organizations is to help 
maintain the dignity and integrity of Jewish life. We M^ho are Jews 
in America find it considerably easier to work for that ideal in the- 
healthy democratic sunlight of the United States than do many of our 
fellow Jews in those countries recently enslaved by Hitler and uoav 
locked in the totalitarian grip of Stalin. Through our age-old devo- 
tion to the principles of social justice set forth in the Bible and de- 
veloped throughout Jewish tradition as well as through our fidelity to 
American concepts, we are naturally zealous in championing the causer 
of self-respecting immigrants everywhere. 

In this era when perhaps 1 in every 10 of the world's inhabitants 
has been uprooted, our people — decimated by mass murder and driven 
from their homes by war, political oppression, and racial and religious, 
abuse — are well qualified to testify regarding immigration policies. 

American society is a complex amalgamation of ethnic and national 
types. It has been sustained b}^ the principle of cultural democracy. 
We assume traditionally that each American group, whatever its^ 
antecedents, makes a distinctive contribution to the common enterprise- 
which it thus replenishes and enriches. 

The Ignited States throughout most of its history has profited from 
the entry of oppressed, zealous, self-respecting, and energetic immi- 
grants. They have lent enormous vitality, creativity, and spontaneity 
to the total culture. Our population grew apace with our technology 
and the exploitation of our diverse s])iritual and material resources 
which combined to make this country a formidable world ])ower. 
Meanwhile, free and virtually unlimited immigration proceeded from 
the crest of one wave to that of another until a peak was reached in 
the mid and late nineteenth century. 

Following AVorld War I, the waves receded. By 1924, they were 
reduced to a trickle. The immigration act of that year established a 
national-origins-quota system which was increasingly repugnant to 
thoughtful citizens as thev came to understand its imiilications. On 
June 25, 1952, President Truman vetoed an omnibus bill, H. R. 5(>T8, 


the i)r()p()setl Iiuini^i'.it ion aiul Nat ionalil y Aft (wliii'h siiljhiHiiienlly 
was passed over his veto by «v Senatorial margin of two votes). 

Sponsors of that bill son<>lit to perpetuate and extend the national- 
()i'i<rins-(iuota system. In his veto messa»ie tlie Pi'esident voicetl e.\- 
pert and informed opinion wlien lie asserted that tliis system was 
"always based ujjou assumptions at variance with our American ideals'' 
and that it '"is lonu' since out of date and more than ever unrealistic 
in the face of present Avorld conditions.'' 

Any quota Avas an innovation in the United States 30 years ago, 
but b}' now the discriminatory quota is so often taken for granted that 
it has become a sacred cow. Present-day Americans who have for- 
gotten their non-American forbears, although they may not be more 
than a generation or two removed from them, occasionally agitate for 
a ccjmjilete end to immigration. More often they are willing to settle 
for a continuation of the present screening method which underwrites 
Anglo-Saxon supremacy and goes far toward choking otf all sizable 

One can do no better than to quote the President's message on this 
score, as follows : "The greatest vice of the present quota system, how- 
ever, is that it discrimiiuites deliberately and intentionally, against 
many of the peoples of the world. The purpose behind it was to cut 
clown and virtually eliminate innnigration to this country from south- 
ern and eastern Europe. A theory was invented to rationalize this 
objective. The theory was that in order to be readily assimilable, 
European immigrants should be admitted in proportion to the num- 
bers of persons of their respective national stocks already here as shown 
by the census of 1920." 

This policy had the practical effect of permitting many English, 
Irish, and German immigrants to enter the United States while effec- 
tively barring all but a small ratio of other European peoples. Inas- 
much as (juotas allotted to England and Ireland remained largely 
unused, total immigration fell markedly, sometimes to less than a 
third of the annual limit which had, in any case, become a shrunken 

The Immigration Act of 1024, like the oriental exclusion acts be- 
fore it. was written in an atmosphere of racist tension. Some pseudo- 
scientific credence was lent to i-ace theory at that time. Since then, 
])iological and anthro]^ological evidence has mounted to the point 
where any im|)utation of inate racial inferiority is either an expression 
of ])athol()gical hatred or an admission of hopeless ignorance. Writ- 
ing such an imputation into law, reaffirming our exclusivism, if not 
our exclusionism, is to compound the original error, 

A flexible code would allow for full use of quotas; instead we 
have made them more rigid than ever. For instance, before ])assage 
of the INFcCan-an-Walter bill, Bi-itish West Indians drew upon the 
umised British quota of (Jo.OOO. AVhereas in the ])ast it was possible 
for 2.000 Xegi'oes from the West Indies to come in anmially, the 
number will now be limited to 100. This is so of all colonies and 
dependent areas which until now have been permitted to use quotas 
allocated to their mother countries. Such a ])rovision no doubt satis- 
fied those who wish to see fewer Jamaicans entei'ing the United States. 
However, it cannot be argued that this grou]) is liard to assimilate 
since, as a S])okesman of the Amei-ican Negi-o, J. A. Rogers, has 


pointed out in the Pittsburgh Courier, most of them enjoy an en- 
viable advantage over some other ahens, namely their knowledge of 
the English language. This racist provision is of a piece with our 
unstable policy toward the colored peoples whose good will we need 
so badly. 

A sop has been thrown to various Asian countries, natives of which 
used to be totally excluded. One hundred per annum per country 
may now be legally admitted. Proponents of the new law tend to 
overlook an accompanying provision which discriminates and con- 
fers an inferior status on any persons "attributable by as much as 
one-half his ancestry" to races indigenous to the Asian-Pacific triangle/ 
by providing that such persons, no matter where they are born (for 
these people and for none other, nativity becomes relevant) are charge- 
able to the quota of the country of their Asian ancestry. This bigoted 
slur upon Asians and individuals of Asian extraction nuist be read 
within the context of international politics. Gratuitous insult Avoven 
into the legal fabric of a nation upon whose leadership the free world 
depends, serves to upset a delicate balance of power, alienate des- 
perately needed friends and help thrust them into the Soviet orbit. 

The Filipinos are a case in point. Since winning their independ- 
ence, although their quota was small, they have never encountered 
specific racial barriers. This exem])tion from indignity has been 
ended. Now a person of Filipino background boru in any area other 
than the Philippine Islands, such as South America, is obliged to 
trace his genealogical ties and satisfy irrational criteria of acceptabil- 
ity if he wishes to become a United States citizen. 

All in all, the legalization and codification of zenophobia is a na- 
tional disgrace. In this development, we have a manifestation of con- 
tempt for Turks, Italians, Greeks, and innumerable other Europeans, 
all Asians, and many Negroes. Our selective inhospitality weakens us 
from within by removing rich cultural plasma from the bloodstream of 
American civilization and exposes us to greater dangers abroad by an- 
tagonizing large segments of the world's population wliich, in other 
ways, we strenuously seek to befriend. Racism is not the basis for a 
sound, but rather for a possibly ruinous policy of immigration and 
naturalization. It can and should be erased from the statute books 
wherever implicity or explicity present, and at one stroke, by total 
elimination of the present quota system. In its place, an alternative 
arrangement such as selection on the basis of individual merit or dis- 
tribution of visas on a first-come, first-served basis, could be instituted. 
Even this first-come, first-served alternative, however, is open to criti- 
cism inasmuch as prospective immigrants w-ho can find no sponsors 
here would be barred, and many refugees fleeing persecution abroad 
would be excluded despite their devotion to the democratic ideal. Any 
new^ immigration law would have to surmount this obstacle. 

For surely there is more than one feasible approach to the problem 
which would remove present inequities, extirpate bias and reopen our 

With individual merit as the keystone of admissions policy, a flex- 
ible plan of apportionment established by a federal administrative or 
executive connnission might well be instituted. Under such a pro- 
gram, a truly dedicated commission, such as the one which has had the 
foresight to" conduct hearings of this nature could determine annual 
admi.«!sion allotments. 


What criteria sliould govern admissions? Not an outmoded na- 
tional pedigree but such factors as special skills, our own farm and in- 
dustrial needs, the mental and physical abilities of the apj)licants and 
kinship to American citizens and to aliens who have gained admis- 
sion to the United States and yearn to see the Old World family circle 
complete again. 

Such a proposal should, in our opinion, provide for a minimum of 
150,000 annual visas but allow a maximum of at least 350,000 and thus 
enable this nation to offer asylum to bedeviled and liberty-hungry 
fellow humans like those now cornered behind the iron curtain. 

It is particularly unjust to be guided by yesterday's prejudices when 
overpopulation in some areas is so acute and wdien those who would 
flee Stalin are so numerous. This is scarcely the time to let precious 
quota places go to waste because of a system loaded in favor of nations 
with no emigrant pressure. 

Naturally, we condemn and deplore the use of national origins 
quotas; but even if such a system should survive, radical changes for 
the better could be made. As man.y immigration specialists have 
observed, unused quota places could be reassigned at the end of every 
year by an equitable system of priorities. The situation could be 
eased somewhat by use of census figures more up to date than those 
upon which current legislation is predicated, namely the 1920 census. 
For instance, the Boston Herald in a recent editorial estimated that 
if 1940 figures were used, Great Britain and North Ireland would 
lose 1,200 quota places and Italy would gain roughly 1,500 at the 
two extremes while other changes would range in between. 

Such alternatives have not yet been attempted; this does not mean 
they are unworkable. Racism can be abolished. As an immigration 
formula it has neither a long nor honorable historj^ But some preju- 
dice and discrimination are abroad in the land even though they flout 
our fundamental creed. This is true also of anti-intellectuality which, 
when implemented in practice, can likewnse prove to be exceedingly 
unwise and impractical. Since passage of the McCarran-Walter Act, 
college and university professors have been eliminated from the class 
of aliens who are admissible as quota-exempt immigrants. In the 
world of science and the humanities where no natural frontiers exist, 
our legislators have erected artificial ones. If these difficulties had 
existed 10 years ago, Dr. Benes might not have been able to find refuge 
from Hitler at the University of. Chicago, nor Dr. Bruening at Har- 
vard, nor Dr. Einstein at Princeton. Intellectual capital of this sort 
is squandered at our OAvn peril. It is not in keeping with American 

Unwarranted restrictionism is one evil ; irresponsible recourse to 
deportation is another. In the past, naturalized citizens have been 
substantially on a par with native-born citizens. The new law in many 
ways reduces them to second class status. While multiplying the 
grounds for banishment and denaturalization — a form of punishment 
whose primitivity is well known to social scientists — in several in- 
stances it eliminates statutes of limitation protecting American citi- 
zens. If, for example, there is a technical defect in the innnigration 
procedure of any alien, he is deportable for the rest of his life regard- 
less of how many years he has been a peaceful law-abiding resident 
of this country. This goes beyond the legitimate objection to and 


sanction aa-aiiist fraudulent entry. It establishes a special punitive 
principle for those who have chosen to uproot themselves and riiigrate 
to the United States. Another section of the new law o-iyes the United 
States Attorney (xeneral power to de])ort any alien who "at any time 
after entry is convicted in the United States of any criminal oifense." 
Moreover, the conviction may have been obtained four or five decades 
prior to such a decision. The formulation is extraordinarily vague 
and therefore creates unprecedented ])ossibilities of abuse. For vAvAt 
constitutes a criminal offense? In Senate debate, Senator Lehman 
and others indicated that it could be reckless driving or violation of 
a municipal antinoise ordnance. As Senator Lehman put it : "This 
provision would, for all practical purposes, authorize the Attorney 
General to impose at will the sentence of exile on almost any and all 
aliens the Attorney General for any reason feels are undesirable."' 

Similarly the McCarran-Walter law establishes the deportability 
of an alien for past acts which were not deportable offenses when com- 
mitted. Whatever the constitutionality of such rules — and it is 
dubious — there can be no question as to their immorality. For harsh- 
ness and benightedness it would be difficult to surpass that part of the 
law which authorizes deportation of any alien who after entering 
the United States has a nervous breakdown and is hospitalized, and if 
the breakdown occurs within 5 years after his entry into the United 
States. So to differentiate between mental disorders and physical 
afHications is to fly in the face of modern medicine which is increas- 
ingljr psychosomatic in its outlook. It carries us back to a point not 
far removed from the medieval concept of diabolical possession. In 
this region once plagued by Salem witchcraft, this hits a sensitive 

The spirit of American law, with its underpinnings of fair play, has 
always been hostile to ex post facto regulations. Yet the Federal 
'Government is now empowered to visit retroactive deportation upon 
immigrants who at any time after entry belonged to "subversive" 
groups, even though they have long since discontinued their affiliation 
with such groups. We have already witnessed the case of a New 
England resident about whose good citizenship no one expresses any 
doubt, but who long ago naively paid $2 to the Connnunist Party 
during a strike. He was fully disabused thereafter, but today he faces 
deportation to Finland. It is a tragically peculiar feature of this 
provision that, whereas immigration by members of totalitarian 
groups who reformed before entry is now ])ermitted, those who reform 
after entry cannot escape deportation. Thus, the recently and perhaps 
expediently reformed Nazi enjoys a preferential treatment over the 
long-reformed naturalized American citizen. 

Administrators are fallible human beings against whose possible 
misjudgments, checks, appeals, inquiries, hearings, and reviews are 
absolutely indispensable. Despite this unchallengeable American 
doctrine, we have just granted inordinately broad powers to immigra- 
tion officials, consuls, and the Attorney General's office by substituting 
for objective standards the "opinion'' or "satisfaction"' of these officials 
as a basis for exclusion or de])ortation. Effective review of capricious, 
spiteful, or erroneous decisions is prevented by numerous new pro- 
visions. Surely, it is an invasion of rights hitherto considered sacred 
to permit any immigration official to interrogate without wairant 


''any alicMi or person believed to he an alien" as to whether he may 
remain in the United States. Certain imi)<)rtant safe<2:uards have 
been abolished. For instance, the Pi'esident of the Ihiited States has 
been £iiven the nnreviewable riaht to snsi)en(l innni^iation at any 
time while under the old law he had this ri^ht only duj'ing war or 
durin<2: the existence of a national e,mer<rency. The Board of Innni- 
<>;ration Appeals has been emasculated by removal of its statutory 
basis thus enablino- any administration to abolish this essential insti- 
tution at any time. The whole administrative a])pai'atus has become 
swollen with power and o]:)ened more than ever to j)rejudice and 
arbitrariness. A minor consular official exercises an absolute rijxht 
to deny issuance of a visa, and there are practically no means whereby 
an interested American citizen may secure a hearing to i)ut in question 
the correctness of the consul's action. Surely the legislative estab- 
lishment of a visa review board would seem to be in order. 

In appealing to you to work to bring the injustices already men- 
tioned into line with the American doctrine of eciuality for all. I Avish 
to cite one fnrtlier exam])le of the subtle danger with which the act 
of 195:^ is weighted. I refer to section 2:2!2(a) demanding that each 
alien shall state his "race and ethnic classification." In this hour of 
judgment by label, of the deliberate and unholy debasement of the 
character of great peoples fiercely proud of their spiritual origins, this 
Nation must avoid totalitarian practices of harassing and stigmatizing 

If even the possibility exists that consular officials may interpret 
this section to mean that adherents of a faith are required to state 
their religion, viz, that Jewish would-be immigrants nuist state that 
they are Jews, then this section is fraught with the greatest danger 
to all of the traditions and concepts of American democracy. Thus 
section 222(a) of the McCarran-Walter law constitutes an open invi- 
tation to wrongdoing. 

Within the compass of a brief statement, it is impossible to convey 
a full bill of particulars concerning present legislation and the 
desirability of drastic revision thereof. What we can do unequi- 
vocally is to urge upon Congress the abolition of long standing and 
newly created inequities of our ])i"esent basic inmiigration and nat- 
uralization law. Mature and reasoned consideration can only lead 
to its liberalization. Self-intferest, a humanitarian ideology, our 
global position, all point to the necessity for blasting prejudice and 
injustice from the law. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Rabbi. 

Commissioner Finucane. You made reference to bringing individ- 
uals in because of their special skills and so on. Would you not in- 
clude within that group just ])lain, unskilled labor — a man who wants 
to earn his living w^itli a pick and shovel? 

Kabbi Nadicii. Of course, that paragraph necessarily had to be 
veiy sketchy. But I certainly would not limit the categories only to 
those of skilled labor. In other words, when there is a shortage of 
man])ower in the country, and under our present mobilization pro- 
gram there is some need for nonskilled labor, then certainly they too 
should be included. 

The C^iiairmax. Do I undei'stand that you would give priorities to 
skills that ha])])en to be needed? 


Rabbi Nadich. I think there ought to be established a series of 
priorities, one of which would be the one which was just mentioned; 
others, I have tried to indicate briefly as well. 

Commissioner Finucane. Would you establish these priorities irre- 
spective of the national boundaries? 

Rabbi Nadich. Irrespective of national boundaries. I think, too, 
one point that ought to be borne in mind with regard to the establish- 
ment of priorities and categories ought to be the fact that we in 
America have always profited from the introduction into our culture 
of various strains from various parts of the world. I think that 
under the establishment of categories there ought to be provision 
made for a sort of nondescribable group, as far as skills are concerned, 
but whose importance would be the fact that they would be bringing 
into America various cultural strains that would help fructify Amer- 
ican culture. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. With reference to the proposal in your statement 
for "a Federal administrative or executive commission * * * 
to * * * determine annual admission allotments," are you ad- 
vocating a permanent or ad hoc commission, or what do you have in 
mind ? 

Rabbi Nadich. Of course, that was in line with the general sugges- 
tion as to possible legislation as corrective to the present legislation, 
and while, of course, we haven't worked out any details of legislation, 
it would seem, since there would have to be established priorities, 
there would have to be a more or less permanent commission that 
would have to determine the selection within the priorities. There- 
fore, the commission would have to be more than just an ad hoc 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Woulcl you suggest such a commission be given 
administrative responsibilities as well, or would it be devoting itself 
fully to this distribution process^ 

Rabbi Nadich. It would have administrative functions as well, with 
proper checks. Of course, that ought to be instituted so as not to 
render complete and full power to even such a commission. 

Commissioner Finucane. Would you consider that giving, tem- 
porary special priority to areas of overpopulation in Europe, such 
as the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, would be repugnant to your idea 
here expressed ? 

Rabbi Nadich. I don't think it would be repugnant to the ideas 
here expressed because giving priority to certain national groups 
would not be with the inference that these national groups are superior 
to other national groups, which, it seems to me, is the inference under 
our present legislation. There our reason is a specific one, not because 
the Greeks, or the Italians, or the Netherlanders are basically superior, 
but because there is at the moment an emergency of overpopulation 
in those countries, and we want to relieve that situation. 

Commissioner Finucane. If, within its absorptive capacity, our 
country were to become an outlet for the overpopulated countries of 
Europe, would that not be a blow to countries such as Indonesia and 
Pakistan, where there is also a severe population pressure ? 

Rabbi Nadich. I fully appreciate the difficulty of that argument 
you have just raised, and it is quite true that overpopulation is a 
serious problem in many of the Asiatic countries. It seems to me, 


however, that there are certain considerations that we must bear in 
mind : First, there will be of course, a top floor, top ceiling, as to what 
numbers we can take into the United States ; working with that ceiling 
then, we get to work on apportioning our priorities among various 
overpo})uhited countries. 

Then there ought to be bourne in mind, in addition, our national pol- 
icy to help tight the growth of Soviet influence wherever possible, and 
in those countries where, because of overpopulation and ensuing pov- 
erty tlie Soviet propaganda is growing increasingly successful. It 
would seem to be to our national interest to look in the direction of 
those overpopulated countries first. Hovrever, I do feel that in the 
case of Asiatic countries, too, we should not turn away from their 
problems ; that we should try to help them as much as we can. 

Commissioner P^ishek. Well, it seems to be the view of the demo- 
graphic experts who have testified here that within our ability to 
absorb, we can do something about the population pressures of some 
of the European countries. They also agree, and I am sure you will 
also, that within our ability to absorb, we really can't absorb the 
population problems of the world. 

Now in our struggle against connnunism, will not such a distinction 
present to our adversary in that struggle the propaganda weapon 
whereby he can through his agencies in the crucial areas of the Far 
East, say: "Look at the Americans, they are prepared to solve the 
population problems of white countries, but they really don't care 
about you." 

Rabbi Nadicii. Of course, our propaganda will have to be sharpened 
also to combat such Soviet propaganda. And I say we ought to at 
least — if nothing more tlian a token admission of Asiatics — we ought 
to increase our token admission of Asiatics. 

I want to make one closing, statement, if I may, Mr. Chairman if 
you will forgive me, it is a personal reference. During the war as a 
chaplain I had the experience, the unhappy and tragic experience, 
during the Normandy invasion particularly of helping to bury as many 
as 250 of our men in our Armed Forces a day, and as we placed them in 
these long trenches, one beside the other, I could not help but think 
of the fact that in spite of the fact that they were Americans by birth 
or by naturalization, whether they were white or black, or Protestant 
or Catholic or Jew, whether their ancestors came from England or 
Rumania, or Poland or Italy, they were all Americans, who had 
fought for America and who had died for America, and who were 
being buried together as Americans. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Commission. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Alice Cope. 


Mrs. CorE. I am Mrs. Alice Cope, vice chairman of the Massachu- 
setts Displaced Persons Commission, and I am testifying as an official 
of that commission. I am also president of the Window Shop, 56 
Brattle Street, Cambridge, Mass., which is a nonprofit organization 
set up in 1939 to help the refugee and the newcomer to this country 
resettle in this area. 


Mr. Chairman. I am not an expert; I can't say any of the things 
that Professor Handlin and Rabbi Nadich said, but I would like to 
support what they have both said. I am an amateur who became 
interested in the refugees, and in the new Americans because, as a 
young woman, I was in Germany when Hitler came to power, and 
from a protected Boston background I was suddenly thrust into a 
situation that I couldn't believe existed, and refused to accept. From 
that time, I have worked to help to find employment and homes and 
a new way of life for the people who have come to this area. 

I want to speak of one particular aspect, which, while I respect the 
experts' opinions, and their careful analysis of the McCarran-Walter 
Act, I feel is neglected, and that is the actual process of resettlement 
of these people ; what happens to them when thej^ come to their new 
country and to their new community. 

So far, resettlement, in the years that I have been closely attached 
to it, has been done on a sectarian basis, very devotedly in some places^ 
very spasmodically and carelessly in others. It has in some com- 
munities caused a serious burden on the voluntary agencies because 
the people, particularly in recent years, who have come, have been 
through so much, and have so many problems to face from learning 
a new language, to readjusting themselves to a new life, that it takes 
time and thought and care. Where it has been done, with time and 
thought and care, as, for instance, bj^ most of the Jewish agencies all 
over the country, it has been done with outstanding success. Wliere 
it has been left to the individual sponsor, who in a moment of enthu- 
siasm gave his sponsorship totally unaware of what he was facing 
when the immigrant arrived, it has frequently fallen eventually to 
the lot of a private agency in the community, if there was one, or to 
various church groups, or to vaiious kindly people, who very often 
with plenty of good will but very little sense, have taken on the care 
of these peo]3le. They have suffered, and we have suffered because 
they have suffered. 

Now, the voluntary agencies, it seems to me, have done a tremendous 
job in resettlement process. But what I am w ondering is if we are 
really going to rethink our immigration policy, whether w^e will also 
rethink the resettlement of our inmiigrants. and whether our Govern- 
ment shouldn't recognize, say frankly : '"We want immigration ; we 
want these people to be resettled as well, as quickly, as wisely as 
possible. We will put money into seeing that it is done. We will put 
money into adequate English classes. We will put money into ade- 
quate social services; we will put money into adequate medical care." 
Then, 1 think that people would be resettled quickly; they would 
be resettled much more firmly, and they would be jible to contribute 
much more quickly to the particular community that they are in. 

I don't think that we have paid sufficient attention to what happens 
to an uprooted human being. We just assume now he is lucky to be 
in America. Well, very often after they have roamed about for a 
year or so, they don't feel lucky to be in America, where it is so diffi- 
cult to get employment because of age, because of lack of language. 
They certainly feel they would be better off in Europe, des])ite all of 
the fears and all of the hardshi]xs that they have been through. 

I would also like to see the Government face realistically the ques- 
tion of the handicapped. If we mean what we say, or mean Avhat some 


people say, that we want to take the handicapped and we want to 
^ive them an opportunity in this country, then we must put money and 
thou<ijht and care into having them resettled and recognizing the time 
it nuiy take to resettle them. If we are not going to j)tit thouglit and 
care into tlie liandic<i])ped, then I think it would be far better not to 
have them come at all. 1 have seen cases of the handicapped here 
who, though not actually rotting physically, because they are able to 
live, are certainly rotting emotionally and spiritually because nobody 
will give them a job. 

1, personally, would like to see the quota system done away with. It 
Avould seem to me far better to set our limit in total numbers, and then 
clearly face what we want: where we want them to go; what we are 
going to do as a Government, not as foundry agencies, not as individ- 
uals, l)ut as a Government, what are we going to do to resettle these 
people as quickly as possible. 

I don't think I need to add more than that except that I thought both 
Professor Handlin, and Rabbi Nadich said all that I have thought 
many, many times. I am glad to answer questions about what I do. 
I think Mr. Rosenfield knows very well what I do, and how I have 
been in this for so long. I feel very strongly that we haven't looked 
at our immigration policy realistically and sensibly. I don't see any 
reason why you can't be humanitarian, and can't be realistic, but I don't 
think we are. We are either one thing or the other — we think we 
are being hard-boiled, or we are being hai'd-boiled. I am interested in 
human beings where they belong; I am not interested in being senti- 
mental about them because I don't think it helps them or it helps this 

The Chairman. Are you suggesting that the American people have 
not recognized this ])roblem in the same light you have ? 

Mrs. GoPE. It seems to me all growth is a matter of education, and 
education takes a long time. I have just come back from a trip across 
this country, and I realize more than ever that it is really, for the most 
])art, the east coast that is interested in immigration, and is interested 
in the newcomer. That makes a lot of difi'erence. The east coast isn't 
the Ignited States, and the X"^nited States, as a whole, doesn't care about 

The Ghairmax. Why is it that the ditferent nationality groups all 
over the country aren't just as nnich interested as gi-oui)s who happen 
to be located on the east coast ? 

Mrs. GopE. Well, I am sorry; I think they are only interested in 
their particular group, and I think that reiil interest should be in 
inmiigration, not in any particular group, whether it is a national 
group or whethei- it is a religious grouj). That is why I feel so sorry 
that the rescttlenuMit of inunigi-ants has always been on a sectarian 

I don't know the answer. I think it is a slow pi-ocess of education 
and growth. I thiid^ sometimes wise people must take the lead. I 
think a good bill could l)e wi-iltcn which would protect this country, 
if it needs i)rolectioii. I ha))i)en to think that we are strong enough 
not to have to worry about (he iininigi-ants who are coming in here, 
but I know I am very much in a minority on that. But the considei-a- 
tiou of the relieving of Kiwopc and the proper resettlement in this 
country could be i)ai-t of a wise l)ill. and T bcli<'ve that the Gongress 
v^duld be convinced of it. 


The Chairman. Does not the fact that the Congi-ess passed this 
immigration law over the President's veto lead you to believe the 
people of the commmiity were satisfied with it? 

Mi-s. Cope. I can only tell you one experience: I was invited to 
Washington to one of the hearings for the McCarran bill, and I 
spoke in a room three times the size of this, to one member of the 
committee. Well, if more than one member of the committee isn't 
interested to hear what people like myself have to say, then how 
can i>eople like myself get over what we have to say. Now, whether 
that was repeated many times I don't know, but I just cannot believe 
that the McCarran Act is the wish and the will of the American 
people. I think it is lack of interest that caused it to happen, and 
lack of awareness of what was happening, rather than a desire to 
exclude immigrants — because they have given so much to this country, 
and we all were immigrants ; my ancestors were ; everybody's were. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Albert G. Clifton, you are next on the schedule. 


Mr. Clifton. I am Albert G. Clifton, legislative agent of the 
Massachusetts State CIO Industrial Union Council, 18, Tremont 
Street, Boston, Mass., on whose behalf I am appearing. 

I have a prepared statement I wish to read for my organization. 

The Chairman. The Commission will be pleased to hear it. 

Mr. Clifton. I do not come here as an expert on our immigration 
and naturalization laws. As the legislative agent of workers affil- 
iated with CIO unions in the State of Massachusetts, I have been 
deeply impressed by the fears that have gripped many working-class 
families of immigrant background since the McCarran bill became 
law. This uneasiness and dread is felt not merely by people who 
are still noncitizens, by people who have failed to become naturalized, 
but by many well-established families who have lived in this country 
for a generation or more. 

For some years, after the turn of the century, immigrant workers 
from Europe and elsewhere had a feeling of insecurity, of fear, of 
not being wanted. However, during the past 25 years, this sense of 
not being wanted, of being discriminated against, has greatly dimin- 
ished. It is tragic to lind feelings of this kind again on the increase. 
It is, therefore, with the utmost satisfaction that we have noted the 
setting up of the President's Commission to study the immigration 

Because of the reactions of our people, I have made it my business 
to read up on the McCarran Act and to talk to people who know a 
great deal about the subject. ]Much of my testimony is based on an 
article published recently in Commentary, by Mr. Oscar Handlin, 
professor of history at Harvard, and author of several outstanding 
works on the problems of the American immigrant. The views of 
this writer are so much the same as mine that I have taken the liberty 
of following his statement in certain particulars. In addition, I have 
had the benefit f)f a memorandum prepared by certain attorneys who 
have worked with this problem. 


Over a courafreous and forceful veto, Congress recently enacted an 
imnii<rration and nationality act. technically called the omnibus iniini- 
eration bill of Public Law 414. More popularly, it is known as the 
McCarran-Walter bill. 

Passa<2:e of the McCarran-Walter bill was a defeat for all those who 
have worked to bring into confoi-mity with ))resent needs and ideals 
the complex code by which we re;U'ulate the admission of immiijrants. 
Manifestly, the thirty-yeai'-old statutes inidcr which we had o])erated 
were unrealistic in terms of the need of li)5'2. Their intention was, 
presumably, to <jiA"v the United States a stable Mow of newcomers fixed 
at a little over 150,()()() a year. These laws have never done so. As- 
signinof the largest number of ])laces to applicants from countries like 
Great Britain, which no longer produces substantial numbers of emi- 
grants, and limiting the available places for countries like Ital}', 
which do, they have reduced the stream to a negligible trickle. Our 
old innnigration laws are not in line with th.e democratic ideals of 
most Americans today. Those statutes were the i^roduct of an earlier 
troubled postwar period and reflected the sj)irit of isohitionism. This 
was the spirit also expressed through the Ku Klux Klan and in the 
rejection of the League of Nations. A quota system rigidly fixed 
which identifies peoples as desirable or undesirable is offensive to our 
allies and potential allies throughout tlie world, ar.d is a slur upon 
millions of our own citizens. 

The McCarran-Walter bill is one of the worst statutes to which an 
American Congress ever gave its approval. Instead of correcting the 
inadequacies of the 1924 immigration code, it aggravates them. Not 
since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 has an act of Congress 
come so close to upsetting the underlying assumption upon which the 
conception of citizenship in the United States rests: tlie assumption 
that there are no degrees of citizenshi]); that all Amei'icans are com- 
pletely equal in rights, whatever theii' place of birtli. 

The bill ]:)erpetuates all but one of the regrettable features of the 
old system and, in addition, introduces certain new ones. It does make 
available tiny (piotas to the countries of Asia, and thus ends one of the 
worst of the old discriminations. But the harm done by the new 
measure more than can-^els this slight g;iin. Retaining the rigid 
national quotas, it actually strengthens racist barriers. It thus de- 
prives the Negroes of the British We-t Indites of the right to take 
advantage of the unused quot;',s. of Greiit B"itain. It defines as 
"oriental persons" those with even one Asiatic parent, no matter 
what their place of bii'th. The son of a Chinese mother and an 
English father, born a Ijritish citizen, in Britain, would not be free 
to enter our country under the British quota. Professors, ministers, 
and refugees from i-eligious persecution wonhl lose the few advantages 
they now enjoy in seeking admissicm to the United States. 

The bill curtails severely the civil lib?i'ties of innnigrants and resi- 
dent aliens. The latter would be conq)elled to register annually, and 
two failures to do so would be cause for sunnnary deportation. Con- 
victions for crime anywhere, at any time, would bar an applicant for 
admission to this country; there would no longer be, as there is now, 
some consideration of the surrounding circumstances of the crime — 
when it occurred, whether it involved moral turpitude, the nature of 
the convicting tribunal, or whether it would be considered a crime in 


the United States. Resistance to Mussolini in 1924 or the Communist 
Czech Government in 194:8 might conceivably be grounds for exclusion. 
The power of immigration and consular officials, already arbitrary, 
would be increased. Most disturbing, the McCarran- Walter bill 
sets up a class of conditional or second class citizens : under its pro- 
visions, our naturalized citizens would not immediately receive rights 
equal to those of the native-born, as they have in the past. 

Organized labor believes that we should eliminate the provisions in 
our immigration laws which discriminate against individuals because 
of their race or national origin. 

The McCarran liill continues and even emphasizes the national- 
origin theory. Our present quota system based upon the national 
origins of our population in 1920, restricts quota immigration to 154,- 

000 annually and distributes this annual allotment to the various na- 
tions of the world. The distribution of quotas favors Great Britain 
and Ireland with more than 50 percent of the annual allocation. These 
countries just have no need for more than half of the quota numbers 
which we give them. The southern and eastern countries of Europe 
are given small quotas in view of the national-origin sj^stem. 

Asiatic countries receive token quotas of about 100. And although 
the underlying theory of the national-origin system is to determine 
quotas by place of birth, quotas for orientals are determined on the 
basis of race, no matter where they are born. We hold that it is ethi- 
cally untenable to diiferentiate between individuals on the basis of 
race or origin. The inlierent worth of the individual should be the 
only criterion. 

Our quota system and the racial discriminations in our new immi- 
gration laws were founded in the 1920's upon the theory that Nordic 
culture was superior and that certain other nationalities and races 
were inferior. Scientists have exploded this sort of nonsense. As a 
man who has lived among immigrants all his life, I can say with cer- 
tainty that there is no difference in the ability of national groups to 
adapt themselves to our American society. The ability to adjust de- 
pends on the character and intelligence of the individual and the treat- 
ment he receives. Some people in all groups find it harder to become 
at home than do others ; but this has nothing to do with nationality or 
race or color. We in the United States can assimilate any kind or type 
of people if we exercise tact, brains, and kindness. It doesn't even 
depend on fluency in speaking English. I have known inunigrants 
who picked up English very quickly : some of the very best Americans 

1 have ever met are men and women who spoke with an accent to the 
end of their days. This is a matter of spirit and not a trick that one 
l^icks up readily. 

Most of us had hoped that the Nazi myth of racial and national 
superiority was buried upon the battlefields of Europe and in the 
waters of the Pacific. Today the ghost of that myth haunts us when 
we look at the immigration and nationality law of 1952. 

The United States pledged universal respect for and the observance 
of human rights for all men without distinction as to race or national 
origin at the United Nations Conferences, in our participation and our 
acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations, and in our activity 
in behalf of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as 
the Draft Covenant on Human Rights. We cannot maintain our 


place as a leader in pressing; for international acceptance of these 
principles and at the same time olfend nations and races by discrimi- 
nating against them in our innnigration laws. 

It may be necessary for economic reasons to limit immigration to 
around 154.000 persons per year. But whatever over-all figures we 
set should be divided u|) without distinction as to race, sex, nationality, 
colonies, language, or religion. 

In his veto message. President Truman said that Public Law 414 
will eliminate the statute of limitation upon deportation and that it 
will "sharply restrict the present opportunity of citizens and alien 
residents to save family members from deportation." He pointed out 
that the provisions of the new law makes deportation or admission of 
aliens dependent upon the personal opinions or satisfaction of Govern- 
ment officials. These provisions, said the President, are worse than 
the infamous Alien Act of 1798, passed in a time of national fear and 
distrust of foreigners, which gave the President power to deport any 
alien deemed "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United 
States. * * * Americans now * * * should be just as 
alarmed as Americans were in 1798 over less drastic powers vested in 
the President" (H. Doc. 520, 82d Cong. 2d sess. pp. 6-7). 

Experience and history teaches us that restraints applied to aliens 
are often subsequently applied to citizens. Those who imprison the 
helpless are likely in the end to find themselves inside the walls they 
have erected. We should not retain the precedent of undemocratic 
procedures in the law whether they be directed at aliens or citizens. 
Our laws should be founded upon a principle of brotherhood of man 
and upon humane consideration rather than upon a theory of suspi- 
cion, distrust, undemocratic procedures, and arbitrary discretion. 

Aliens with 5 years' — even 3 years' — residence in the United States 
and aliens with family ties should be encouraged to remain in this 
land of ours. Except as penalty for a crime and as punishment im- 
posed by the judicial branch of the Government, aliens in this category 
should not be subjected to arrest, detention, or banishment. 

The McCarran Act, as I read it, creates a category of second-class 
citizens. Today, those Mdio have become bona fide citizens by naturali- 
zation are told that they do not have the freedom to stay abroad which 
is granted to native-born citizens. We have been told frequently that, 
except with regard to the Presidency, the native-born and the natural- 
ized citizen stand upon an ecpuil footing. The McCarran Act says 
"No." The law now says the naturalized citizen cannot return to his 
native land for more than 3 years and in no event can he go abroad to 
other countries for more than 5 years. If he does, he loses his citizen- 
ship. The native-born citizen may go abroad without anj^ restriction. 

The McCarran Act makes so large a i)ro])ortion of the quotas avail- 
able to those with special skills and makes the ])rocedure so involved 
that this section of the law itself all but ends immigration to the Uuitcd 
States. I believe that preferences might well be given to those with 
special skills, to relatives, and to those fleeing persecution. I would 
grant these three categories a preference to the extent of 50 percent of 
the annual quota of 154,000. The remaining 50 percent should be left 
open for laborers, mechanics, farmers, and indeed the common man : 
the kind of people who came to America in the past and hel])ed to build 
our bridges, our roads, our factories, our industries, and our culture 

25."?nfi — 52 2S 


and even our labor movement. If the McCarran Act had been in effect 
in 1790, and in 1890, and in 1910, it is doubtful that we would be the 
world power which we are today. 

Therefore, we strongly feel that the obvious inequities of the ISIc- 
Carran Act should be corrected. 

And we further believe that, in the process of formulating a fair 
and just immigration policy and a law for its administration, the tra- 
ditional principles under which our country was founded should be 
the guide. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stephen E. McCloskey. 


Mr. McCloskey. I am Stephen E. McCloskey, representing the 
Boston Central Labor Union, American Federation of Labor, and I 
am appearing here today on behalf of our president. Earl McMann. 

The Chairman. AVe will be glad to hear anything you have to say. 

Mr. McCloskey. We are opposed to this law because we think the 
restrictions are too strong and I think our country has been built up 
on the truth of people ; that the freedom of speech and thought, and 
that the way that the previous speaker said in his last paragraph, the 
common man having the right, and these restrictions are too close so 
we are liable to have another situation such as the Sacco and Vanzetti 
case. People are found guilty of belonging to certain organizations, 
separate and apart from the issues involved. I think most of us feel 
that a person who is in this country for some period of time and 
through some way has become a member of an organization — as in the 
period between 1929 and 1936 when people joined various organiza- 
tions not knowing at the time that they were involving themselves in 
a situation that is here today — should not be deported or uncovered 
because they are called "pinks.-' I don't think it is right and fair that 
a man, who may have children gi'owing up in this country, and who 
years ago had signed an organizational card thinking he was joining 
a labor union, should then be deported years later because it turned 
out to be some subversive thing, of which he was totally ignorant. I 
don't think it is right and our labor movement does not condone any 
kinds of these "isms" or organizations that are against our Govern- 
ment. We do not want those kinds of people in with us. But, by the 
same token, we have got to be fair and just, and we must have the truth. 
Therefore, I think parts of this law are wrong and should be stricken 
out or amended in some way. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. ]\IcCloskey. 

Mr. Peter G. Geuras ? 


Mr. Geuras. I am Peter G. Geuras, 202 Washington Street, Boston. 
I am here as chairman of the displaced persons committee of the 


Athens chapter of the Order of AHEPA, and I also appear on behalf 
of Costa ?»Ieliotis, president of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of 
Boston, which is a religious and social center of the Greek Americans 
of New England, with a membership of 75,000 to 100,000 Greek 

1 wish to Tx:a.d a prepared statement. 

The CiiAiRjMAN. You may do so. 

Mr. Gr.uras. The Displaced Persons Act gave a ray of hope to 
thousands of European people, many of whom came to the United 
States where they found an opportunity to earn a decent living and 
become useful citizens. Almost without exception, they considered 
themselves most fortunate and are very thankful for this opportunity. 
The war left them homeless, separated from their families, starving; 
and hopeless. The Displaced Persons Act gave them a chance to liv&. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act recently passed was an anti- 
climax. Many of these unfortunate people who were not able to 
qualify in time to come under the Disi)laced Persons Act were hopeful 
that Congress would pass a liberal immigration act so that they, too, 
may be able to qualify later. The McCarran-Walter bill shut the door 
very tightly and extinguished that hope, especially for people of 
southeastern Europe where the quota number is very small. 

We feel that the quota system under the act works inequitably 
against Greek nationals and those of other .southeastern European 
countries. These countries are overpopulated and their natural 
resources are very poor and cannot adequately support these people. 
We strongly urge a revision of the quota system of the McCarran- 
Walter Act basing the quota .system on a more equitable basis. It 
does not seem fair that some countries have so large a quota that it 
is seldom fulfilled and in other countries the quota is so very small 
that only a fraction of a percentage of those that wish to come to the 
United States can be allowed to come. 

We also believe and urge that Congress should pass a new Dis- 
placed Persons Act permitting an additional number of displaced 
2)ersons to come to the United States. Those that have been allowed 
to come have already established and assimilated themselves here in 
a most satisfactory manner. An additional number will help relieve 
a great deal of misery and sufl'ering in most European countries and 
will not in any way unfavorably affect our country. 

It is submitted that these new immigrants are hard-working, con- 
scientious people and a credit to our country. 

The Chairimax. Thank you very much, Mr. Geuras. 

I understand that Mr. Fred V. Moscone, 73 Tremont Street, Boston, 
is present and desires to file a brief with the Commission at a later date. 
Permission to do that is granted. I suggest that you forward the 
brief to the Commission's headquarters in Washington. 

The hearing will stand in recess until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the Commission recessed until 1:30 
1). m. of the same day.) 





Boston, Mass. 
sixth session 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 1 : 30 p. m., pursuant to recess, in court room No. 6, Federal 
Cour-thouse Building, Boston, Mass., Hon. Philip B. Perlman pre- 

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman and the following Commis- 
sioners: Msgr. John O'Grady, Thomas G. Finucane, and Adrian S. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. We are in 
receipt of a statement from Gov. Dennis J. Koberts of the State of 
Rhode Island, which will be read into the record at this point. 

Statement Submitted by Hon. Dennis .T. Roberts, Governor of the State of 

Rhode Island 

(There follows the statement of Gov. Dennis J. Roberts, read into 
the record by Harry N. Rosenfield :) 

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 

Executive Chamber, 
Providence, R. I., October 1, 1952. 
Mr. Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman, President's Commission 

on Immigration and Naturalization, 

Boston, ^fass. 
Dear Mr. Perlman: I should like to express some objections I have to the 
McCarran-Walter immifiration bill which retains some of the discriminatory 
provisions of the National Origins Immigration Act of 1924. I should like to 
inform you and your associates of these views by letter rather than by appear- 
ance before your sroup because of the pressure of work which keeps me at my 
desk. In many respects the so-called McCarran-Walter bill is un-American and 
deals harshly with the would-be immigrants from the countries of southern and 
eastern Europe, more particularly those from Italy. Greece, the Balkan countries, 
and Poland. It is well known that during World War IT many whose names and 
national origins could be traced (o these countries fought valiantly and in many 
instances made the supreme sacrifice for our cause. 

In Italy, for exani])le, we are a.«king the people to support our policies as 
enunciated by the free i)arties rather than the Communists led from Moscow. 
On one hand we ask their support, on the other we tell them they would not be 
welcome in our country. This argument, of course, is seized upon by the Com- 
munist.^ in their campaign to win over these people. 

I should like, also, to voice ol)jection to tiie quota method as proposed, based 
on the immigration laws of 1021 and 1924. If we are to use a quota system for 



these countries and for their would-be immigrants, then I see no reason why we 
should not use the 1950 figures as a basis for the quota. To the alternative 
Humphrey-Lehman measure concerning quotas and the filling of unused quotas, 
I should like to give my strong support. If, in the first place, we set an over-all 
quota to this country and some nations do not use up that quota of immigrants, 
we would be doing little harm to this country and nmch good, I believe, if we 
were to apportion the unused quota among the nations whose quotas are filled. 

Section 327 (E), Title III, Nationality and Naturalization, would deny the 
privilege of repatriation to those American citizens who served in the Italian 
Army during World War II. I strongly urge the retention of this title with the 
modification which would permit such former American citizens to give full 
accounting of their service in the Italian Army and the reasons therefor. I have 
in mind specifically unwilling service of a person drafted into the Army against 
his wishes. 

In our State which I am privileged to serve as chief executive we have large 
segments of our population whose national origin can be traced to Italy, Greece, 
Poland, the Balkans, and other sections of Europe. I have always found them to 
be industrious, God-fearing, and loyal Americans. Generally speaking, they are 
anxious to become American citizens, to embrace the American way of life, and 
to assume the duties and obligations of American citizenship for themselves and 
their families. The great record written by the men and women who served 
in the armed forces of tliis country from our State during World War I and World 
War II is ample proof of this, if such proof is necessary. In the light of these 
objections and those I know will reach you from other sources and other in- 
terested persons, I ask you and your associates to review in great detail the 
immigration laws as they now stand and improve them for the benefit of the 
United States of America and the free iieople of the World. 
Very sincerely yours, 

Dennis J. Roberts, Governor. 

The Chairman, Is Kev. Theodore Ledbetter here ^ 


Reverend Ledbetter. I am Rev. Theodore S. Ledbetter of 10 i C'ar- 
mel Street, New Haven, Conn. I am representing several groups: 
The New Haven Jewish Community Council ; the New Haven Council 
of Protestant Churches; the Italian newspaper New Haven; the 
Italian-American War Veterans, Mendillo-Faugno Post, and the New 
Haven branch of the National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People. 

We come to voice our objections to the McCarran- Walter Act and 
I want to read just two brief paragraphs of a letter which Ave addressed 
to our Congressmen and Senators with regard to this matter. 

(The excerpts read by Rev. Theodore S. Ledbetter are as follows:) 

Under the guise of bringing order to our confused immigration regulations, 
the present law simply reinforces and gives new authority to racist notions that 
have long been discredited and should have long since been abandoned. It is 
narrowly restrictive as to the number of immigrants who may enter the United 
States and clearly discriminatory in regard to the proportion of entrants allowed 
from various races and nationalities. Above all else, it perpetuates the national 
origins quota system, which was openly designed to limit immigration of south- 
ern and eastern Europeans. 


The present law compromises our national honor, and its repeal or drastic 
amendment is a matter of urgent necessity. 

We believe that we are expressing the sincere convictions of our fellovr Ameri- 
cans of native and foreisn-born parentage in the Greater New Haven area, and the 
State of Connecticut in endorsing the infinitely more democratic Humphrey- 
Lehman immigration measure and calliUji for the elimination of quotas based 
on national origins. 

Reverend Ledbetter. Here ends our quotation and ^Ye would like 
to further comment that the very nature of our joint representation 
in one appearance here signalizes our type of varified population 
in New Haven, including- people of Italian origin, Polish, Jewish, 
peoples from all over Europe, Negro people — one-half of the New 
Haven population being Negro people who come from the West Indies 
islands. These groTips are deeply concerned with the discriminatory 
parts of this act, especially the national origins quota system which 
perpetuates discrimination and tends to continue to favor those na- 
tions and persons from such nations who have already been favored, 
and who will be favored in the future, and is discriminatory against 
those wdio have felt the brunt of world conditions and who now are 
the object of continued persecution, and who need a friendly hand 
extended to them. In the name of these organizations I represent 
here and their constituents, w^e come to register our opposition to the 
present act and our desire that it be changed or amended to show a 
more humane immigration policy. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ledbetter. We appreciate your 

Statement Submitted by Mks. Alfred N. Williams, Massachusetts. State 
Regent, Daughters of the American Revolution 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr, Chairman, may I introduce into the record 
a telegram addressed to the Commission from Mrs. Alfred N. Wil- 
liams, Massachusetts State Regent of the Daughters of the American 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

(The telegram follows:) 

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Federal Building, Boston Mass.: 
Massachusetts Daughters of the American Revolution at its State meeting 
October 1 voted to endorse the immigration and naturalization bill as passed 
by the Eighty-second Congress, believing that the economy and security of our 
country v^ill be best served by enforcement of the present law. 

(Signed) Mrs. Alfred N. Williams, 

State Regent. 

The Chairman. Is Dr. Dutton Peterson here? 


Dr. Peterson. I am Dr. Dutton Peterson of Odessa, N. Y., and I 
am testifying here as a representative of the New York State Council 
of Churches and the Methodist Committee for Overseas Relief, which 
is a division of Church World Service. 

I am speaking out of a very personal experience. For three and 
a half years I have been representing the Methodist Church, the 


State council, and the Clmrcli World Service in resettling displaced 
persons; that three 3'ears and a half has included several months 
in the refugee camps in Germany, Austria, and Italy, visiting the 
troubled places from which people were being resettled in this coun- 
try. In addition we have had as many as 139 DP's staying in our 
own home for anywhere from a period of 10 days to 3 months. 

So the basis of my opinion comes somewhat out of this experience. 
I do want to say that I am very nuich concerned that nothing be 
done to admit people who are dangerous to the country, or who are 
out of harmony, deeply out of harmony, with our principles of Gov- 
ernment, and our way of life. But I am also concerned that we 
continue to be a help to the refugees and the distressed and displaced 
jDeople of Europe. 

I believe that it is necessary for us to continue doing this to main- 
tain our position as a friend of the oppressed. It is necessary to 
do this that we may relieve some of the tensions among the unwanted 
multitudes who feel there is no place for them. Even admitting some 
will give some hope. 

I believe that it will benefit this country very greatly to bring many 
of these people here. Among the hundreds I have helped settle, I have 
had the privilege of finding places for many who are a very great 
addition to our American way of life; scientists, teachers, skilled 
craftsmen, et cetera. Among them have been many people, I would 
be glad to call the roll if you wish, who have been a very distinct 
asset to us. 

I believe it is a great development to America to bring people who 
are basically opposed to communism, and I mean that in its deepest 
sense, who have suffered under it and who have been dispossessed of 
homes and families and positions, of every sense of security, and 
many of them come here determined to help us in the United States 
to know what a menace it is. So I believe the development of America 
is helped by bringing these people who are properly selected here. 

I believe that we should take some immediate steps to complete 
the processing of some who were stopped when the displaced persons 
law was cut off. In families who are divided, some of them are still 
in Europe; others were on the verge of coming and didn't quite get 
a visa, and the correspondence from them relating the tragedy in their 
families is very great. They should be permitted to come as they 
may be reunited. 

In general, I am not asking for emergency legislation. I am not 
trying to speak of minor details of the McCarran law — but the 
qualifications for admission should not arbitrarily depend upon having 
entered a certain country by a certain date, as in the displaced persons 
law, and we are also very sure that membership in certain organiza- 
tions in days past does not at all indicate whether they are now 
enemies and dangerous to our Government ; rather the test should be 
made on their own attitudes and own actions, rather than the fact 
that they belonged to some organizations that was almost compulsory 
in years gone by. Tliey had practically no choice in having member- 
ship in some organization in Germany, Poland, or the Ukraine. 

We believe that the necessity of readjusting this matter of qualifica- 
tions to come to this country should be made to conform to our own 
democratic ideals and our traditions as the keeper of human rights 


and the dignity of every individual. We also believe that the quota 
system should be much more flexible than it is so that a country which 
has only a few people who want to come might not have large unused 
quotas, while other countries under pressure, where people want to 
come, do not have adequate quotas. 

I am not going to talk about the actual application of processing of 
people overseas. I believe that is more administrative than it is wholly 
a matter of the law ; but I do want so to say — I wish I knew how to say 
it more plainly, that the resentments to America, the distrust and the 
thinking that we are stupid and biased people has been increased very 
much by the manner in which the provisions of the law have been 
applied and in which the provisions have been carried out. I am 
reminded of stories I have heard from displaced persons in my house 
about people under those continued and grueling and repeated hearings 
who have committed suicide, have gone insane, and that is not neces- 
sary. It is cruel to them and it is a disastrous thing for our countrv. 

I am not going into details of application bnt if any are needed I 
would be glad to multiply in specific detail cases where our own ap- 
plication of various provisions of the law have worked to make people 
suspicious, distrustful and hate us, and that isn't necessary. 

The Chairman. I think it would be helpful to the Commission if 
you would give us a written account of such cases. 

Dr. Peterson. I will be glad to prepare such a statement and send 
it to you. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. In your resettlement work, have you found 
much demand for refugees having skilled occupations ? 

Dr. Peterson. Yes, I have, and it seemed to me a tragic effect on 
us when there are people with skills unused because of refugee condi- 
tions who would come, and I could name people who have come and 
who have met a great need in this country. 

I live near Cornell University and have helped to place a number 
of them there. One young Yugoslav is chief technician now in the 
soils laboratory and there are still thousands waiting to help us. It 
is tragic for Europe not to use them and if they have no place for them, 
it is a shame for us to leave them wasting. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Is it your position that you are not asking for 
emergency legislation but an amendment to basic law? 

Dr. Peterson. I haven't kept up with it in the last couple of months. 
I do know the program shut off pretty quickly. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Is it your intention to say you would cover these 
emergencies if they exist through a flexible new law ? 

Dr. Peterson. Yes, that is right. 

The Chairman. We will appreciate it if you would furnish us, in 
as much detail as you can, any factual information that may indicate 
that the present provisions work unnecessary hardships as you have 

Mr. Peterson. Thank you. I would like to. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Reverend. We appreciate your com- 
ing here. 

Is Mrs. Gardescu here ? 



Mrs. Gardescu. I am Mrs. Pauline Gardescii, V.K) Beacon Street, 
Boston. I am appearing on behalf of the Boston C'hapter of the 
American Association of Social Workers and 1 also represent the 
International Institute of Boston. 

I do not have a prepared statement but I would like the privilege 
of filing a statement ^Yith the Commission later. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to receive it. 

Mrs. Gardescu. I should like to call your attention to a pamphlet ^ 
which describes the organization I represent, the International Insti- 
tute of Boston, and the services it furnishes to assist new Americans. 

On behalf of the American Association of Social Workers, Boston 
Chapter, I would like to state that they wish it to be a matter of record 
that they are opposed to the provisions based on national origins in 
the McCarran-Walter Act ; that they feel it is contrary to the princi- 
ples of the United States, contrary to the consideration of personal 
dignity of individuals, for people to be judged on a basis of national 
origins or ancestry as for their fitness for immigration ; that the fitness 
for immigration should be based on personal considerations in this 
world today. 

The International Institute of Boston is an organization which is 
national in scope. We are a local organization which grew out of the 
immigration studies of 1911 and 1912, and it is nonpolitical and non- 
sectarian, and it is made up of not only the older Americans, but it 
serves as a focal point for social services to people when they first 
come here, and when they are learning to know the country and to 
speak English. 

Our board of directors has gone on record as to its attitude as to 
certain provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act. We aren't introduc- 
ing it as a whole, but we have been very much involved in the resettle- 
ment of the displaced persons and since 1924 in Boston the Interna- 
tional Institute has worked with new immigrants and with other 
groups, in our programs for social integration of people of all nation- 
alities. We have no limitations as to race or creed at all and on our 
own staff we have former Europeans. We also have had Chinese on 
the staff for 8 j^ears, and we have no limitations of that kind at all. 
We have found that by and large most of the people are able to take 
care of most of tlieir own affairs if they have some information about 
how to use the existing resources in the country. 

We have resettled some of the so-called hard-core people and we 
have resettled handicapped people. In one or two exceptions, even 
wnth serious injuries, they have been able to go to work immediately 
in the current Boston labor market and make their own living and be 

We find there is a great deal of fear and apprehension on the part 
of people who have suffered the discriminations that they have suf- 
fered in the last decades on the basis of race and nationality, and we 

' Your Passport, Intern.iUonal Institute of Boston, Inc., 109 Beacon Street, Boston, 


feel that the McCarran- Walter Act intensifies and does not relieve this 

The other day a man came in the office who had lived in Europe 
nnder a shadow of fear for 13 years of his life. He came in after 
living here G months actually shaking because a neighbor had told him 
they were going to have them deported, and he had been living under 
this fear and didn't know whetlicr it was or wasn't true. 

We feel that the United States in its position in the world today 
cannot afford to be hypocritical and to talk about idealistic concepts of 
a world of ]:)eople and when it comes down to actual immigration, and 
to whether families con be united or not, that discrimination is made 
on the basis of country or of origin or of race. 

AVe particularly feel that the continuance of the present census and 
the discriminatioiis quota are not worthy of this period of our Nation's 
history. We also feel that raising the colonial bugaboo along the 
coast of this country, in other words saying to other southern powers 
that you can only send so many from your colonial areas under this 
system, is stirring up new trouble unnecessarily and again setting 
groups of people against each other. 

We feel that the whole matter of ancestry as the basis for oriental 
immigration is unthinkable ; that is the kind of thing that is totally in- 
consisent, because not only do we depart from the national origins 
thinking but we go into the background and force people to get into the 
whole subject of ancestry and areas, so that, while we appear to be re- 
moving the restriction against Asiatics with one hand, we hand a fruit 
to them and it has a sting in it. This is unnecessary in this world to- 
day. We are simply asking for trouble. We see in the International 
Institute these things, and we mingle on the basis of equality among 
all the people, and we see what these feelings mean. People who feel 
rejected and unwanted are not at ease and in this country to have any 
kind of civic unity we need to have and to live what we say. 

We have programs where people do participate in our boards and 
in our committees we simply work together on projects that are worth 
while. We feel that the immigi\ation law, the basic immigration law 
should have a different basis within certain realms, and where there is 
limitation of numbers there should be another basis. 

We also feel that refugee measures should not be entangled in the 
immigration lav;; that if for a specific reason we are going to make 
provisions for displaced persons and refugees, it should be done whole- 
heartedly and not bar quotas for over 50 years ahead as we have in 
some countries, when in some countries very small quotas are sliced in 

We believe in promotion of family stability; the development of 
leadership that is here, and to give it an opportunity to flow, and not 
have this sense of inferiority. 

Mr. RosKXFiKLD. Does the International Institute of Boston do 
much placing in industry, agriculture, and so forth? 

Afrs. Gakdesci'. ParticuUirly in industry. We are a small 
group but this winter Ave settled seventy-odd families of so-called hard 
core people; Ave sponsored three or four hundred displaced persons. 
Some of us have had experience in other Avays. 

Mr. RosENFiKi.n. Have you found any resistance to employ- 
ment of immigrants? 


Mrs. Gardescu. We find that refugees from tlie Soviet are 
under suspicion. 

We find a sensitivity on the part of some of the Chinese. 

In this area there are a great many of the very able intellectuals who 
have a hard time, and will have a harder time before it gets better. 

We find a middleman is a help in explaining this. He may be a 
Ukrainian but not a Communist. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What is your organization doing along 
educational lines with respect to resettlement in the United States? 

Mrs. Gardescu. We are very much interested in that and with the 
people themselves, our program involves people meeting and working 
together from all different groups. In the summertime we run special 
English classes when the public schools do not have them. 

The Chairman. In the course of your work, do you do anything in 
respect to naturalization, citizenship? 

Mrs. Gardescu. Yes. We lean very much on the ISIassachusetts 
State program for citizenship and for schools, but also a number of 
our staff appear before the Board of Immigration Appeals, and so 
on, and we have made some successful appeals in difficult cases in- 
volving naturalization and of course we are fostering citizenship 
all the time. The thing we feel is that there is great leadership in 
the ne^^^ groups and we are always trying to bring them out and give 
them an opportunity for hearing and give them an opportunity to 
participate in civic affairs so that leadership appears, so that people 
don't stay in their little pockets. 

Connnissioner O'Grady. What has been your experience with cases 
involving deportation ? 

INIrs. Gardescu. One of the things I want to say is we feel quite 
keenly about deportation cases involving people who have pretended 
to be something else to avoid repatriation to the Soviets. I mean 
we are quite willing to take up the cudgels in that case. We realize 
that there are technicalities on which people are held, and it may 
enable them to develop themselves, and we see to that or try to in 
every instance, that they have a deeper understanding. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do you provide legal service for them too? 

Mrs. Gardescu. Well, that is administrative. In many cases we 
go in as administrative practitioners. 

Commissioner O'Grady. In difficult cases is it not necessary to 
have proper legal advice? 

Mrs. Gardescu. You must have advice from one who knows, and 
knows immigration law. That is not like general law. 

Tlie Chairman. As a result of your experience, have you any 
other observations to make with respect to the administration of the 
naturalization provisions of existing law, or provisions having to do 
with deportation ? 

Mrs. Gardescu. I feel that from our experience fear is playing 
too much of a role; that somehow in all of these things we need an 
administration in which there isn't so much waving of the stick, until 
there is reason for it. We are not objecting to the enforcement of 
the law; but we do feel that it is very difficult in very technical 
matters for some of the people not to slip. I mean, it is very hard 
for people under the pressure of that kind of occasion not to get 
tangled up. I do not want to speak for parts of the law which we 


haveirt spoken on except tluit we do feel that it is contrary to the 
interests of tlie conntry to remove statutes of limitation on deporta- 
tion and denaturalization and so on. I mean, in other words, Ave 
are strong enough to both enforce the law and not entrap people in 
that enforcement. 

The thing that personally amazes me is that sins are forgiven m 
many instaiices, but seldonrin these proceedings; I mean, your past 
haunts you. You can't repent. 

The Chairman. Where is the fear? 

Mrs. Gardescu. On the part of the people who are involved in this 
thing. I mean people who fear. They don't know just what may 
happen to them. They are afraid— the thing is very involved. When 
it comes to "if you do this or if you do that so and so may happen 

to vou." • • J. 

I have been amazed again and again at the unrealistic fears of 


It is hard to put across our concept of a law that a])plies to all men 
equally, and not just to live in fear as being the wrong kind of a person. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Is that affecting your displaced persons 

Yes, the uncertainties. One thing I would like to say is that we 
have a staff member who is Cantonese, I don't want to speak too 
much of the Chinese. Few know the effect of what the fear has been 
It has made administration more difficult for government and has 
certainly made the lives of people very, very difficult. It is one of the 
things that helps build the law of dissimilation. The question of 
'how can I straighten out these matters,' or 'may I do this.' anxl that 
sort of thing. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We appreciate your 

(Supplemental statement submitted by American Association of 
Social Workers (Boston Chapter) is as follows:) 

American Association of Social Workp:rs (Boston Chapter), 

November 12, 1952. 
President's Commission on Immigration and Natuiulization, 
Executive Offices, Washington, D. G. 

Dear Sirs : On October 2, in the Federal courtrooms, the Boston (Mi.ipter. 
American Association of Social Woi'kers, made a statement for the record at the 
hearing of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. 
The hearing concerned the new Immigration and Nationality Act enacted this 
summer over the President's veto. We stated the opposition of the American 
Association of Social Workers to the national-origin l)asis of quota, which, it 
has repeatedly been acknowledged, is based on the concept that certain Nordic 
people, whose compatriots were the earlier settlers in the Colonies, are the more 
desiral)le immigrants and should be admitted in greater numlMTs than south and 
east Europeans, who came to tlie United States in greatest iiuiniKTs after IS'.XP 
and are considered less assimilable and less desirable. The liritish, the Irish, 
the Germans have about half the total (piota; the rest is shared by Baltics, 
central and eastern and southern Europe, (Ji'eece and Italy, from which greatest 
pressures for quota are felt, and also from other western European countries. 
The racist doctrine on which this foruuila is based is discredited. Hovv-ever, if 
national origins seems the most workable basis of limitation, the formula should 
be revised to the 1050 census, and the basis of ISDO abandoned. 

Furthermore, the further limiting of oriental (piotas by an ancestry test — 
namely, that anyone, aiiywheic, who has as much as half of his ancestry 
attributable to the Asiatic or Pacific area is attriltutable to the small quota of 
the area of ancestry — is bad. No limit is set on i-emoteness of ancestral origin; 


for instance, we know of a university professor who is 100 percent Chinese, 
born the third generation in the West Indies, who would still be charged to 
China's quota of 105, not to Great Britain, the Government whose citizenship 
he has. 

The racial theme throughout the law is out of keeping with American 
democracy and disastrous to its international standing. 

The law is a strange mixture of good provisions and some so bad they are 
evil. The good ones are that spouse and minor children of citizens are now 
all admissible nonquota, removing that barrier to reunion of families. Under 
the old law, Chinese wives, but not husbands or children, were nonquota ; and 
to this, and the GI immigration provision, we owe the first real beginning of 
normal family life for many Chinese residents of the United States. Numerous 
discriminations against women are removed ; and citizenship, formerly denied 
most Asiatics (China and India excepted since about 1943), can be gained by 
naturalization when this law goes into force December 24, 19.32. The Japanese 
American Citizens League worked for the law, so that parents of American-born 
Nisei veterans could be naturalized. 

Fifty percent of quotas are reserved for "selective" immigration, according 
to certified needs for skills, including university professors no longer nonquota. 
This is good, but also bad, from the point of view of a bureaucratic control based 
on value judgments and opportunity for exploitation and logrolling by labor, 
politicians, and officers of Government. 

Another racial bias is concealed in the limiting to quotas of 100 (within the 
quota of the mother country) the "nonindependent" areas of the Western 
Hemisphere ; in other words, the colonies, such as the West Indies, part of Great 
Britain. It is a not very subtle way of keeping out Negroes. A man from New 
Haven, testifying October 2, claims one-half of New England Negroes are 
Jamaicans. There is a Liberia College Club at the International Institute of 
Boston, which has a high proportion of members from offshore colonial islands. 
There is no quota limitation on independent countries of the Western Hemisphere, 
except for those of oriental ancestry. 

We need but mention some of the most dangerous "guilt by association" 
features. Naturalized citizens can be denaturalized for a variety of offenses 
other than fraud in acquiring naturalization, and those deriving citizenship 
through them also denaturalized. They are distinctly second-class citizens; and 
other countries are asking whether we have lost faith in the capacity of the 
United States to develop loyalty in, and truly assimilate, all peoples as citizens. 

Deportation clauses are severe in administration. The whole concept of 
deportation — banishment, in fact — was repeatedly attacked at the heai'ing as 
an "undifferentiated penalty" that failed to suit the crime to the punishment. 
It was called an archaic survival from ancient times, legally speaking, and 
much favored by totalitarian governments. Thousands of pei'sons now under 
orders of deportation cannot be sent out, due to lack of a receiving country ; 
and this failure to carry out sentences creates disrespect of law. 

Social agencies, such as the International Institute and tlie Massachusetts 
State Social Service Office for Immigration and Americaniz:ition, spend many 
\aluable hours on deportation cases, usually not criminal, but technical in origin, 
in which the client suffers severe anxiety and humiliation in the process, which 
we know will end with no final action possible. Anyone who has lived "illegally 
in the United States" for months on end, with no remedy in sight, knows a gnaw- 
ing agony of suspense and suffers a real rejection as a person. As social workers, 
we can give them technical help, supportive services, understanding, and accept- 
ance as people, and help in planning to face the outcome of long drawn-out 
administrative procedures. 

As professional workers who see first-hand the psychological effects of national 
and racial discriminations, the Boston Chapter of American Association of Social 
Workers wholeheartedly supports the work of the President's Commission in 
recommending and bringing about socially desirable changes in our current 
immigration policy. 

(Signed) Howaud J. Parad, 

Chapter Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Adolph J. Namasky. 



Mrs, Namasky. 1 am jMrs. Adolph J. Namasky, and I am chairman 
of chapter 17 of the Lithuanian Kehef Fund, wliose headquarters 
are in New York. 1 am testifying as cliairman of my clnipter. 

AVorking with the disphiced persons as our organization has done 
not only wlien they got here but previous to tlieir arrival — we had 
about r)0,()()() Lithuanians in diilerent parts of Europe and we have 
managed to get about 25,000 here to the United States and some went 
to Canada, some went to Australia and New Zealand, and different 
parts of South America. We have about 10,000 remaining in Ger- 
many and Austria. Some of them can't emigrate for reasons of 
health; others are still there because they could not get in under the 
provisions of the previous refugee bill. 

Our organization is seeking the passage of the Celler bill. That is 
taking in 300,000 refugees who are still in different parts of Europe 
and southeastern Europe. 

The McCarran- Walter bill, of couree, is discriminatory to this 
extent. It eliminates a lot of the people who could come over here 
who are capable of being immigrants and who woidd be a credit to 
the United States. Some of the previous speakers — I was very in- 
terested in Senator Lodge's statement because I followed his activities 
in the Senate and it is only through these new immigrants and new 
blood that the United States has reached the attainments it has and 
if we shut this off or discriminate against it, we discriminate against 
people who are going to be the new coming generations of the United 
States. We need this new blood. We need the energies and influence 
and culture they are going to bring. 

I can vouch for the fact in our own particular nationality group 
we have had very, very creditable representations in the United States, 
and I am sure other countries are not going to be left behind. 

The southeastern European countries have the problem of over- 
population. There is plenty of room in the United States. There 
are a lot of frontiers that they can use. We have only to look at 
farmers through Maine, Nevr Hampshire and Vermont and Texas and 
Minnesota, and so many places, to put all these people. The idea 
that we cannot absorb these people is fantastic. 

During the war there was not much immigration to speak of, and 
you could allow these unused quotas to be filled during the process of 
time these immigrants could not come. We could easily do that and 
never feel it. 

I can think of some of the industries that could come into this coun- 
try. I was just reading an article in the Saturday Evening Post of 
the Sudetenland people thrown out of their homes, and how the Soviet 
Government took over the manufacture of their glass costume jewelry. 
They had a flourishing industry before the war. One Czech who had 
been displaced got together a few of the craftsmen and established 
that industry here, which is now a $10 million dollar industry. Why 
could not people like that have been coming here^ That is new 
energy, and it would create work for many thousands of people and 
also make something for the United States to be proud of. 


Working with these refugees, we have no problem with resettlement 
of the Lithuanian people. Most of them have been sponsored by 
friends or relatives and have obtained employment. Quite a few of 
them are in skilled and profitable categories, and I can say very 
proudly — not boastfully but with pride — -that about one-half of them 
living in Boston are now home owners and own cars and live nicely 
and are sending their children through schools, and many are sure 
to be and will be a credit to the community. That could be multiplied 
by hundreds. I am sure other nationalities could say the same thing. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We appreciate your 

Mr. Luigi Scala, you are the next witness. 


Mr. Scala. I am Luigi Scala, 33 Weybosset Street, Providence, 
R. I. I am speaking for the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, 
Order Sons of Italy in America, of wdiich I am grand venerable. I 
am also president of the Columbus National Bank, of Providence, 

I have a prepared statement I should like to read. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear it. 

Mr. Scala. My name is Luigi Scala. I am grand venerable of 
the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, Order Sons of Italy in America, 
and president of the Columbus National Bank of Providence, R. I. 
I feel honored to appear before your Commission in behalf of the said 
grand lodge. 

The Order Sons of Italy in America is a national fraternal organi- 
zation uniting American citizens of Italian origin; composed of grand 
lodges in most of the States of the Union; and this one in Rhode 
Island is a part of the said national association. 

This grand lodge in turn has jurisdiction over 26 subordinate lodges, 
located in various centers of Rhode Island, having a total of 2,400 

I respectfully submit that : 

Whether there will be or not a change in the yearly total number of 
immigrants which are permitted to gain admission into the United 
States, there should be a provision in the law making the unused 
quota of any nationality group available to other groups with lesser 
quotas. The present quota should not be restricted by interquota 
subdivisions in requiring, as the McCarran Act does, that a certain 
percentage of each country's quota shall be reserved to so called skilled 
immigi'ants. That alien parents of citizens of the United States should 
be allowed to enter this country, if otherwise eligible, as nonquota 

That illegal residents in the United States, if not subvei-sive and 
if during a period of residence here, at least 10 years, have maintained 
a good conduct and are not public charges, they should be allowed to 
regularize their stay, being deemed as legal residents. 

That alien parents of pei-sons who have served honorably as mem- 
bers of the United States Armed Forces; who are over 50 years of 
age and who have resided in the United States and are otherwise 


qualified under the naturalization law, ma}^ become naturalized citi- 
zens even if illiterate or do not know how to read and write English. 

The leadership which the United States has assumed in international 
affairs; the obligations which such leadership imposes upon us in our 
dealings with other nations; the solidarity which we are endeavoring 
to knit among the free peoi)les of the world as a barrier against com- 
munism; should make us conscious of the fact that our innnigration 
policy is not entirely a domestic problem ; and the Congress should be 
guided accordingly in considering immigration. The present immi- 
gration law is an isolationist law. 

The consequences of our immigration policies have been felt in the 
economic, social, and political conditions of our neighbors and friends; 
and we cannot convince those countries that we are real believers and 
doei-s of democracy unless we give evidence of an unprejudiced mind 
through laws which are exeni])t of implied racial prejudices. Our 
innnigration policy has affected the destinies of many countries, Italy 
in particular. 

The free inmiigration which we allowed until the first World War 
helped Italy to find a useful outlet for its abundant population; and 
the Italian immigrants by their assistance to their folks at home bene- 
fited Italian economy. 

In 1914 almost oOO,00() immigrants came from Italy into the United 
States. When our first quota law was passed in 1921 the quota for all 
European countries was fixed at 355,000 persons, of which 42 000 was^ 
the yearly Italian quota, or about one-ninth of that total. The Con- 
gress revised the quota system by the act of 1924, reducing the Italian 
quota from 42,000 to lessthan 6,000 annually, or less than one twenty- 
fifth of the total quotas. Lately the McCarran Act has written 
the same quotas in the law, although they are based on an outdated 
census, that of 1920, instead of revising them on tlie basis of the last 
census of 1950, 

This has profoundly offended our American citizens of Italian 
origin and has been resented by the people in Italy, who are bound 
to us as allies in the North Atlantic Pact. We must point out that 
our soldiers of Italian descent represent a much larger percentage than 
the total individuals of Italian origin in the population of the United 

It would be unfair to deny that this country has derived untold 
benefit from immigration. The rise of the United States as a world 
power and its influence in the councils of the world are intimately 
connected with the various immigrations which flowed into America 
during the last 50 years; which brought a tremendous increase in 
population and consecpiently in manpower, consumption, and 

Our several forms of financial help to Euro])ean countries have 
uncjuestionably been an antidote against connnunism; but i)i the case 
of Italy it is equally important, if not more, to obtain outlets for its 
excessive manpower. By reducing unemployment there, we will stifle 
communism and help the long-term economic stability of that country. 

Our country, together with other countries which are under[)opu- 
lated, should allow more immigrants than we do at ])resent. 

Of course, there are inherent in immigration some unfavorable- 
social aspects during the period of amalgamation; but on balance^ 

2.".5.-)r) — 52 24 


European immigration has been the most powerful stimuUis for the 
growth of the United States. 

Mr. RosENFiELD, Have you, of your own personal knowledge, any 
information as to what effect, if any, our innnigration laws are having 
on the internal situation in Italy? 

Mr. ScALA. It is one of the reasons for the Communist strength in 
recent elections. However, I woiddn't say that is the only reason, but 
it is one of the reasons. I was recently in Italy. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Did you hear any Communists express 
themselves on this subject while you were in Italy ? 

Mr. ScALA. Communism in Italy is not like it is in any other country. 
They speak against America from another point of view. In other 
words, the difference is that where there is the majority of people, 
even those who are not inclined to be Communists, they speak very 
critically of this situation, not because they want to criticize the United 
States but because it is in Italy an unfriendly attitude. 

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

Judge Luigi DePasquale. 


Judge DePasquale. I am Judge Luigi DePasquale, 232 Broadway, 
Providence, R. I. I am appearing on behalf of the Rhode Island Re- 
settlement Council for Italian Immigrants. I am also appearing in 
behalf of Father Joseph J. Lamb, Director of the Diocesan Bureau of 
Social Service, Inc., of the Diocese of Providence, and as Diocesan 
Resettlement Director. I have a letter from Father Lamb for the 
Commission, wdiich I should like to read into the record. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

(The letter from Rev. Joseph J. Lamb, read by Judge Luigi 
DePasquale, is as follows:) 

Diocesan Bureau of Social Service, Inc., 

Providence, R. I., October 1, 1952. 
Hon. Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman, President's Commission on Immigration 
and Naturalization, Boston, Mass. 
(Attention Rt. Rev. Msgr. John O'Grady.) 
Dear Mr. Perlman : As Director of the Diocesan Bureau of Social Service, Inc., 
of the Diocese of Providence, and as Diocesan Resettlement Director, I wish to 
register my strenuous obiections to the MeCarran-Walter Immigration Act of 
last June 27. I regret exceedingly the fact that it is impossible for me to be 
present at this hearing due to an injury which confines me to my quarters. 
However, for the record, I wish to make the following statements: 

In regard to section 201 (a), it seems to me it is rather absurd to base the 
quotas on the basis of the 1020 census if the census of 1950 is available. When 
the 1924 Immigration Act was passed, the 1920 census was used although the 
1S90 census was used during the interim, that is, until they could tigure out the 
national origin based on the 1920 census, that is, until 1929. It seems to me that 
the 1921 and 1924 Immigration Acts were deliberately directed against immigra- 
tion from southern and eastern Europe, particularly against immigration from 
Italy, the Balkans, Poland and Greece. I do not know what the intent of the 
legislators was but the result was a drastic curtailment of immigration from 
those countries. The mistakes contained in the national origin quota system 
adopted in 1924 are retaiiu-d in the ^fcfarran Act of 19.''.2. I wonder if those 


who voted in favor of this bill have ever thought of what would have happened 
(luring World War I and World War II if this national origin formula had been 
adopted back in 1S90. If any of. them have, at any time, been in the service, 
they wouUl realize that many a platoon, in fact many a regiment would have 
been practically wiped out if the Italian, Slav, Polish and Greek names were 

Furthermore, we are at the present time requesting Italy, Greece and other 
southern and eastern European countries to be our allies in the terrific struggle 
against commuuism. Yet we are telling these people through the McCarran 
Act that they are inferior and not as welcome to come to this country as the 
peoples of northern Europe. It seems to me that Mr. Hitler was the great pro- 
ponent of Nordic superiority. I am quite shocked and surprised In seeing Hitler's 
principles retained in our immigration legislation, particularly after we have 
fought a war to eradicate his ideas. 

My first recommendation is that the quota system based on national origins 
should be striken from our immigration legislation. If this is not p'ossible, then 
at least the census of 1950 should be used as a basis. 

As pointed out by Senator Paul H. Douglas, of Illinois, in his talk in the Senate 
on Monday, May 19, 19;j2, the provisions of the alternative Humphrey-Lehman 
measure provided that if quo'tas allotted to various countries wei-e not used, they 
should be then pooled and distributed among all applicants according to a gen- 
eral system of percentages. I personally believe tliat this provision of the 
Humpiirey-Lehman measure is a very valuable one and should be adopted. If 
people do not wish to come to the United States from northern Europe, there is 
no reason why these visas should not be allocated to people from southern and 
eastern Europe. 

I believe that there is a serious danger in section 212 (a) (9) in view of the 
fact that it confers too much authority on administrative officers in determining 
"what constitutes the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude." 
I recommend that the terminology of the 1924 law be followed but with the 
qualification that the term "moral turpitude," as understood in the United States, 
be considered, rather than that of other countries where persons are convicted 
of extremely minor offenses, including theft of small amounts of clothing, food, 
wood, etc. 

There are other points in the hill with which I do not agree but at this time 
I wish to register my vehement protest against the provisions of the law which 
I have mentioned above. 

In this letter, I am expressing not only my personal opposition to certain pro- 
visions of the McCarran Act but I am also, at the same time, acting as the rep- 
resentative of my bishop, the Most Reverend Russell J. McVinney, D. D., bishop 
of Providence, who directed me to enter his strenuous objections to the provi- 
sions of the McCarran Act which curtails imiuigration from Southern and 
Eastern Europe. 

Most respectfully yours, 

Rev. Joseph J. Lamb. 

Judge DePasquale. May I just take a minute, gentlemen, to 
say this: I believe, frankly, that this is one of the most important 
things that we have had to contend with in this country. In 1920, 
I was lucky enough to find time and money to go to Italy, and I also 
went in 1951. Now we read in the papers sometimes about fellows 
who go across the water — you pick the paper up and see that they 
left for Italy and o days later they are back here in this country, 
and they tell about the stores being full and well-stocked and so forth. 
Gentlemen, I went in the towns from Palermo, Sicily, right up to the 
Swiss border, in small towns where the reporters very seldom get to 
because there are no accommodations, and it is tough to get there. 

I have spoken to hundreds of people — gentlemen, the Marshall 
plan is wonderfid, l)ut they say it is not enough, give us an outlet 
for our excess population. Italy is about less than half the size of 
the State of Texas, you gentlemen no doubt know, the population is 
nearly 52,000,000. The birth rate exceeds half a million in Italy 
every year. Please, gentlemen, money alone is not going to do it. 


They want a place to work, and there is a little antipathy because 
they speak frankly to me when I go there. To you gentlemen, they 
might be nice, and say : "We appreciate what you have done for us," 
and they do appreciate it, but they do say : "Give us a chance to till 
the soil." Those of southern Italy are farmers. I am glad my father 
and mother didn't miss the boat in 1888 ; if they had, I shudder at 
the thought, I would have been a shoemaker or farmer — not that I 
have anything against those trades — I certainly wouldn't have been 
the presiding justice of a State district court of the State of Rhode 

But I do say again, gentlemen, it is important — I know you can- 
not lower down the bars of immigration, that cannot be done, but 
they should get a little more help. Perhaps the unused quotas could 
be given to them. They will come here and tliey will make good 
citizens. Now they have in the past; they will today. That is what 
is troubling the people in Ital}^ and in the small towns, they do nothing: 
but sit around in the scjuare all day long talking. You tell them 
about America, about the Marshall plan, about packages of CARE, 
so forth. They say : "Yes, but they still won't let us come." Just a 
little lowering, gentlemen, I think, will do a great deal of good and 
the Communists have taken advantage of all these things. They have 
a philosophy, the Communists, but they have an evil one, and they 
work 24 hours a day. They go to church, they tell the people this 
is an economic question, not a relig^ious one; but God help Italy if 
the country ever went Communist. 

Thank you very, very kindly. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Judge. 

Mr. Walter H. Bieringer, you are the next witness. 


Mr. Bieringer. My name is Walter H. Bieringer and my address 
is Plymouth Rubber Co., Camden, Mass. 

I am chairman of the Massachusetts Displaced Persons Commission 
and national president of the United Service for New Americans. 1 
am also here on behalf of my personal interest in this problem. 

I have a prepared statement which I should like to submit for the 
record, but first would like to make some comments. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear what you have to say. 

Mr. Bieringer. I started the first resettlement committee in this 
country after Hitler came to power some years ago, and then took 
charge of the resettlement of refugees from coast to coast at the very 
beginning of the Hitler situation. I was in Germany eight times- 
during Hitler's regime to study the situation, and 2 years ago I visited 
all the DP' camps in Germany, and was there again recently to study 
sur])lus population })r()blems which have been more or less of a hobby 
with me. 

I believe in liberal immigration legislation, not onlv from a human- 
itarian ])oint of view, and not only because I feel that it will help 
toward world peace, but, also, for very selfish and practical rea- 
sons. I feel that it will help the United States economically, and op- 


ponents of liberal legislation always say that immigrants take jobs 
away from Americans; whereas, those of us who have studied that 
situation feel that the reverse is absolutely true. 

We are extremely grateful, particularly in New England, to the 
Austrian refugees of Hitler days, for establishing a very large indus- 
try; namely, the ski industry. We have ski resorts all over New 
Hampshire and Vermont, and in western Massachusetts. Practically 
all of the instructors were refugees, Austrian refugees and some Ger- 
man refugees, and it is really a large industry in this country, but 
people don't realize it. When I was a boy there was very little skiing 
in this country. It became popular with the advent of Mr. Hitler, 
that is, with the refugees who came here, and that is really a very 
large industry. 

But there are other industries that the refugees have started here. 
They have brought skills, have started little businesses manufacturing 
things that we never made in this country, things that we imported 
previously, and they are employing hundreds of Americans in their 
plants, and, of course, every refugee has purchasing power. But I 
wasn't referring to that, I was referring to actual jobs that the 
refugee creates. 

Furthermore, we need some of the unskilled, as well as skilled 
refugees. We are sorely in need of unskilled refugees. We know 
that when immigrants came in years ago they took tough jobs that 
Americans didn't want, and we have gotten to that point again where 
we can't get people to do certain manual labor jobs. There was no 
difficulty getting domestics when I was a boy, and immigration was 
large — that's just one thing. 

Furthermore, we won't have a custom tailor left in this country in 
15 or 20 years from now if we don't get in some skilled tailors from 
the other side, and there are many industries like that that are in 
need of skills — invisible menders, and die and tool workers, and so on. 

One of the things I have made a proposal about in my prepared 
statement is a change in the quota system and I w^ould like to discuss 
that point. 

The Chairmax. Certainly. 

Mr. BiERiNGER. I tliink that we could work out a quota law on the 
basis of something like a ratio that could be established for one new 
immigrant, for example, for every 500 citizens in the United States 
regardless of national origin. This would provide an annual im- 
migration quota of approximately 300,000. In this manner, provi- 
sion can be made for reevaluation on a planned, periodic basis and some 
modification of the annual immigration quota as may be indicated, 
and this plan has possible variants which I have also enumerated 

Then, I have gone on to say that no one admitted for permanent 
residence should be deported unless his immigration was based on 
fraud. I would just like to read that end of it. 

The Chairiman. You may do so. 

Mr. BiFKixGER (reading) : 

(c) Once a lerson is admitted into the United States for permanent residence, 
"he should have the privilege of remaining in this country unless his immigra- 
tion was based on fraud. The concept of deportation as a penalty is inhumane 
ixnd medieval. It most frequently i)unishes persons entirely innocent, such as 
members of the immediate family of the deportee. An alien who does wrong 


Should l>e punished for his wrong the same as a citizen but the punishment 
should fit the crime or the wrong, and not have an added penalty of "banish- 

(/) Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens should lie elim- 
inated as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. The naturalization process 
should be so devised as to insure that the person naturalized is genuinely at- 
tached to the principles of this country. Certificates of naturalization should 
not be canceled except for fraud. The concept of citizenship responsibility to 
the State through residence, tax contributions, voting, and participation in civic 
affairs, is a responsibility which is tbat of both the native and naturalized 

Then, of course, I have also mentioned that reasonable standards 
must be established to keep out criminals and insane and subversive 
elements, and so on. 

Commissioner Finucane. May I just ask a question on your prop- 
osition that there be no deportation once an alien is admitted for 
permanent residence? What would happen if he should join the 
Communist Party, be active in the Party ? Do you nevertheless think 
he should not be deported ? 

Mr. BiERiNGER. I would punish him the same as I would anyone 

Commissioner Finucane. You would have him prosecuted, but 
not deported? 

Mr. BiERiNGER. Yes ; b3cause too many mistakes mio;ht be made, and 
1 think I would do the same thing with him that I Avould with anyone 
else, because of tlie members of his family I don't think it is fair to 
have a banishment proposition in a law. 

Commissioner Finucane. Would you apply the same rule even if 
he had no family in the United States ? 

Mr. BiERiNGER. You would have to, I don't think you could have 
an exception. 

The Chairman. You stated that you do not think it is fair to the 
members of his family, but is it fair to the United States ? 

Mr. BiERiNGER. Well, you might run into situations like the Latva 
case where mistakes can be made. Now he can be deported under this 
law because he was a Communist for 2 months, or something like that. 
I don't remember the exact case, but it was in our newspapers — you 
are probably familiar with it. I mention in my paper that reasonable 
standards must be established so that subversives can be kept out of 
this country. I feel that the screening is possible. If I knew there 
was a dangerous Communist here, I would be flexible on that. 

The Chairman. If they commit a serious crime, why should this 
country be compelled to keep them here, especially if they liave not 
become citizens of this country ? 

Mr. BiFJiiNGER. Well, it is a very debatable question, one that we 
could debate on for hours, and I think I could take either side. But 
I think the chief reason is the possibility of error, and, also, the 
family relationship from a social work point of view. It would be 
very difficult to send them back in many instances. 

Tlie Chairman. That is another one of the problems that exists in 
this picture. There have been a number of deportation orders issued 
over a period of 3^ears, but the countries from which they came won't 
take them back, and so deportation orders continue to be issued when 
it is known in advance they cannot be carried out. Have you any 
suggestion to make about that? 


Mr. BiKRiNGEit. I would like to <i!ve it some tlioii^lit and write to 
you on it. 

Commissioner Fisher. With reference to the annual quota, what 
method do you su^<!:est for selecting countries : first come, first served ; 
select i\'e basis, or what ? 

Mr. BiEKiNGEK. I think we mioht oive preference — I mention that 
in my jiaper — where people were beino- persecuted at the moment. Of 
course, 1 think if we had such a law during the Hitler days that we 
should have given preference to people in Germany at that particular 
time. If everything is normal all over the world, then we might 
give preference to those countries with surplus population, such as 
tlie Netherlands, Italy, and I think Greece is the other one which 
should be relieved of some of its population at the moment in order 
to have some prosperity there. There would be methods of prefer- 
ence, I think, that people could apply in any country in the world, 
and unless there were reasons for preference, then, first come first 

The Chairman. You have mentioned only European countries. 
What about the Asiatic countries ? 

Mr. BiERixGEK. Well, no matter how 3^ou felt, you could never put a 
law through allowing tremendous numbers to come in here. I, per- 
sonally, would not object to it. But I suppose you have to be practical 
in this thing. I would have no objection at all to having Asiatics on 
exactly the same basis as Europeans. 

The CiiAiRMAx. If you were to have a limited number, a ceiling on 
the total number annually, would you put the Europeans on exactly 
the same basis as Asiatics ^ 

Mr. BiERiNGER. Depending on needs, I suppose. I think that is 
something that requires considerable study, but the most needy, I 
suppose, first, or those who are better equipped to become American 
citizens — you might want to put it on that basis — those who would 
adjust better. 

The Chairman. If, as j^ou suggest, there were to be a system of 
jDriorities based on needs and reasonable absorptive capacity of the 
United States, Avould you admit Asiatics on the same basis as 

Mr. BiERiNGER. Yes, providing they meet the qualifications and if 
they would be good citizens. 

Connnissioner O'Grady. Would you treat the Arab refugees in the 
same manner? 

Mr. BiERiNGER. Yes, provided they could meet the same test as any- 
one else. But there w^ould have to be definite rulings on priority on 
these things. 

Now as long as we are discussing this point, I would say that the 
groups that are des])erately in need of emigration, other than the 
Greeks, Italians, and people from the Netherlands, are l)oth those 
IKO refugees who remained when IRO terminated operations, and 
also the other displaced persons who did not, because of some technical 
provision, meet the technical eligibility requirements. In this group 
should also be included those European refugees in Europe, China, or 
elsewhere who still need to be settled somewhere. There are some- 
where from 150,000 to 400,000 in that category. There should also be 
included those refugees in the United States wdio, because of technicali- 


ties, are unable to adjust tlieir status, and have no place to go. Then, 
the escapees from the iron curtain countries since January 1948 — they 
are somewhere between, I understand, 100,000 to 150,000 — German, 
Greek, and Italian expellees. There are altogether about 8 million 
or more, of whom a million and a half to 2^/2 million need to be emi- 
grated, and this includes 500,000 expelled from the former Italian col- 
onies in Africa ; persecutees in the Middle East and in north Africa ; 
Jews in Arab countries and Arab refugees in Jordan, Palestine, and 
Egypt — together, I guess there are about a million there ; then, your 
so-called surplus population ; so you have got quite a group desperately 
in need of emigration, and unless we do something about it the other 
nations of the world won't either. 

We have done something. We have gotten Canada and Australia 
and others to do a little, and they will do it again if we have a decent 

The Chairman. How does the action we take influence them? 

Mr. BiERiNGER. When we close our gates, they do the same. That 
has happened almost every time. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will insert your state- 
ment in the record. 

(The statement submitted by Walter H. Bieringer, chairman, Massa- 
chusetts, Displaced Persons Commission, national president. United 
Service for New Americans is as follows:) 

1. There are a number of pressing problems in the migration field which require 
remedial legislation as quickly as possible by the Congress of the United States, 
otherwise the position of leadership of the United States is threatened, our 
foreign relations are affected and the intergovernmental and voluntary agency 
machinery working in the international migration program may have to be 

2. Despite the fact that there are in Europe and adjacent areas millions of 
refugees homeless, jobless, and in need of settlement, the number who will have 
an opportunity to emigrate this year Is 50 percent less than the number who 
emigrated last year and the year before. Migration has reached the lowest point 
since the end of World War II. Without new legislation the prospects for 
next year are even worse. 

.3. With the termination of the DP Act, the reduction in the number of available 
quota openings and the tightening of requirements for admission to the United 
States resulting from the new Immigration and Nationality Act, immigration 
to this country has been drastically reduced. Other principal countries of im- 
migration, especially Canada and Australia, have, partially as a result of the 
example of the United States, likewise drastically curtailed immigration. It is 
necessary, therefore, to reexamine the problems and to outline a solution in 
keeping with our traditions, oiu- foreign policy and our national needs. 

4. The numbers in urgent need of I'esettlement opportunities from Europe and 
from adjacent areas may be estimated rouglily as follows : 

{a) Kefugees. The pi'oblem involves not only the technical IRQ refugees 
who remained when IHO terminated operations but also those who were in fact 
refugees and displaced persons Imt did not, because of some technical provision, 
meet the eligibility requirements. In this group should also be included those 
European refugees in Europe, China, or elsewiiere, who still need to be settled 
some ])lace (total, 1.10,000 to 400,000). 

In tills group should be included Ihose refugees in the United States who 
because of technicalities are unable to adjust their status and have no place to go. 

(&) Esc'apees from iron-curtain countries since January 1948: 100,000 to 

(c) German, Greek, and Italian expellees: 8,000,000 plus, of whom 1,-500,000 
to 2,-500,000 need to be resettled. (This includes 500,000 expelled from the 
former Italian colonies in Africa.) 

(d) Persecutees in Middle East and in North Africa (Jews in Arab countries 
and Arab refugees in Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, etc.) : together about one million. 


(c) So-called surpliis poimlatioii : in Italy, 2,000,000 to l!,r)0(),0(K) ; Greece 
200,000; and the Netherlands, IHO.OOO. 

5. The United States should accept a reasonable but limited proportion of 
these people, both in the interest of our own needs as well as to help meet 
this worhl problem. Should the United States take its fair share, other countries, 
as in the past, could be induced to take similar action. 

C. No legislative program can resolve this pi-oblem unless a more reasonable, 
just, and equitable immigration policy for the United States is adopted. At 
least the following basic concepts should be included in such remedial legislation : 

(«) Our capacity to absoi'b new immigrants is much greater than any present 
or contemplated levels of immigration, as attested to by statements of various 

(h) Our immigration limits should be fixed on the basis of an over-all math- 
ematical ratio of abosorption, based on our total citizen population. Thus, for 
example, a ratio could be established of one new immigrant for every 500 citizens 
in the United States (regardless of national origin), which would provide an 
annual immigration quota of approximately 300,000. In this manner, pro- 
vision can be made for reevaluation on a planned periodic basis and for modifi- 
cation of the annual immigration quota as may be indicated. 

This plan has many possible variants. This pro rata figure can be u.sed in 
relation to the so-called quota immigrants, retaining the concept of nonquota 
for specialized persons, or the flgux-e can be the maximum figure eliminating the 
specialized nonquota for Western Hemisphere and other groups, but granting 
priorities, or it can be a combination of both. 

(c) Each applicant should be judged on his own merits and not according to 
his origin. The absorbability and potential contributions of an immigrant to 
the United States are not related to the place of birth. His love of democracy 
and his desire to be a part of the American Nation should be a basis for selection, 
rather than the pure happenstance of birthplar'e. 

The substitute method for innnigration proposed is a very simple one : That 
any person who is eligible ha permitted to register for immigration anyplace 
throughout the world. He will receive his visa in relation to his date of 
registration. Special preferences or nonquota status should obviously be made 
for the protection of the sanctity of the family and the reunion of family meinbers, 
including positive provision for dependent fireside relatives. Similar provision 
should be made for persons of outstanding skills, such as professors, scientists, 
etc., imigration is sought by the United States and necessary on a special 
basis. In order to accomodate certain needs of foreign policy, a small percentage 
can be i-eserved on a preference basis. 

{(l) Immigration procedures should be based on an acknowledgment of the 
fact that immigration is mutually beneficial to the United States and to the 
immigrant. The principle of selective immigration should be made realistic. 
Reasonable standards must be established to prevent the admission of such 
elements as the habitual criminal, subversive individuals, and the insane. How- 
ever, administrative discretion should be allowed to make exceptions where 
merited in cases of technical noncomformity to the established standards of 
where reformation or cure can clearly be established. 

On the assumption that innnigration is beneficial to the United States as well 
as to the immigrant, it is essential that fair, humane, and equitable standards 
should be applied in relation both to the issuance of visas and to exclusion at the 
time of entry. A reasonable and adequate appeals and review procedure .should 
be instituted with recourse to the courts where justified and practicable. 

(c) Once a person is admitted into the United States for permanent residence, 
he should have the privilege of remaining in this country unless his immigration 
was based on fraud. The concept of deportation as a penalty is inhumane and 
medieval. It most 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 fit the crime or the wrong, and not have an added penally of "banishment." 

if) Distinctions between Tiative-born and naturalized citizens should be elim- 
inated as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. The naturalization pi'ocess 
should be so devised as to insure that the person natiu'alized is genuinely attached 
to the principles of this country. Certificates of naturalization should not be 
canceled except for fraud. The concept of citizenship responsibility to the 
state through residence, tax contributions, voting, and participation in civic 
affairs is a responsibility which is that of both the native and natuialized 



Tlie Chairman. Mr. G. N. Longarini, 


Mr. LoNGARiNi. I am G. N. Longarini, publislier of the Italian 
Daily Newspaper of Boston, 34 Battery Street, Boston. 

I have heard some of the previous speakers who have already covered 
the subject which I have outlined in a written statement. Therefore, 
I wall only ask permission to submit my statement. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will make that a part 
of the record. 

(There follows the prepared statement submitted by Mr. G. N. 
Xiongarini, publisher of the Italian Daily Newspaper of Boston :) 

It is my humble judgment that there should be a thorough and impartial review 
of our immigration policies and a reexamination of the McCarran-Walter Act, 
in order to bring these into line with our national interests and our foreign 

I. There should be a revision of the immigration quotas by allocating the 
unused portions of the immigration quotas allowed certain nations to those na- 
tions which are confronted with serious demographic problems. For instance, 
although Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland have more than two-thirds 
of the entire quota, they did not use one-third of the quota numbers which they 
were entitled to use under the law. I have here the figures for 1947, 1948, 
1949, 1950, and 1951. 


Quota immigrants admitted 







25, 957 
fi5, 721 
17, 853 

13, 662 
19, 218 

17, 229 
27, 774 

23, 543 

17, 194 

15, 3li9 

Great Britain 

Ireland .. 


II. Our immigration and naturalization laws must be brought into line not 
only with our national ideals and interests but also with our foreign policy. 
The McCarran Act will give the Soviet Union a terrific propaganda weapon to 
be used against us. In all probability they may be using this weapon already 
by telling our allies of the North Atlantic Pact Organization that when we 
want them to fight side by side wih us against communism we welcome Italians, 
French, Greel^s, and Turlis, but when we revise our immigration policy we tell 
these people that they are not wanted in America. It raises havoc with our 
foreign policy and with the whole idea of American cooperation with other 
free peoples on a discrimination basis in the United Nations. 

I propose that there should be not only a revision of our entire immigi'ation 
quota system but I feel that some collective effort should also be made by the 
nations to study the immigration problems of the overpopulated countries. 

III. There should be a study of section 242 of Public Law 414 on the appre- 
hension and deportation of aliens based on humanitarian considerations. For 
instance, since the end of the war, there have been 1,500 deportees dumped on 
Italy without the knowledge or consent of the Italian Government. It is un- 
■believahle that the United States Government, which professes concern over 
the welfare of the Italian people and the promotion of democratic procedures 
in European countries, should in this manner ignore the independence and sov- 
ereignty of the Italian Government. I feel that the .lustice Department has dis- 
regarded the welfai'e and rights of individuals by repeating the mistakes made 
after the First World War through the illegal raids and mass deportations 
ordered by Attorney General Palmer. 

I would make the following recommendations : 

(1) That provisions be made for the respect of the rights of deportees and 
tlieir families. 


(2) That there should lie a careful review of the individual deportation cases 
to brinj; the facts up to date and to accord the alien and his family the relief 
provided by our laws. 

(3) That the Justice Department respect the sovereign rights of the Italian 
Government in the case of «11 deportees. 

IV. Tills study must further include consideration of the status of naturalized 
citizens. It must deal with the distinction established by the recent law be- 
tween naturalized and native-born citizens. In this respect I have reference 
to section 352 of Public Law 414, dealing with the loss of nationality by natural- 
ized citizens establishing their residence abroad, and section 340, dealing with 
revocation of the citizenship of naturalized citizens. Revision of this section 
should be made to conform with the basic principles of our Constitution. The 
revocation of citizenship should be instituted only in those cases where the 
applicant submitted fraudulent documents in order to obtain his citizenship. 
Only a few years ago, in handing down a decision on a denaturalization case 
instituted by the Department of Justice, Judge Hutcheson, of the Fifth United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals of Houston, Tex., declared that the Supreme 
Court of the United States has never held that "naturalized, unlike native-born 
citizens, remain indefinitely under judicial tutelage." 

Through my 33 years" experience as publisher of a daily newspaper reaching 
Americans of Italian origin, I can truthfully state that my views on this subject 
are shared by millions of Americans of foreign origin throughout the Nation. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What is your opinion of the national- 
origin theory as the basis for selecting immigrants? 

Mr. LoNGARiNi. Well, there has to be some kind of basis. I have 
no particular suggestion as to the basis, but I do believe that the nations 
which are beset by demographic problems should have first considera- 
tion in order to justify our foreign policy with our domestic 
immigration laws. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Samuel Abrams. 


Mr. Abrams. I am Samuel Abrams, 610 George Street, Newton, 
Mass. I am an attorney and am president of the Hebrew Immigrant- 
Aid Society of Boston, which is affiliated with the Hebrew Sheltering- 
Aid Society of New York. 

I have not liad time to prepare a statement, and with your permission 
I will do so at a later time. 

I appear before tliis Conunission as a private citizen, as well as 
president of the Hebrew Immigrant- Aid Society of Boston, and I 
wish to fully adopt the able report of Rabbi Judah Nadich, who repre- 
sented tlie Jewish Community Council, a proper spokesman in this 
city for all Jewish agencies. 

After an immigrant has secured a visa upon application, which calls 
for a great deal of information, and a catch-all phrase that additional 
information necessary to the identification of the a])plicant and the 
enforcement of the immigration and nationality hiws may be required 
bv regulations, and after immigrant has arrived in the United 
States, and after lie luis been examined, and a determination has been 
made favorable to his admission, his admission is still subject to 
challenge by any other immigration officer, Avhose challenge shall 
operate to take the alien before a special inquii-y officer for further 
inquiry: and that bewildered innnigrant is entitled to have one friend 
oi- relative present, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the 


Attorney General. That is under section 230 of this act. This in- 
quiry, the statute further provides, shall be kept separate and apart 
from the public. 

In effect, an immigrant denounced by any immigration officer goes 
before a special inquiry from which the public is excluded and in 
which he may have one friend or relative. Is this procedure con- 
sistent with our American traditions of the right to a public hearing, 
or does it rather indicate the spiritjn which our immigration laws have 
Ijeen written? It must be rather obvious that the great American 
public does not understand what our immigration laws consist of. 

Now, when this matter was heard, I don't think that Congress had 
the advantage that this Commission has here. It didn't have the 
opportunity to have persons sit down and really think and consider 
this matter. If there is one matter that has been brought out rather 
fully by this hearing and the type of hearing that we have here, it is 
the necessity of a permanent commission to consider our immigration 
policy. We need a commission which will have some desire to give 
attention, to call men such as Professor Handlin and experts in this 
matter, representatives of various groups that can consider the con- 
tinuing problems that this country has. This Commission is serving 
an extremely useful purpose ; but, if it is just going to die with a report 
that is going to be pigeonholed, it is just going to be too bad. We have 
got to have this type of commission, and w^e have got to have some 
experts here. If necessary, w^e should have on such a commission a 
representative of the United States Office of Education, because educa- 
tion, as to the significance of promoting the welfare of the United 
States, is necessary. A representative of the Department of Labor 
should be there, so we can get some intelligent analysis and know 
exactly how far our immigration is affecting the national situation 
with respect to labor. 

We have heard Professor Handlin say that it made no difference 
since 1920 with respect to the prosperity or depression of the United 
States : that our immigration policy was restrictive. Now, we do 
need a modern approach on these things here. Perhaps we should 
have a member of the FBI on this Commission if we have got a real 
Communist menace here. Let's leave it in charge of those people that 
attend to those things. The Immigi'ation Service is not designed to 
act as a second FBI. 

Now, there are certain basic principles that I think fair dealing re- 
quires. Walter Bieringer just stated that he thought it was a good 
thing if once a man was admitted to the United States he should not 
be deported. I concur in that opinion. If a man can pass the severe 
screening process and get into this country, if he is in here without 
fraud, and I would exclude him for fraud or illegal entry, then we 
should keep him here. We shouldn't be faced with all these serious 
problems of deportation or sending people back, and we shouldn't leave 
the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of all these immigrants 
that have come into this country, and who feel that they can further 
themselves and further the interests of this country. 

Well, again, there shouldn't be any distinction between native-born 
and the naturalized citizen. 

I think one of the first things I learned in history — it may have 
been in the second or third grade at jrrammar school — was that there 


Avasirt any difference between a naturalized citizen and a native-born 
of the United States. I was born in Boston, as were all the members 
of my family. I think the first thing I heard was that you couldn't 
be President of the United States unless you were born in the United 
States, but, other than that, a naturalized citizen had every right that 
a native-born citizen had. That was one of the fundamentals of our 
policy, and a concept that we all ac<,-epted. 

Well, that isn't true under our immigration law any longer. Now, 
we say that there is no statute of limitations to prevent a citizen from 
being denaturalized. AVe know that if we try a case, or if a man com- 
mits a crime and a few years elapse, that we don't reopen the matter. 
Testimony gets lost, and, again, there is a humane policy to give him a 
chance if he hasn't been detected. But under this present act, section 
340 of the act, district attorneys are required to revoke citizenship, 
connnence actions to revoke citizenship, if such citizenship was pro- 
cured by willful misrepresentation without any saving clause as to 
time. How, this provision is more onerous than the preceding pro- 
vision which says "revocation can only be had when actual fraud is 
shown or when naturalization is procured illegally." Well, again, 
we say that we should have some standards, some reasonable stand- 
ards, to guide administrative officials. 

In this connection, I would like to call the Commission's attention to 
something which they probably already have heard today. It is the 
power of the President of the United States. Section 212 (e) of the 
act provides that the "President of the United States may by procla- 
mation suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, or impose 
on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 
The Chairman of this Commission is, of course, familiar with the 
action of Congress with respect to the rights of the President with 
regard to property, and, even so, even in cases of asserted national emer- 
gency, nevertheless, under this act Congress gives to the President of 
the United States a blanket authority to wipe out immigration alto- 
gether. This is, of course, a tremendous and wide power in the hands 
of any one individual. 

If a President slioukl be unfavorable to immigration, he could 
merely by proclamation, without legislative intervention, suspend 
immigration in the United States for so long a period as he deemed 
necessary. We are not always going to have Presidents like we have 
had in the past, perhaps. They may be better or they may be worse, 
but they may have some ideas about immigration which are not in- 
consistent with our policy. We have had in this country some bad 
Attorneys General. I can recall a situation in 1920 with Mitchell 
Palmer, and we have had some bad spots in this country that have 
developed over the years. We have had a President Harding: we 
have had various things here, and no one man should have this type 
of power. But the type of act that we have, and most of this legisla- 
tion against immigrants, is emphasized by the fact that there is no 
])rovision in the act permitting the Pi-esi'dent of the United States 
to admit immigrants if special situations should arise throushout 
the world where large groups of persons will have to migrate because 
of national, religious, or political persecution. If there is to be any 
provision giving the President any discretion, and he doesn't have 
any dist-retion or power to admit any immigrants here, he has the 


power to keep them out altog;etlier and limit tlie terms under wliicli 
they come in, but he has no power to admit any of them. If there 
is to be any provision for the President of the United States to act 
in any emergency, the provision should be made in the basic immigra- 
tion law to allow such person to enter the United States without any 
undue difficulty, or the necessity of enacting special legislation in 
their behalf. 

Now, it is rather obvious that this Commission is w^ell organized 
and is in a position to secure a great deal of information.^ All I 
say is it is just going to be too bad if you are going to just let 
this information — if the American public is going to forget it, if 
it is going to be filed in a report, and nothing is going to happen 
as a result of it. 

Now, I don't know how we are going to remedy that situation. 
But I do think that the coming of this Commission here today, 
the fact that we do have various individuals here, and that \\e do 
have certain publicity, is the sort of thing that is going to result 
in the public knowing more about this situation. When the public 
does know more about this situation — and, as Senator Lodge pointed 
out, the act passed largely because of lack of education, lack of knowl- 
edge on the part of Representatives and Senators throughout the 
country, and lack of interest — we have got to somehow or another 
stimulate the interest, get these things going and continue the good 
work that is going on here today. If we do that we can get a better 
immigration act than the one we have today, and that is, I think,, 
the hope of all of us. 

The Chairman. Are you aware that the act provides for tlie estab- 
lishment of a joint congressional committee? 

Mr. Abrams. I don't understand that the Senate has appointed 
one as yet. 

The Chairisfan. Of course, the act is not in effect yet. 

Mr. Abrams. I understand that, but unless we are going to liave 
them really get at this thing and call upon the assistance of experts, 
call upon the assistance of persons like Prof. Oscar Handlin, and 
people expeiienced in these things, and Miss O'Connor, and other 
people who have testified here today, it is just going to be another 
one of those committees. I think we can do better with another oner 
of those committees, such as the President's Commission here ampli- 
fied, ])erhaps, by expert testimony, and by a certain amount of re- 
search. As Professor Handlin pointed out, he said that over at Har- 
vard they can lielp out by research and they can help out by education ; 
he even commented upon the fact that the summary of the 40-volume 
"Bible," was not a ])roper summary. The time comes when we do- 
need a proper summary, and the time comes when we do need an 
understandiug of what people know today about anthropology and 
the different migrations and racial movements and so on. 

We are not dealing with the situation that existed in l;)-24: when 
])eople had certain ideas which have now become ossified in their heads^ 
and by a passage of time have reached positions of power and influence 
where they can block any new ideas in the United States. AVe need a 
policy of education and carrying on of the thoughts that are being ex- 
]:)ressed here today. 

The CirAnniAN. Thank you very much. 


Mr. Orville S. Polaiul wlW testiiy next, represcntin<v Gov. Paul A. 


Mr. PoLAxi). I am Orville S. Poland, and I am here to read a state- 
ment made by Governor Dever relevant to your subject matter here 

The Chairman. "We will l»e pleased to hear the Governor's 

(The statement of Gov. Paul A. Dever of the State of Massachusetts,, 
read by Mr. Orville S. Poland is as follows :) 

I welcome the opportunity to express my views as Governor of the Common- 
wealth of Massacluisetts heforo this Special Commission on Immigration and 

The basic purpose of this Conunission is the study and evaluation of the im- 
migration and naturalization policies of the United States. You certainly have 
for your guidance the tren<-hant message of President Truman, vetoing the so- 
called AlcCarrau Act. So well does this message analyze the present act that it 
would he superfluous to criticize the act in detail. You have also had the advan- 
tage, as have I, of studying the history of immigration policy in the United 
States as it was spread in the Congressional Kecord of May l!)th l)y Senator 
Douglas. However, within the purview of your commission from the President, 
there are matters of innnigration i)()licy on which I have a deep-rooted c(mvictiou> 

First, the national-origin (piota .system denies the basic principles of the 
Declaration of Independence and designates some people as second-rate human 
beings. If we accept the political proposition that all men are created equal and 
if we are possessed of the religious faith that they are all alike sons of God, we 
cannot adhere to a system wliicli allo;s S4 pjrct ut of our immigrants to ndrth'-^ru 
and western Europe and but 14 percent to southern and eastern Europe. If we 
are true to- our professed belief we nnist reject an innnigration law which limits 
to 100 the immigrants frinn colonies of a mother country which has an unfilled 
ijuota. For we know that the only purpose of this limitation is to exclude men 
and women of darker skins who come from such places as Jamaica or Barbados. 

Second, our immigration policy should recognize that there are factors which 
must be considered in order to secure and continue an equality of economic op- 
portunity and to make possible a reasonable and happy social adaptation. These 
purposes may possibly be reflecteil in the aggregate size of the quota, but not by 
racial discrimination. 

Such discrimination has no more place in an immigration quota than it does iu 
the Connnonwealth of Massachusetts, where we have adoi»led anli-di.scrimina- 
tion legislation which forbids economic or social discrimination baseil upon race, 
age, color, or religious belief. The same principles have been adopted in our 
legislation with respect to educational opportunities. Oar belief in these prin- 
(•iples is not idle talk. It has been implemented in the Commonwealth of Mas- 
sachusetts, and should be imijlemented in the immigration and naturalization 
laws of the United States. 

Third, I suggest an examination of oiir immigration laws to eliminate tlie 
po.ssibility of action in respect to admission, exclusion, or deportation, based 
upon the mere opinion of an adiuiiiistrative official apart from a sustained bur- 
den of proof or the weight of factual evidence and without an estal)lisbed tribu- 
nal for appeal. Our Constitution protects all persons from l)('ing deprived of 
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. \o privilege so precious 
as admission to the United States (»r citizensliip in the United States should he- 
denied less formally or with fewer safeguards than those which protect 

Fourth, I note that it is within the .scope of your impiiry to consider the 
effect of the immigration hxws on the conduct of the foreign p(»licies of tlie 
United States and on emergency conditions, including the overpopulation of 
western Eurijpe and the refugee and escapee problems in these areas. I shall 
not attemijt to judge these problems iu tei'ms of tlieir numerical magnitude, but 
it is apparent that, if democracy is to win friends and i-etain allies in the defense 


of civilization against communism, it must be clone on a basis which exemplifies 
the underlying tenets of democracy as they are represented by a recognition of 
the equality of mankind. Any quota system which belittles people of one na- 
tional origin as compared to another or asserts that those from one country are 
less welcome than those from another country can serve only as a repudiation 
of the prin iples which we purport to uphold. We must uphold them in fact 
as well as in theory if we are to gain and retain the respect and friendship of 
the peoples from whom we seek such respect and friendship. It is only such 
a revision of our immigration and naturalization laws as incorporates our demo- 
cratic faith that will relight the torch of Liberty and throw its light so that all 
who come iuay read the inscription and be comforted : 

"Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, 
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door." 

The Chairman. Mr. Poland, please express to His Excellency the 
Governor the appreciation of the members of this Commission for 
sending his statement, and please inform him that it will have our 
most earnest consideration. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. John Collins. 


Mr. Collins. I am John Collins, assistant regional director, Con- 
gress of Industrial Organizations, 73 Tremont Street, Boston. 

I wish to make a brief statement. 

The Chairman. We Avill be pleased to hear you. 

Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I 
thoroughly agree with all of the statements that have been made here 
this morning, but I am full aware of the fact that there are two points 
which have been neglected. No. 1 is with regard to section 212 (a) ; 
that is, that the Attorney General of the United States will have 
jurisdiction over technical and skilled workers coming into this 

During the last several years there has been an arrangement and an 
understanding with the immiaTation authorities that, when such 
workers come into an area, the labor organizations in that area work 
out something as to the advisability of admitting those workers. 

As far as I know, there never has been any misunderstanding or 
any friction between the immigration authorities and the labor 
organizations. We have cooperated 100 percent. 

Now, if this law goes into effect, it is quite possible that you may 
have friction which may interfere with our economic situation. For 
instance, it is quite possible at the request of management from a 
big interest or national organization who want several workers, to 
request the Attorney General for permission to import skilled workers, 
and take them into his plant M'ith total disregard to contractual rela- 
tions which exist between the management and labor. That may have 
repercussions that may affect our whole economy, because there is 
one thing I know for a fact: that labor is going to stand up to its 
contract and they expect management to do the same. 

We certainly object to any change in this policy, and we recommend 
that this be included in any act, even if the McCarran Act is going 
to be ameiuled, that this relationship be embodied in that effect. 


Xow, (liere is MiiotluM- tliiiiii" wliicli has been iiofflocled here, and that 
is how an alien can be discriminated against durino- this strike. It is 
quite possible that there may be some aliens in a strike in a shop, and 
that strike may be a tonj^li one and there may be certain acts com- 
mitted, and there is nothino; to prevent one of the immigration au- 
thorities or the police force or some other agency to come in and 
accuse perhaps the fellow or immigrant who was rather active in that 
strike, and definitely say he was of a radical element and that he 
should not be allowed in this country, and that he should be deported. 

God knows, from our experience in the last several years, it is quite 
possible that such a thing may happen. All they have to do is find 
a man is a radical. There is no investigation. They have the evidence 
that he took part in the strike. It is quite possible, too, before we 
could help it, that that would ha])])en before he would get his citizen- 
ship, and yet he may have attained leadership in an organization, 
and if he is carrying out the duties of the organization, very often 
he has got to call a strike or at least he has to lock horns with manage- 
ment, and naturally that would brand him as a radical. 

So this act, if not amended, may lead to a serious economic situa- 
tion, because according to the act the only people with any say 
whatsoever are the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and 
the President of the United States. And, in my honest opinion, none 
of those people is in a position to state definitely what the labor market 
in any certain area of this country is, and there is no one in any better 
position than the representatives of the labor organizations in those 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chaikmax. Is Dr. Andrew Torrielli here? 


Dr. Torrielli. My name is Andrew Torrielli, 28 Gay Street, New- 
tonville, Mass. I am here as a representative of the editor of the 
Sons of Italy Magazine of Massachusetts. 

The main reason I am here, gentlemen, is that I am the son of a 
grateful innnigrant. My father in particular wanted me to come. I 
have no sad speech. He asked me just recently to come. All I can tell 
you is what 1 ha\e known through personal experience in this matter 
of immigration. 

My father came to this country before the turn of the century, and 
throughout his life he has had on his desk a little quotation which T 
would like to read to you. It is a translation, sir, and not too good. 
It is a statement by a psychologist, Angelo Mosso, made at Clark 
University, here in Worcester. 

In 1899 he said : 

It is diflicnlt to foresee wh;it will liapiten in the future, for in the last HO years 
the United States has ninltiplied its wealth five times and tripled its population. 
No doul)t neither its wealth nor its jjopulation can continue to increase in similar 
measure. Even now the momentum seems continually to l)e decreasing. I?ut. 
whatever does happen, the now ancient battle cry that America is the asylum 
of the oppressed ol the world will ever in the future shine undiminished midst 
the stars of its flas. The faitli in the equality of man is too deeply rooted ; the 
dignity of lal)or is too highly resjieeted for those who would combat these senti- 
ments ever to try. 

25?,5r, — r,2 25 


I am here, gentlemen, becanse I think this act is a triumph of those 
who would come. My father, as I say, came before tlie turn of the 
century. He did very well in this country. He came without a cent 
m his pocket and did very well. In 1021 he had amassed enougli to 
sell everything he had in this country, take his wife and my brother 
and me back to wliat he tliought was liome. I might say that Profes- 
sor Hand] in and I are old friends ; he served on the faculty of Harvard 
University with me at one time. The book vrhich he has written, The 
Uprooted', I have one criticism of, and which I liiwe made to him. I 
don't like the title "The Uprooted." 

In the case of my father, who went back to Italy, we moved to a 
small northern town from which he had come, up in the mountains 
of Piedmont, near Tu.rin. I shall never forget how we got there in 
April and tliere was still snow on the mountainside. 

I was 9 years old. We were taken up in a cai-riage to the base of 
the mountain, and my father ran up the side of that mountain to get 
home, he thought. Well, conditions weren't anywliere near what they 
were in the United States in 1021, in Italy. It took him, even though 
his mother and family lived tliere. about 1 month to know that he was 
not home. It wasn't a matter of not having a gas stove or not having 
heat. He just wasn't home with the people that he longed for. That 
man was an American. 

We staved about 4 months in nortliern Italy, and then we moved 
clown to the middle of the Riviera. 

One day we were sitting in the ]niblic square, and an argument went 
on at the next table, a political argument. Tliere was violence, and 
my father packed us on the boat and had us back in this country within 
2 weeks. He was starting over again — not as an immigrant. That 
man felt he was an American; we were back in this country, and we 
have been here ever since. 

His two sons I hope have behaved as Americans; we have done our 
Army service as such. Wherever I have been, the experiences I liave 
had in the Army — for a long period of time I was commanding officer 
of the OSS in southern Italy, and in the Balkans — I can say this: 
That no matter how much money was offered to one, no matter how 
foolhardy that person was, yon couldn't get them to go over the lines 
and work for ns as guerrillas on the other side. There was always 
one question that those people asked. They said : "Will you get me 
into tlie United States when this war is over?" 

We said "Yes"; that we would; that we would do everything we 
could. You remember these people were known as Joe's, and we said 
then to these Joe's: If you go over and you work for the United 
States, you can't show any better way than risking your life here 
that you are not a Fascist, no matter what you say, and that you didn't 
intend to be a Fascist; you became one because of necessity, but go 
over and when you come back we will do our best. This war is worth 
fightinc; for and is for all humanity and all people, with no distinc- 
tion. "V\nien it is over, we can get you into the United States. The 
law will let you. 

Well, gentlemen, we can't, not even under the present law. If this 
law become a fact, we will never get them in. These are people who 
risked their lives, but they were Fascists before that time. They didn't 
do it for the mercenary reason of money, and not because they were 


Stupid. I know thul most of them did it because they thought they 
would help humanity and they thought they would get into this 
country to stay someday. Those people I have known personally. 

1m mv own case, we have dual citizenship. At the time of the 
Ethio))ian war I won an award to ,go to Europe, a fcllowshij), to go to 
Europe to study. I went to the State Dei)artment and asked about 
arrangements, and they said "Go ahead; there is nothing to stop you."' 
I hai)pened to be a Reserve officer at the time and had to get permission 
from the Adjutant General. 

Then he said: 

You were boru in 1012. and that nuikes you a deserter from the Italian Army 
so far as the Ethiopian war is concerned. Go ahead. But you might never get 
back alive. 

So 1 never did go. 

I had friends who had come to this country, who went back and 
were caitght in this alfair, and who never did get back. They can't 
get back as immigrants or otherwise. They are going to stay there. 
I know Gold Star ^lothers. gentlemen, who can't get into this country. 
They have a (xold Star Mother in the town of Bianca. I have seen 
her. She will never get in because she can't read or write, and at 
her age she never Avill. 

I am afraid that what we are doing is building a stockade. I re- 
member the stockades built against the Indians. 1 remember speaking 
to Jiumey. who the chief intelligence officer of the Italian Army when 
they wei'e making ])lans with General Haider, the German chief in- 
telligence officer. He had served in the United States. I had not oidy 
him but dozens of other high-ranking officers tell me that all they 
wanted all along, and I can believe some of it, was an opporttmity to 
get into this country, to be friendly with this country and to know 
this cou.ntry wanted to be friendly with tliem. 

As I say, having been a professor. I would like to say this: this 
man has said it .so much better than I, and this is Edmund Burke — 
you reineml>er him from early school books. 

In 1774 he said : 

The question with me is not whetJier you have the riglit to make people miser- 
able, but wiiether it is not to your interest to make them happy. 

I tlunk. gentlemen, we shoidd try to make the peoj^les of tlie world 
hal)I)3^ Thank you. 

The CiiA[R>rAN. Thank you. Dr. Torrielli. 

Commissioner O'Gkady. What is your occupation? 

Dr. ToHHiEi.Li. I am a printer at the present time. I have taught at 
Hai-vard and Fordham University — romance languages. I hold a: 
Ph. I). 

The (^iiAii!:\i.vN. How old were you when your father went back to- 

Dr. ToRKiELLi. Nine. 

The CiiAmMAN. Did you say your father did not stay long, but came 
back with his family? 

Dr. Torrielli. That is right. 

I can report that up in towns the C\)nnnunist-Fascist fight was 
going on continually. It was not as we think of it now. With the 
peoj)le in 1921 the Communist fight was much an ideology antl they 
were discussing it much in tlie way as — I hesitate to sa}' — tlie Kepubli- 


cans and Democrats discuss issues. But even so, it came to blows. 
What frightened my father, a man who left that country to seek oppor- 
tunity, was that the people settled their arguments with blows. He 
didn't like it for his sons. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. What causes them to come to blows? 

Dr. ToRRiELLi. I think that most of them have that philosophy as 
human beings. They learn to fight only when they don't have some- 
thing, or when it is taken away from them, or as in the case of most 
of the Italians, "anything is better than the situation which they 
have." It is the sort of thing that leads them to seek illegal entry 
into this country. It is the attitude they now have and which is re- 
ported to me also from my friends. They say there is no use applying, 
with the quota as it is. They just feel they wouldn't get there until 
the year 2000, and that they may just as well find somebody they can 
bribe, and get in, in an illegal way. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. Is that particularly true of any section 
of Italy? 

Dr. ToRRiELLi. My experience is more with central and northern 
Ttaly. I would think it dominates there for the simple reason they 
have the money to do it ; and they do it. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Are they able to pass in this country as 
good Americans without getting picked up by the immigration 
authorities ? 

Dr. Torrielli. I can't say that I know any particular individual, 
but I know of people who have come in on passport visas and just 
never went back. They would like to be naturalized, and they are 
good citizens. They don't want to go back and therefore are put in 
the position of almost criminals. 

The Chairman. Are they here illegally ? 

Dr. Torrielli. That is right. 

The Chairman. Are there quite a number of those people in the 
country ? 

Dr. Torrielli. I can't say that. I would say that I know of some 
in Boston. 

The Chairman. There are cases where people have come into the 
country on transit visas, and later were granted the status of perma- 
nently admitted aliens by Act of Congress. 

Dr. Torrielli. If that is so, I would think we could allow these 
people to come in on a temporary visa and screen them some way. If 
they become acceptable later, why not take them in in the first place. 

The Chairman. I think some of them have gone to Canada and 
Cuba and have then come back in. 

Dr. Torrielli. There is one thing I would like to say, sir, and that 
is the sons of Italy gather a lot of money and have tried to build and 
have built an orphanage in Casino. I was in Casino after the war. 
One of the items which we gave for it and which brought in a lot of 
money wdien we were building the orphanage was a vocational and 
training school. W^e poured money into equipment with the one idea 
that these children would learn a trade which would make them 
acceptable to the United States and we hope that all this money which 
has gone into giving them these trades will make them acceptable 
to the United States. 


We know they are acceiJtable because we actually have requests for 
them from Argentina and the South .Vmerican countries. I think 
they would be good citizens for this country. 

The Chaiumax. Thank you very much. 

Dr. TouHiELLi. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Is Eugene Chipp here? 


Mr. Clapp. I am Eugene H. Clapp, president of the Penobscot 
Chemical Fibre Co., 211 Congress Street, Boston. Our mills are 
located at Great AVorks, Maine, and we manufacture bleached soda 
and bleached sulfite wood pulp. 

We have a slightly different facet we would like to present, sir, and 
it is set out in a statement I should like to read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Clapp. I repeat : My name is Eugene H. Clapp. I am president 
of the Penobscot Chemical Fibre Co., located at Great Works, Maine. 
We manufacture bleached soda and bleached sulfite wood pulp, and 
we employ approximately GOO people. 

Normally, the mills in this area would be represented by Governor 
Sherman Adams of New Hampshire, who has been the special repre- 
sentative on Canadian immigration of woodsmen for the pulp and 
paper mills in the Northeast for many years. However, the Governor 
is helping elect the next President of the United States and therefore, 
on such short notice, could not be present. I only received notice my- 
self of this meeting yesterday afternoon about 3 : 20 p. m. I deplore 
the lack of time given to us to prepare testimony on this important 

I cannot claim to represent the other pulp and paper manufacturers 
in our area, as time was entirely lacking to contact them and to permit 
them to either submit testimony on their own behalf or to submit 
their ideas to me so that I might have incorporated them into this 
presentation. I might say, sir, that this morning I submitted this 
brief to some of my colleagues at a meeting this morning in the 
Parker House— the Great Northern Paper Co., Eastern Manufacturing 
Co., and the Oxford Paper Co. — and they said they w^ould go along 
with me on this brief. In general, however, I know that we hold 
identical views, and I can assure you that this is a matter of grave 
import to all of us. 

The Labor Department of the Dominion, Government of Canada, 
])ermits 9,1)00 (1),0()0 i)lus 10 percent) men who are skilled woodsmen 
to leave New Brunswick aiid Quebec to come into Maine, NeAV Hamp- 
shire, Vermont, and New York States. This practice has been ac- 
cej^ted and permitted by the United States Department of Labor. 
These men all are skilled woodsmen, and they come in under bond 
on application to the United States Department of Labor by the 
various companies and individual operators. Without these men, it 
would not be possible to supi^ly the various mills in these States with 
wood for the manufacture of pul]) and ])aper, because there is not a 
sufficient supply of local laboi- available to cut, saw up, peel, or drive 


There are various unemployment commissions in the various States, 
and the hnnber and pulp mills and individual operators request labor 
from these commissions. If they can supply the labor, O. K., but if 
not, then the Canadians come in. The point is — there is no displace- 
ment of any American labor by any Canadian, because this is not 
permitted in any State. 

Even though 9,900 men is the permitted amount, the total number 
runs between 7,000 and 8,000. They come in through the Department 
of Immigration and are here only for a 6-month period, and then 
they must be returned. A continuation of this policy is advised, even 
more strongly, is imperative. These Canadian woodsmen historically 
come into the northeastern areas to cut wood, and without this policy 
the pulp and paper mills in the Northeast would not be able to pro- 
cure a sufficient supply of wood to keep them in operation. A con- 
tinued supply of pulp and paper is a necessity for the TTnited States, 
not only for its economic well-being, but also to supply its defense 

I would like to repeat that : That a continued supply of pulp and 
paper is a necessity for the United States, not only for its economic 
well-being but also to supply its defense needs. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Clapp, just what is the problem you see before 
this Commission? Is there anything you would recommend for it to 
do or say in connection with this problem ? 

Mr. Clapp. We hope that the present policy will be continued. Un- 
fortunately, I only received word from Maine yesterday afternoon 
of this meeting. We don't know exactly what your commission is 
considering and as this is a serious problem with us we did want to 
voice it; that is, the necessity for Canadian woodsmen to be able to 
continue to come into the United States into the northeast area because, 
frankly, there just isn't enough labor there. And we thought we 
should appear before you to present our brief so that in considering 
the entire problem you will notice that there is a problem in this area. 
We think it is imperative that Canadian woodsmen continue to be 
allowed to come into the northeast area to cut wood if we are to supply 
the pulp and paper needs of the United States. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Is such a migratory supply of labor stable 
enough for your needs ? 

Mr. Clapp. It is a stable labor supply. I agree with you that it 
would be nice to settle them on land in New Hampshire, Vermont, and 
Maine. We have tried settling them at the mills and it has only met 
with semisuccess. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do you mean bringing them in on a perma- 
nent basis? 

Mr. Cl.\pp. That is right. We have also tried to interest people in 
going back to the land, but as you know, father, most people today are 
interested in getting into the urban areas more than going out to the 
country. We consider that these Canadian woodsmen are a stable 

In fact, during the war the Canadians were having a shortage of 
labor for their own industries and they tried to induce these men who 
lived up in this general area to go into Canadian operations, telling 
tliem that they couldn't go into the United States where they normally 
had gone for many years, and the men told the Canadian Government 


they were either goiiiof to work in NeAv Hampshire, Vermont, Maine 
or New York, as they had always done, or tliey weren't going to work 

Commissioner 0'Gr.\.dy. You say most i)eople are interested in mov- 
ing to the urban areas today. Is it not true that there is also a move- 
ment of people out of the cities today, and would it not be better for 
your business to encourage a permanent labor supply instead of de- 
])endin<T on migratory labor? 

]Mr. Ci.Ai'P. Exc<'))t tliey ha\en"t spread (piite tliat far yet. It is 
true they are moving out of the cities, but still they are moving into 
areas near the cities rather than far up in the areas of norlheru Maine 
and New Hampshire wliich is pretty far from tlie center of popula- 
tion. I don't think our suggestion is optimum. I think people could 
be encouraged by giving them farm lots in the wooded areas and 
helping them to build homesteads there, thereby giving them some 
source of income. Maybe some [)eople woidd tlien l)e interested in 
going back on the land. We have tried it and so far haven't been too 

Commissioner Finucane. Do you have any reason to believe that 
this practice of permitting Canadian skilled workmen to come in 
w^on't be continued under the new law ? 

Mr. Clapp. No, I don't, sir. 

Connnissioner Finucane. Are you just appearing as a matter of 

Mr. Clapp. That's right, because it is an important matter. 

The Ciiaik^man. Do you know of anything it the act wliich v\'()uld 
interfere with your present practice? 

Mr. Clapp. Not that I know of, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank jou. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce into the record a 
telegram received from Senator John O. Pastore, of Rhode Island, 
addressed to the* chairman, which reads as follows: 

Statement Submitted isy Hox. .Toiin O. Pastoue, Senatou Fno.\r the State of 

Rhode Island 

(The telegram follows:) 

October 2, 1952. 
Under separate cover I am submitting by mail my views on tlie immigration 
situation togetlier with a co])y of my sin'eeli made on this subject in the Senate 
on May 14, 1952, which is part of the Congressional Record. Respectfully request 
that both statements be made part of your hearings in Boston for future 
consideration by the Members of the Commission. 

(Signed) John O. I'astore, 

United titates Senator. 

The Chairman. That will be made part of the record, and the two 
statements that the Senator has requested in his telegram be made part 
of the record will also be inserted at this point when they are received. 

(The two statements Senator John O. Pastore requested be made 
part of the hearings follow:) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the President's Conmiission on Immigration and 
Naturalization. I d;^eui it a great pleasure to present a statement for considera- 
tion by this Commission, just as I deem it a gi'eat act of statesmanship on the 
President's part to appoint this Commission. This Commission needed to be 
appointed. Tlie study it is making needs to b » made. 

Our immigration and naturalization laws need not only overhauling but 
virtual replacement. Tlie heart of our present innnigration system is the national 


origins quota system. It is a vicious system — bigoted in concept, discviniinatnry 
in operation, and self-defeating in execution. 

In the course of my discussions of tliis subject before tlie Senate early this 
summer, when I joined other Senators in opposing the McCarran-Walter bill, 
I condemned the national origins quota system with all the vehemence and vigor 
at my command. At the time, some of us joined in proposing a plan for pooling 
unused quotas. That would be a means of taking some of the sting out of the 
national origins quota system. It would be compromised. I>ut there is no justifi- 
cation for the system itself, in eitlier morality or reason. It is neither logical 
nor American in its application. As long as you are studying the wliole suliject, 
you should address yourselves, I believe, to the root of the matter. The national 
origins quota system nuist go. But when we say this system nuist go, we nnist 
also have an alternative, a substitute. 

I understand such a substitute was pr(jposed during yotir hearings in New 
York by Senator Lehman. The outlines of that substitute were not drawn with 
finality, but that plan appeals to me as reasonable and sound. 

In place of selecting people for inuuigration to this country on the basis of their 
birth with this intolerable discrimination against people from Southern and 
Eastern Europe, why not select people on the basis of their individual worth? 

Let us, indeed, have some kind of numerical limit, wliich could l)e adjusted 
from time to time to keep pace with our growth in population. I think that we 
can ea.sily absorb 350,000 immigrants annually with great profit to ourselves. At 
the same time, it would provide leadership to other countries which can absorb 
iuunigratiou, and thus provide a haven for the homeless and the needy in Italy, 
Greece, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. 

My idea would be to divide up the total amount of innnigration that we permit 
among various categories. A certain percentage of the total would be for rela- 
tives of citizens or legally resident aliens. Another percentage would be for 
refugees from religious or political persecution. A third percentage would be 
reserved for Iiardship cases from countries where tliere is economic distress 
or surplus poijulation. A fourth percentage sliould be reserved and made subject 
to the discretion of those in charge of our foreign policy, so that we can provide 
haven for a certain number of people from countries where an emergency need 
develops. This should be an extremely fiexible percentage, as the entire system 
should be, to some degree, fiexible. 

I also feel that a final percentage should be left for "new seed" imuugrants, 
from whatever coiuitry, who are worthy and deserving on the basis of their 
cliaracter and quality. 

Of course it will be necessary to establisli administrative mat«hinery to clear all 
these immigrants, and to make sure that those admitted fall within the categories 
for which provision is made. 

I do not pretend that this is a simple matter. It needs to be studied and worked 
out in detail. The Commission could make a tremendous contribution by work- 
ing out the details of such a plan. I trust and hope that it will. 

I can think of no more important and vital public service, both for the sake 
of our foreign policy and our relations with other countries, and for the sake 
of our own national integrity and national needs. 

Respectfully submitted. 

JoHx O. Pastore, 
United States Senator. 

October 2, 1952. 


Speech of Hon. John O. Pastore, of Rhode Island, in the Senate of the United 
States, Wednesday, May 14, 1952 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2550) to revise the laws 
relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality, and for other purposes. 

Mr. Pastore. Mr. President, Congress has long recognized that the United 
States, in order to combat the forces of international communism, must adopt 
a twofold program : first, the build-up of internaL American strength to the 
limits of our capacity ; and, second, the encouragement of all peoples to join 
with us in opposition to Soviet domination. Through the revision of our laws 
governing immigration and citizenship, we are presented with a rare opportu- 
nity to push forward to these essential objectives. We have the opportunity. 


by correcting many existing (Icfccts in our laws, to cement tlio unity of the 
American people and to enlist the support of foi'cign-ltorn persons who would be 
among the most stalwart defenders of llie American way of life. We have the 
opportunity, by re.iecting all proposals which are in violation of our democratic 
traditions, to demonstrate to all the world that \vc i)ractice the principles of 
justice and fair play which we preach. 

I rise to speak against S. li.VtO. the bill iirescntly under discussion, because 
I sincerely believe that this bill, in siiile of the good intentions on the part of 
its sjjonsors, fails to do the Job that must be done. Instead of responding to the 
need for modilication or elimination of those present provisions of the law which 
have created so much hardshii) for American citizens and which have so dis- 
turbed our friends in other cotuitvies. the pending legislation, with only limited 
exceptions, actually perpetuates numerous existing recognized inequities. Con- 
trary to public demand, which I myself have experienced, S. 25r>0 proposes 
unprecedented new restrictions which tend to infringe upon cherished American 
rights and plays directly into the hands of Soviet propagandists. In making 
this assertion, I guarantee to the opposition that I am just as sincere and just 
as patriotic as they are in making their allegations. 

This bill, in the guise of codification, makes many dangerous and unreason- 
alile changes in existing laws controlling immigratitm, deportation, and nation- 
alities. As four dissenting members of the Judiciary Connuittee of the Senate 
have already stated : 

"The bill would inject new racial discriminations into our law, establish many 
new vague, and highly abusable recpiirements for admission, impede the ad- 
mission of refugees from totalitarian oppression, incorporate into law vague 
standards for deportation and denaturalization, and would deprive persons 
within our bordei-s of fundamental judicial protections." 

I have no desire within the course of a single address to discuss in detail the 
many provisions which would have such an effect. This would he an imjtossilile 
task because of the complexities of this bill. Therefore, I shall limit ray remarks 
to the general question of iumiigration and specifically to the problem of the 
national origins quota system. This is a problem which has vexed our people 
and our Congress for a long time. It has been resented by many persons who 
spring from certain stocks because of its discriminatory nature. All that this 
bill does is readopt and reaffirm that inequity and that injustice, and If the bill 
is ultimately passed by the Congress and signed by the President of the United 
States, it will have the effect for a long time to come of perpetuating an injustice 
and a wrong which I feel now is the time and here is the place to rectify once and 
for all. And I might add that in the light of America's role of world leader- 
ship, this bill is economically unsound, politically unrealistic, and morally inde- 

If we are to view the present position of the United States in accordance with 
unbiased historical judgments, we must recognize that our rapid rise to world 
power during the past 175 years has been based upon an increase in population 
from 4,000,000 to over 150,000.000 people. Without question, that tremendous 
growth was largely the result of immigration; except for those few remaining 
full-blooded American Indians, we are all either immigrants ourselves or the 
descendants of immigrants of another generation. TraditionaUy. one of the 
firmest foundations of our national strength has been the admission and the 
Americanizing of freedom-loving individuals from all corners of the globe. 

The story is not new. It goes back to 100 years prior to 1020 when racists and 
scaremongers in this country urged that the frontiers for American expansion 
had closed and that this Nation should restrict the entry of all immigrants, or, 
at least, certain types of innuigrants. In the beginning these pressures were 
exerted and directed against the Irish and the Germans, and in later years 
thpse same sentiments were turned against newcomers from Asia and from 
southern, central, and eastei-n Eurojie. It is a tribute to the wisdom of our 
ancestors that, for so many decades, they saw through (he arguments for limited 
immigration, and deliberately induced the settlement in this country of refugees 
from tlie Old World. 

Need I say that the contributions of these immigrants to our national economy, 
in terms of manpower, of productive capacity, and of oui- high standard of living, 
must be calcidated in the billions of dollars. The invaluable services rendered 
by men such as Carnegie, Einstein, and Enrico Fermi are familiar to us all, and 
tlie exploits of their lesser known compatriots are similarly meritorious. And 
where wotild our victories in wars have been if it had not been for the sons 
of the immigrants who wore the khaki and the blue? Wliat a coincidence it 


is that the wealthiest States in the Union are those where populations include 
the largest percentage of foreign born. Or are we going to argue now that im- 
migration did not assist in stimulating American expansion to the great heights 
that it has now achieved. 

Of course, we must have limits to oiir immigration quotas. But let us recog- 
nize the fact that these limits must be reasonable, that they must be wise, that 
they must be just, and that they must be fair. Thc^ proposed legislation, on the 
other hand, ignoring these elementary political and economic truths, is based 
upon the premise that immigration is a liability rather than an asset to the 
United States. 

In 1924, at a time when antialien feeling was at its greatest, Congress adopted 
a general immigration law which drastically curtailed the admission to our 
shores of persons born in other parts of the world. Instead of reconsidering the 
reasons for such restrictions, this bill blindly would perpetuate the low maxi- 
mum limit and even lower actual rate of immigration in force under the 1924 
statute. I am realistic enough to know that in order to avoid an out-and-out 
dislocation of our economy, we must have restricted immigration. There must 
be a reasonable ceiling upon the number of admissions each year in order that 
those who come can be comfortably and conveniently absorbed in oui- way of life. 
But, with equal force, I must contend that the operation of the 1924 law has 
always been inequitable and is today entirely inconsistent with the best in- 
terests of the United States. The sum total of the bill, S. 2550, is to perpetuate 
that inequity, and its adoption would be a masterjiiece of folly. 

Since 1929, for example, the annual quota of every nationality has been fixed 
at a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants 
in the continental United States in 1920 having that national origin bears to the 
total white population of the United States on the same date. In other words, 
by the Immigration Act of 1924, Congress fixed the figure of 150.000 as an ap- 
proximation of the number of immigrants whom this country could readily 
absorb and presence would serve the national interest. When the for- 
mula set forth in the law is applied, however, more than 05.000 (piota num- 
bers are assigned to Great Britain and North Ireland, where there is little pres- 
sure on the part of the natives to come to xVmerica ; \\hile correspondingly few 
quota numbers are assigned to those nations whose inhabitants have the great- 
est incentive to emigrate; thus presenting a situation that (mt of the 150,000 
allowed to come, nearly 126,000 quota numbers are alottcd to 12 northern and 
vi^estern European countries, and scarcely 25,000 to 18 soutliern and eastern 
European countries." 

Because of this situation, which I call international gerrymandering, a large 
portion of the authorized quotas has never been used. As a matter of fact, 
during the 27 years the national origins system has been in effect, only 44 i>er- 
cent of the possible quota immigrants actually have been admitted into this 
country. Such conditions have prevented many individuals anxious to gain 
admission into the United States from so doing and have deprived this coun- 
try of many persons who could have made material contributions to our man- 
power potential, productive capacity, and vai'ied culture. 

It is time, therefore, that we faced up to the truth that the Immigration Act of 
1924, in terms of its announced purposes, has proved to be wholly inadequate. 
Instead of allowing immigration up to 1.50.000 persons annually, the fgure 
thought to be appropriate, in practical operation the law has reduced the num- 
ber of persons entering the United States for permanent residence far below 
that total to a point which, in many instances, is very much below the intended 

Section 201 (a) of S. 2.5.50 substitutes a mechanically simitlified formula for 
the one now in existence, by providing that each quota be one-sixth of 1 percent 
of the number of inhabitants in the continental United States in 1920 attrib- 
utable by national origin to that quota area. This in effect does not change the 
situation as it now exists, a fact which is attested to in the majority report of 
the committee. 

This is my chief criticism of this bill. If we are to codify our immigration 
statutes, it seems to me that the fii'st order of business should be a correction 
of such a glaring inconsistency with the objectives of the earlier act, and the 
elimination of arbitrary and discriminatory barriers set up against certain 

I am proud to state that the legislature of my own State recognized this 
inequity and injustice, and, by a formal memorial resolution to Congress, has 
recommended that any comprehensive iiamigration legislation adopted at this 


time include a provision making the iinusod quoin niiiiibers in any fiscal year 
available during tlie following: fiscal year to iunninraiits. in order of priority, 
who are native to countries wliose quotas are oversubscribed. 

Mr. Humphrey. !Mr. President, will the Senator from Rliode Island yield at 
tliis point V 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Humphrey. As I gatlier, wliat tlie Senator is now suggesting is that when 
we write a new immigration law, wliich has lor its purpose tlie recodification 
of existing immigration laws and the modernization of immigration standards, 
one essential fact ought to be considered, namely, bringing up to date the popu- 
lation statistics under which immigration quotas are to be established; is 
that conect? 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. That is the right way and tb.e democratic 
way, let the chips fall where they may. I am not saying that it is going to 
assist any particular nation materially, but it strikes me as beimr a democratic 
process. If we are going to modernize our immigration and nationality laws, 
then, let us modernize them in a truly demociatic fashion. Let us bring them 
up to date. Kow can we say we are modernizing if we continue to use quotas 
which are predicated upon a census taken in 1D20, when, as a matter of fact, 
a census of the United States was taken in 1950? If we are going to modernize, 
then let us modernize. 

Mr. HuMPHPwEY. If one is seeking to modernize, I think it would be well 
to ask. What is the magic in the year 1920 > There was a census in 1930 and a 
census in 1940. The most recent census was in 1950. I think it is fair to 
say that the base year of 1920 was used because that base was discriminatory 
upon certain areas of population and certain nationality groups, and placed a 
preference in terms of ((uota numbers upon northern European countries, quotas 
that were unused. Is not that true. 

Mr. Pastore. More than that, it was absolutely unrealistic for the reason 
that the 1920 census was based upon a pattern which took into consideration 
what had happened for perhaps a decade or a generation before that time, and 
did not take into account the changing times. 

Certain people who had come to this country in large numbers up to the year 
1920 were not affected, because they had lieeii here for a long time. It did not 
apply to certain peoples of Europe who came in in large numbers until 1920. I 
say the 1920 census is being maintained in this bill deliberately in order to pei'- 
petuate that inequality, inecpiity, and injustice. 

Mr. Humphrey. So it is fair to say that this bill is not a modernization 
of the immigration law. What it amounts to is standardization of a formula 
arrived at in 1920, based on the 1920 census, and a perpetuation of inequities 
and discriminatory features which were then in the law, and which have been 
so sharply criticized for the past oO years. 

Mr. Pastore. That, in fact, is the theme of my remarks. 

Mr. Lehman. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? 

Mr. Pastore. I am glad to yield. 

Mr. Lehman. I should like to ask the Senator if he does not agree with me that 
we proposed to do two things. In the first place, we propose to base population 
figures on the census of 1950, instead of the census of 1920, and to include all 
inliai)itants and residents of this country. That is one thing, (^f course, that 
would mean that instead of 154,000 persons being eligible for entry under the 
quota system, the figure would be somewhat larger, namely, from 220,000 to 
230,000. That is the only change so far as numbers are concerned. 

We go one step further, which I think is of very great interest to the country. 
Todiiy, as the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, there 
are approximately 66,000 places allotted to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 
about 26.000 allotted to Southern Ireland, and a certain number allotted to 
Germany. But of the 66.000 which have been allotted to Gi-eat Britain and 
Northern Ireland, only approximtely 21,000 were used last year. The other 
45,000 or more quota numbers have gone to waste. We do not propose to cut 
down the quota numbers assigned to Great Britain and Ireland. That figure 
will remain at approximately 65,000 or 66.000. It may go up somewhat if the 
British population has increased in the past 30 years. However the change will 
not be substantial, and certainly there will be no diminution. 

The only thing wo propose is to take the unused quota numl)ers for Great 
Britain and Ireland, the differences between 21.000 quota numbers, which have 
actually been used, and 66.000, which were allotted to them, and place them in a 
pool, together with unused quota numbers for other nationalities, and permit 


those quota number to be used under the formula set forth in the bill. In that 
way, they will be of some use to people coming from overpopulated countries, 
which inchule Italy and Greece, as well as the German refugees who do not 
<iualify under the German quota, l)ut who still are a serious economic problem 
so far as Germany is concerned. Those are the only changes we propose to 
make. It seems to me that that is a completely reasonable and fair proposal. 

Mr. Pastoke. Lest anyone get the wrong impression, this is not a formula 
for taking away. 

Mr. Lehman. That is correct. 

Mr. Pastoke. In other words, we are not saying to Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland that we are reducing their quota. At this point I desire to make a little 
correction. I think the distinguished Senator from New York made a slip of 
the tongue. The quota for Southern Ireland, or Eire, is 17,853. 

Mr. Lehman. I stand corrected. I thought it was somewhat higher. 

Mr. Pastoke. Our bill is not a process or formula for taking away. We are 
not saying to Great Britain and Ireland, "You have had the privilege of sending 
us, if you cared to do so, 25.000 or 26,000 immigrants annually, and, because you 
have not done so for the past 10 years, we are going to cut you down to 15,000." 
In the Humphrey-Lehman bill we are merely saying, "You still have the authority 
to utilize quota numbers up to the maximum, but if in any year you do not do 
so. If you do not feel that you can accept our invitation, let us hand that invitation 
over to some other poor souls who really want to come to American, make their 
homes here, and contribute to our way of life." In short, it is not a process of 
taking away. It is a process of utilizing quota numbers up to 150,000. 

Mr. Lehman. I am grateful to the Senator from Rhode Island for emphasizing 
and clarifying that point, which is very important. 

Mr. Pastoke. During the hearings before the Conunittee on the Judiciary, re- 
presentatives from a host of American religious, civic, and social organizations 
gave their support to this proposal. In my opinion, adoption of the suggestion, 
without tampering with the total number of authorized admissions, would go far 
in correcting one of the most serious shortcomings of our present quota system. 
In other words — and I am not willing to accept this as a fact — even if we go so 
far as to admit that we cannot absorb more than 150,000 immigrants annually, we 
.-hould, at least, in order to remove the barriers of discrimination, base our 
formula on the census of our population in 1950 and not that of 1920. If we are 
in fact trying to modernize and bring our law up to date, then why use the census 
of 1920 and not the census of 1950, which is a more realistic and democratic ap- 
proach to this problem? 

As long as it is recognized that immigration is desiralile, even though it must 
be circumscribed, then it also seems wholly logical that we should not prevent 
the full utilization of authorized quotas through abuse of administrative pro- 
cedures. Section 201 (c) of this lull, conforming to present law. limits the 
monthly issuance of quota visas to 10 percent of the total annual quota. Re- 
alistically, this means that at the end of the year there is a tragic waste of quota 
iiumbers which otherwise could have been used. If we must have a limitation 
as to the number that can be processed monthly for entry, then in all fairness 
the monthly limitation should be raised to 20 percent, with no restriction in the 
last 2 months of the ,vear, so that each quota can be fully utilized. 

I may say, as an aside, that it strikes me that Senate bill 2550 is built up in an 
atmosphere and spirit of hostility and rancor. It seems to be a spite piece of 
legislation more than anything else. It seems to be intended to close the door 
in the faces of people, rather than to welcome people to come here and become 
a part of our American way of life, and make a contribution to peace in the 

Mr. Humphrey. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? 

Mr. Pastoke. I am glad to yield. 

Mr. HuiiPHKEY. I had hoped that the Senator would make reference to the fact 
that not only does Senate bill 2550 seel? to close the door upon those who desire 
entrance into this land of freedom, but in the calculation of population it does 
not count native American Indians. It not only closes the door to the people who 
want to come in, but it refuses to count the triily native-1iorn people of this 
country, the American Indians, as a basis for calculating population for inmii- 
gration purposes. If anyone can offer any justification for such a theory, I 
should like to hear it. 

Mr. Pastoke. Let us make a comparison. Take the ratio which the eligible 
number of any race who come into the United States bears to the figure 150,000, 
and set that against the entire population, based upon the census of 1920, with 

COMMISSION ON immic;kation and naturalization 391 

respect to the same raeial strains which wore the American uniform in World 
War II, and see if the comiuirison is a good one. I challenge any Momher of 
the Senate to make such a comparison. Talce the numbers of the racial strains 
which we are saying are not good enough to be admitted, are not equal to our 
citizenship, but are second-class people, and compare them with the sons of the 
immigrants who came from the same stock, who wore the American uniform, 
and see what a great deflection we would actually have by comparison. It is 
easy «>nough to ask American Itoys of those racial strains to wear the uniform 
of this country, to di'fend the country in war, and to fight for peace; but when 
it comes to recognizing those races in immigi-ation, we say that they are not 
good enough, that there are other people who are a little better than they are. 
Mi-. IlUMPFiREY. Mr. President, will the Seiiatoi- yield? 
Mr. I'ASTORE. I yield. 

Mr. lIi'MPHKEY. The Senator has given most nujving and dramatic evidence of 
the <liscriminatory features of the McCai-ran bill. It is up to the i)roponents of 
that bill to justify its eipiity and its morality. It is a strange thing to note that 
the proponents of the lull are singularly silent, because the more they talk ab(mt 
this miserable l>ill the fewer supporters there will be for it. 

Let us refer to anothei' thing. I ask the Senator from Uliode Island if it is. 
not true that the Mc('ai-ran bill iirovldes for no pooling of unused quotas. 
Mr. I'ASTOKE. The Senator is alisolutely correct. 
Mr. HrMPHBEY. There is no pooling of unused quotas. 

Mr. Pastoke. The Senator is correct. All the Mc('ari-an bill does is to con- 
tinue, reaffirm, restate, and perpetuate a wrong which should have been cor- 
rected a long time ago. 

Mr. Hi'MPHREY. Is it not true that tlie MeCarran l)ill also provides that those 
who liave come in as displaced persons or refugees, nmny of them from the Baltic 
countries, many of them refugees froui Poland and other countries behind the 
iron curtain, will be charged up to the quotas of those countries, so that it will 
perhaps lie the year 2(100 before any innnigrants can come in fi-om those wonder- 
ful countries which are now under the heel of Soviet totalitarianism? 

IMr. Pastore. C'ertain quotas have been mortgaged to the extent of 50 percent. 
In otlier words, if 1,000 came in in the year 1949, from a country from which 
only 100 can migrate annually to the United States, the figure of 1,000 is spread 
(tver a number of years, to the tune of 50 a year. As a i-esult, in some cases it 
would be necessary to go nuich beyond the year 2000 before it would be possible 
to pay off the mortgage, so to speak. 

Mr. HiMPHKEY. In other words, the Displaced Persons Act, which was passed 
by Congress liy an overwhelming majority, is now supposed to be spread out 
over the years and come under the inunigration ijuofas at least liy 50 percent? 
Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. IIumppirey. I should like to inquire what woidd happen if the bill which 
is sponsored by the Senator from New York (Mr. Lehman), the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Pastore), myself, and many other Senators, which provides 
for the pooling of unused quotas should l)e enacted? It is not correct to say 
that it would permit the entry of itolitical and religious perseeutees, who have 
been driven fi'om tlieir homes by dictators and othei's who deny religious and 
political freedom? 

Mr. Pastore. Yes : up to 25 percent of \\\^' unused ([Uota. 

Mr. Hr.MPiiREY. Then there would alsn be a catesiory for men of spt'cial ability,, 
men of scientific knowledge, literary (piality, and learning. A percentage of them' 
could come into the United States out of the pooled unused quotas. Is that 

Mr. Pastore. Again up to 25 percent. 

Mr. IIttmpiirey. A third category would be relatives of citizens, such as- 
parents, brothers, sisters, and cousins. Is that up to 25 percent also? 
Mr. Pastore. Yes. 

Mr. Hi'.MPHREY. Then there is the final category, (me of special selection,, 
or what could be called new seed inanigation. which consists merely of good folk: 
who can qualify. 

Mr. I'asto::e. Y'es ; again up to 25 percent. 

Mr. Hi^MPiTREY. The fact is tliat the MeCarran bill makes no provision what- 
ever for tliese iiarticular groups to come into this country under any type of 
pooling arrangement of unused quotas. 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. Not <mly that, but the MeCarran bill goes so 
'far as to limit the numbei- that can be proces.<ed each month, which cannot be 
nu)r(^ than 10 percent. Thei-e would be ins(>rte(1 in the law a long selective system 


on immigration, which would mean more investigations and more administrative 
worli. A consul would be up against it if he were to make a mistake. Anyone 
who reads the law can be charged with its electricity. It is a law which seeks 
to discourage immigration, and not to encourage it. 

Mr. Humphrey. That is correct. 

Sir. Pastore. It does not connote a friendly atmosphere at all. A consul in 
processing cases will naturally have to be very careful. He will have to make 
up the proper categories. The Attorney General will have to designate the 
priorities that can come into the country. Therefore, administratively, it will be 
utterly impossible to utilize the maximum figure, because it is not possible to 
process all these cases on the basis of 10 percent each month. 

Mr. Lehman. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Lehman. It is not a fact that the bill goes so far as to provide that the 
quotas are limited to 10 percent a month, and that if the 10 percent is not used 
in a particular month it is not possible to carry forward the unused part to any 
month in the same year? 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Humphrey. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Humphrey. In other words, if 7 percent is used in the month of January 
it is not possible to carry forward the other 3 percent to February, March, or 
April in the same year? 

Mr. Pastore. Not more than 10 percent in any one month. 

Mr. Humphrey. Is it not correct to say that there are times when sailings are 
limited, and that there are times when individuals, according to the history of 
immigration, simply do not apply. It is one of the facts of immigration statis- 
tics. Therefore, a large number of possibilities for visas are lost for purposes 
of immigration merely because no one applies. 

Mr. Pastore. That is precisely correct. 

Mr. Humphrey. I should like to have the Senator from Rhode Island press 
the point, when we get around to it, and when we can find someone who will 
defend the bill, if anyone can be found to defend it 

Mr. Pastore. Or to explain it. 

Mr. Humphrey. Or to explain it. I should like to have the Senator from 
Rhode Island find out why the proponents of the bill have refused to count 
the American Indians in the census. I should like to have him find out why 
they established 1920 as the population year. They are unwilling to establish 
1920 for the purpose of grants-in-aid to States. If we are to use 1920 for im- 
migration purposes, perhaps we should use the same year for the distribution 
of Federal gifts to the States. 

Mr. Pastore. Or for the purpose of inductions into the United States Army. 

Mr. Humphrey. Yes. Perhaps even for allocating Representatives, or for 
purposes incident to other aspects of our Government. 

Then I should like to have the Senator from Rhode Island press upon the pro- 
ponents of the bill the question of what justification they have for a continuation 
of the discriminatory policies of the 1920 act on the basis of quotas which refer 
to particular countries. I should like to have the Senator from Rhode Island 
ask the proponents of the bill whether it is fair and equitable to the people of 
South and Southeast Europe. 

Mr. Pastore. I am covering that point in my statement. 

Mr. President, a moment ago I was about to state that the modification from 
10 percent to 20 percent a month is especially necessaiy because of the com- 
plicated system of quota preferences and priorities proposed by section 208 (a), 
with which I have no quarrel, but which will in processing entail further ad- 
ministrative delays. 

While on the subject of authorized quota admissions, I wish finally to suggest 
that the Senate consider two other proposals for making the regulations more 
responsive to national needs. First, I believe we should repeal the mortgage 
on future quotas created by the admission of immigrants under the Amended 
Displaced Persons Act. In many cases, countries with oversubscribed quotas 
have had these lists reduced by one-half beyond the year 2000 A. D. Second we 
should, in view of our increased population since 1920, raise the maximum limit 
of ir>0.000 upon immigration to a reasonably higher figure. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield at this 
point for a question? 


The Presiding Offick.k (Mr. Humpiikky in tlio chair). Does the Senator 
from Khoile Ishuul yield to the Senator from Illinois? 

Mr. I'.vsTOUK. I am i-'lad to yield to the Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. Douglas. Do I correetly understand that the committee bill provides 
that the total number of inuui^rants to be admitted in any one year shall be 
e(iuivaleiit to oni-sixth of 1 percent of the population of the United States in 
1[):20, minus tlie Negro population V 

Mr. PastOrk. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. Douglas. Therefore, under the provisions of the pending bill, the figure 
is to be one-sixth of 1 p(>rcent of appi-oximately 94,000,000 people, and therefore 
would amount to only approximately 154,000 a year. Am I correct as to that? 

Mr. Pastore. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. Douglas. Of tiiat figure, as I understand. 65,000 are pledged to the British 

Mr. Pastore. Yes. 

INIr. Douglas. Whereas in practice the British never take more than one-third 
of that q>iota, so the unused portion of the British quota amounts to approxi- 
mately 44,000 a year. 

Mr. Pastoke. That is correct. 

Mr. DouGL-vs. Am I further correct in my impression of the 25,000 which are 
pledged to Germany, the ethnic Germans — that is, people of German racial 
stock, but born outside of Germany — cannot come in under the German quota? 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Douglas. As a matter of fact, even the German quota has not been used 
in past years. 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Douglas. The Irish quota, now, is not used. 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Douglas. So that while the pending bill would theoretically permit 154,000 
people to come into the United States not more than 100,000 a year at the outside 
would come in ; and the number in all probability would be still less. Is not 
that true? 

Mr. Pastore. I think about 47 percent of the entire available number has 
been used up over a period of several years. 

Mr. DoxJGi^As. Of course, that includes the period of depression, when we 
applied the test that, if a man were likely to become a public charge he would 
not be admitted, but even if it were used to the full, fewer than 100,000 could 
enter the country. 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Douglas. Whereas the proposal which the very able Senator from Rhode 
Island makes is that we should take one-sixth of one percent of the total 
population in 1051, which would be approximately 250.000, is is not? 

Mr. Pastore. Perhaps not that much, but about 230,000. 

Mr. Douglas. And that if certain countries did not use their specific quotas, 
the quotas would then l)e pooled and would be distributed among the people 
seeking admission, according to certain standards, such as a certain percentage 
for those who had close relatives who are already in the United States. 

Jlr. I*astore. First, persecutees, then skilled workers, then relatives, and 
then the general file of inunigrants. 

Mr. Douglas. So that we would obtain the cream of the potential groups 
trying to get into our country. 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Douglas. And also those whose circumstances commanded our sympathy. 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct — our sympatliy and our needs. 

Mr. ]>oU(;las. I tliank the Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. McMahon. I\lr. I'resident, will tlie Senator from Rhode Island yield? 

Mr. I'astore. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. McIMahon. Tlie observations of the Senator from Illinois and the answers 
of the Senator from Rhode Island add up to the fact that the bill as reported 
by the committee, is a startling instance of legislation based on racism. That is 
about what it amounts to, is it not? 

Mr. Pastore. And nothing short of that. As a matter of fact, we know what 
the historical liackground for the use of tiie 1920 census was. We know how 
the idea was born. We know that at that time there was in this country a 
strong anti-immigration feeling. The process was used which would cut down 
the figure and which would favor certain groups as against others. But history 


has changed that situation. We woke up to find out, in this day and auo, tliat 
the people whom we tried to exclude were the ones who ,uave us the sons who 
helped us win the war. 

Mr. McMahon. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. McMahon. Is it not true that in the case of the countries ahout which 
the Senator is speaking, which have become terribly overcrowded, we have been 
stifling tlie liope that a few of tliem at least might move on to the Promised 
I^aiid? Is it not also true that by our example we have been discouraging other 
natitms, instead of encouraging them to take more people from overpopulated 
and overcrowded countries? 

Mr. Pastoke. That is one of the big points involved in this proposed immigra- 
tion legislaticm. Today we cannot deny the fact that America has assumed 
world leadership in every iield of endeavor. We must recognize the fact that, 
if we are to avoid war in the future, one of the serious problems to be dealt with 
is wliat to do about overpopulation in certain countries. 

In tlie past, what lias happened when they have bulged to the seams? When 
their seams split, we liad Mussolini, who tried to expand into Ethiopia ; we had 
another dictator who tried to take more land in order to find a place in which 
his people miglit settle. Now, after all, if we are to discourage that sort of thing 
in the world, we nuist recognize the fact that countries, which are overpopulated 
nmst find places to which tlaeir surplus population may go. I know we cannot 
pass an immigration law whicli would settle this problem for all tlie peoples of 
the world. We could not absorb them in America. No <me is saying we should 
raise the numlier 150.000 to an astronomical figure. We are only saying there 
should be a proper proportion, a reasonable increase. But in doing that, let us 
build up such a psychological condition as will convince other nations of the 
world that we are on the right side of this problem, and to encourage, say, 
New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Brazil to take more and more of the 
people of depressed and overpopulated areas. 

Mr. Lehman. Mv. President, will the Senator yield? 

!Mr. Pastore. I yield to the Senator from New York. 

Mr. Lehman. There can be no question about the correctness and accuracy 
of what the Senator from Rhode I.sland has said. We are discriminating against 
people whose countries confrtMit serious problems, peoples who would make good 
citizens, peoples whose forebears and whose brothers and sisters have come to 
this country from Italy, Greece, and other countries, and who have demonstrated 
that they are good citizen material. 

I wonder whether the Senator's mind will go back with me for a moment to 
realize what we are doing. On the one hand, we say we do not want Italians 
to be admitted to this country in large numbers, or that we do not want the 
])eo])le from Greece, Lithuania. Latvia, Estcmia, and other conntries, because 
of the impact we feel they would cause upon our ecduomy. On the other hand, 
we are bringing into this country scores of thousands (»f people from IMexico as 
contract laborers ; we are making all sorts oi concessions to the Mexican Gov- 
ernment, in order that Mexican c(mtract labor may be allowed to enter our 
country, to compete with our people. 

Furthermore, as we know, and as testimony before the Senate Conunittee on 
Labor and Public Welfare, of which I am a member, has demonstrated, last year — • 
and the number iirobably will lie larger this yeai' — between (>00,000 and 750,000 
so-called wetbacks came across the river from ^Ie::ico into the United States. 
AVe are doing nothing of any substantial moment to control that situation; 
indeed, we have cut down, or have proposed to cut down, even th<^ appropriations 
designated to control it. 

The Senator from Illinois [^Nlr. Douglas] submitted to the bill having to do 
with the importation of Mexican lal)or an amendment which would have given 
l)ower to punish Americans who used wetbacks, knowing that they were illegal 
immigrants and that they were competing disastrously with onr own labor, not 
only on the Mexican border but as far north as Detroit and Cleveland, and even 
^Minneapolis, if I may say so. Yet we qui))ble and refuse to permit even a reason- 
able number of people from certain countries, who could come to the United 
States as legal immigrants, and who could, as do their fellows from other coun- 
tries, immediately take an active and prominent and constructive and useiiil 
part in our economy. 

It is not only discrimination, it is stupid <liscriniination. It is discrimination 
which, on the one hand, satisfies some of the l)asis of racial considerations, but 


whifli, (111 the ollici- li;ni(l. seriously li:iriiis our i-cdiuniiy. H siiniily docs not make 
sense to me. 

Mr. I'.vsroKE. The Senator from New York will forgive me if I resent the im- 
plications and the effect of the use of the quota .system proposed l)y the McCarran 
hill. After all. I think I have the hest mother any man in this world ever had. 
I had the hest father any man in this world ever had. who, T may say, died when 
I was hnt N year.s of age. Both my parents were horn on the other side of the 
water, and I think they were as good as the parents of any other person in the 

Mr. Leu MAX. I agree. 

Mr. Pasiohk. They were as good as the jiarents of any INIemlier of the Sen- 
ate. I resent such a proposed law as this, li I seem to feel strongly on this 
suh.ieet. there is a reason for it. So long as I have breath in my body, and a 
voice, i shall rise to resist it. 

Mr. Lehman. :Mr. President, if the Senator will yield. I may say that is ex- 
actly the reason for the action of the Senator from Illinois, the Senator from 
Connecticut, tlie Senator from Minnesota, and myself, together with the Senator 
from Rhode Island, in introducing tlie proposed substitute bill. We join the 
Senator from Rhode Island in deep resentment at what is happening. I am glad 
to see tlie Senator aronse<l and to hear him express his opinion so forcefully. 

Mr. McMahox. ^Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield? 

Mr. Pastoee. I yield. 

Mr. McMahon. This is my last interruption of the Senator Irom Rhode Island. 
He struck a note with reference to morality. This Nation has the greatest 
aggregation of power on the face of the earth. We like to say that we 
moral power as well as physical power. L'nless the L'nited States gives moral 
leadership to its physical ixiwer, physical power will not long remain in America. 
It is in concrete wa.vs that we can give expression to the moral purpose which 
I hope and pray we have. I do not concede that the proposed legislation which 
is presented to us is a moral proposaHvorthy of the greatest nation in the world, 
l)ecanse it is the embodiment of the doctrine of racism which, if embraced by this 
country will and can do nothing else but destroy it. 

Mr. I'ASTOKE. Mr. Pivsideiit, T regret the fact that the distinguislieil Senator 
from Connecticut was not on the floor at the time the chairman of the com- 
mittee was speaking about the bill. One would receive the im]jression that 
anyone who dared to disagree with the bill was allied with the Pinks and the 
Reds. That is the impression the proponents of the bill are trying to create. 
Those of us who have heai'ts and fibers in our liodies can be just as good and 
patriotic as they are. I do not pretend that I am any more American or any 
more patriotic than is any other Member of the Senate, but certaiiil.v I think 
1 am just as American and just as patriotic as any of them. 

Mr. Mc.^Iajiox. I will say to the Senator that I have no doubt about that; 
but I have long cf-ased to worry about the application of standards of ijatriotism 
as they are laid down by Memliers of this body or, for that matter, by the general 
public, because, as the Senator knows, such has become the fashion that if he, 
for instance, or I disagree with someone else, more than likely it will be said, 
'•You are thinking impure and suln^ersive thoughts." The growing tendency 
in Anserica to think that if one has not four buttons or three buttons on his 
coat when ever.vone else has. there is something wrong is one of the dan,gers 
confronting us in this country. There are some who want a certain uniformity 
of thinking: they want to govern our thinking. We see evidence (-f that move 
and more. So I am not particularly disturbed about being called — I do not 
know what the name was — "pink"' or "friendly with subversives." 

Mr. Pastoim:. Tho argument was made that the Daily Worker was opposed 
to the proposed legislation. I may say to my good friend from Connecticut 
that I care little for the Daily Worker; I have no use for it or for the philosophy 
it preaches; but I cannot begin to love the Devil because a Communist hates 
him. 1 hate him, too. I do not care who is for or against the bill. B'.it, cer- 
tainly, I am against it. it does not pi-ove that I am a fellow traveler. 1 
dare an.\one to stand up and say that I am. 

Mr. President, at this iioiiit let mc say that S. 2."in(t wholly ign(»res the Presi- 
dent's recent recommendation calling for the admission of nioiv European refu- 
gees. This recoiiiiiiendatiou is aimed to meet an enicrgciU'N- situation created 
by overijopulation in certain iiarts of Kuroiie and by the llight and expulsion of 
people from the oppres.sed countries of Eastern Europe. 

25356—52 26 


The President eiiipliasized, and I agree with him, that this prohlem affects the 
peace and security of the free world. In keeping with our Ic/ng-established hu- 
manitarian traditions and also as a safejiuard against the infiltration of com- 
munism in the western and southern European nations, it is imperative that 
emergency legislation carrying out the President's program should go hand 
in land with any permanent immigration bill enacted at this session. 

Under the President's program we would admit o(>0,<Uio additional nonquota 
immigrants over a 3-year period. They would include 117,0()() Germans who fled 
from behind the iron curtain to escape the brutal policies of Soviet tyranny ; 
117,000 Italians from Italy and Trieste, to alleviate the overpopulation and ref- 
ugee problems to some extent ; 22,500 persons from the Netherlands ; 22,500 
Greeks ; and 21,000 other refugees from communism. 

If S. 2550 (lid no more than continue existing laws which virtually choke off 
the stream of immigrants to our shores, I would urge that it be re.iected. I have 
no desire to lend my name to the realhrmation of a formula which I feel is dis- 
credited. For, despite the claims of its sponsors, the bill which we have before 
us is not an innocent coditicatiou of legislation which Congress has already ap- 
proved. Quite on the contrary, this bill proposes a host of unprecedented new 
restrictions which, without rhyme or reason, would lar deserving and useful 
immigrants from this country. In the interest of national security, I feel com- 
pelled to register my strenuous objections to any such provisions. 

Mr. Douglas, Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield'.' 
Mr. Pastoke. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Illinois. 
Mr. Douglas. Is it not true that the fear is sometimes expi-essed that if we 
make the immigration provisions too liberal, then in a period of business depres- 
sion when Americans are losing their jolts, immigrants will be brought into this 
country? That fear is held ; but is it not also true that under provisions of the 
Humphrey-Lehman bill it is possi'Dle for immigration officials abroad to deny 
visas to persons who "are likely to become public charges" and that, therefore, 
in periods of depression it will not lie neccessary to have the f\ill 250,000 persons 
admitted into the United States? Instead the number may be regulated accord- 
ing to economic need and demand? 
Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Douglas. That method was used in the 1930's, when the possibility of an 
alien becoming a public charge was used as an argument to shut off immigration 
from Europe. 
Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Douglas. Therefore, the bill which the Senator is sponsoring is not de- 
signed to flood the American labor market. It would i>ermit 250,000 persons to 
come into this country in a period of full employment. But if we were so un- 
fortunate as to have a large volume of unemployment then the test of whether 
a person is likely to become a public charge could be applied, and by admin- 
istrative regulations the total numlter of immigrants could be reduced. This was 
done in the 10.30's and it can be done again. 

Mr. Pastore. When one becomes a Member of the Senate the first lesson he 
learns it that he can speak only for himself. I am willing to venture tha asser- 
tion that there is not a single person who either sponsors of cosponsors the 
Humphrey-Lehman bill who would want one alien to come into this country and 
take a job away from an American. We are not asking for that. All we are 
saying is that there has been an increase in population and that there must 
be a constant, slow, regulated stream of immigration, thus getting a little more 
culture, a little more peace in the world. We are big enough to absorb 250,000 
persons if we have to. We do not want anyone to take a job away from an 
American. If anyone pretends that that is our intention, let him get that 
mistaken idea out of his mind. 

Mr. Douglas. The test of whether a person is likely to become a public charge 
can be applied in a depression period to reduce the total number and, therefore, 
to prevent immigrants from taking jobs away from Americans. 
Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Lehman. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield? 
iVIr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Lehman. No one wants anything to happen that would cause a serious 
impact on this country. There are many ways in which immigrants can be 
properly excluded. I read a list of 18 ri'asons which are invoked continuously 
for the legal exclusion of immigrants who have applied for admission. But I 
wonder whether the Senator from Rhode Island was on the floor this morning 


when I gave some fissures with rejjard to iininisration. I pointed out that the 
law provides for one-sixth of 1 percent, which would mean that before our i)opu- 
lation could increase as much as 5 percent it would take 30 years — a complete 
generation. In speakint; of immigration in this connection I am referring of 
course, to inunigration from KuroiJe and from Asia. 

It is somethiiig which is not understood, hut it is a fact, in theory, at least, 
that immigration from South America, or from the other independent countries 
in the Western Hemisphere, is without limit. Millions of people could have come 
in. hut they have not, because such people are carefully screened with regard to 
their ability to make a livelihood. They are screened with regard to their 
health. But, beyond everything else, most of them do not want to come. IMost 
of them are perfectly content in their own countries. 

Today there are ir>,000,000 people in Mexico and between 30,000,000 and 
40.0<X),000 in Brazil who are not under the quota. The only peoples involved 
in the quota system are in Europe, and, to a limited extent, in Asia. The 
of the world is not covered by the quota system. Yet we have not lieen overrun 
by an undue number of immigrants from Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, 
Peru, or Venezuela. We could be in theory, but are not in practice. 

Mr. Pastore. I thank the Senator from New York for his contribution, because 
I think it emphasizes a ver.v essential point in the atmosphere surrounding 
immigration discussions, arguments, and legislation, namely, the scare technique, 
which is that if we relax one little bit, we are going to be overrun. That is not 
true at all. 

Mr. Hu^rp^REY. IVIr. President, will the Senator yield? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

-Mr. Humphrey. Tliere were some votes in the Senate not long ago on the 
question of controlling of the wetback invasion from Mexico. It is very in- 
teresting to me to note that some Senators who are sponsors of the McCarran 
bill were the very ones who were not at all exercised or disturl)ed about 
whether a million illegal entrants came across the border from Mexico with the 
resultant loss of jobs by rmtive American workers. I cannot quite understand 
the logic of those Senators on this issue. Here is a bill which supiwsedly will 
put up barriers against legal immigration ; yet only a month and a half ago on 
the floor of the Senate efforts were beiug made by some Senators to check illegal 
immigration, and some of the sponsors of S. 2550 voted against our efforts; 
voted to cheek our efforts to stop the illegal enti-y into the United States of 
Mexican wetbacks, who would destroy the domestic labor market and, at the 
same time, abrogate the immigration laws. To me, it does not make nuich 

Mr. Pastore. Another reason why it could not possildy happen is that both 
bills have selective immigration procedures up to ."»0 percent. 

Under the IMcCarran bill, i)ersons in tlie first category must possess skills 
needed by this countr.v. So a whole group of people would not l)e coming into 
an overcrowded economy. 

Of course, the same condition is placed in the Lehman-Humphrey bill, but it 
is made of second priority rather than first priority. As a matter of fact, we 
give preference to fathers and mothers only through some humanitarian under- 
standing. This is another jjoint which should be emphasized. The whole matter 
of literacy and illiteracy points up a very important phase of the M.'Carran bill. 

Under present law. if because of circumstances, a parent living in the old 
country never learned to read or write, yet now, in the twilight of life, desires 
to come to the lUiited States and make a home with a son or a daughter, 
such a person could not encroach upon our economy. He or she would be too 
old to go to work. Such a person would not have to learn to read or write. 
and woidd have passed the time to become naturalized. All such a i)erson 
wants is a home. Our bill would allow such a person to come here and spend 
the twilight of life in the parlor of a son or a daughter. The present law 
allows that, but it is proposed to change that practice and to sa.v, "Unless you 
can read and write Knglish, you cannot come in at all." 

Mr. IlUMi'iiitEY. Under the McCarran I)ill not only must they read and write 
English, but their apiilication is made to the American consul, who rules as to 
whether a visa shall be issued, and from whose ruling there is no appeal. 

Mr. Pastore. Mr. President, consider for a moment section 222 (a), which 
requires that an application for an immigrant visa may be filed "only with 
the consular officer in whose district the ajiplicant shall have established his 
residence." In general this provision is supposed to insnre that a thorough 
investigation of the alien will take place in the area in which be actually has 


lived. Specifically, the provision is intended to abolish preexauiination, .-i method 
of extending clemency in worthy cases now within the discretion of the Attorney 

The practice under existing law is to examine an otherwise deportable innui- 
grant, who wishes to remain, to determine the merit of his re(iiiest, and if such 
pre-exaniination is favorable to the alien, he may then go to r'anada and there ob- 
tain a visa from the American consul for reentry as an ordinary immigrant. 

At this time I do not wish to deliate the desirability of these oli.lectives. except 
to mention my grave doubts as to the wisdom of eliminating pre-examiuation pro- 
cedures. I do wish, however, to call the attention of the Senate to the effect of 
the section, as presently worded, upon an entirely different problem in the im- 
migration field. 

Briefly stated, section 222 (a) automatically wonld bar a refugee from a to- 
talitarian nation, who had fled or lieen forced to flee his homeland, tvimi ap- 
plying for admission into the United States. A short illustration will demon- 
strate the validity of this point. Mr. A, an active anti-Conununist living behind 
the iron curtain, is anxious to come to America. To apply for a visa in his native 
Prague would mean almost certain death, so Mr. A escapes to Paris. Under the 
proposed provision, however, this action would leave him worse oft' than before, 
since he no longer could file his pai^ers in the district of his residence. It will be 
argued, 1 assume, that this construction would be an unreasonable interiiretation 
<if the language of the section. In response to such a contention. I assert that if 
an alien from the United States cannot quickly establish a residence in Canada 
for purposes of readmission, then a refugee from Prague is similarly restricted 
in establishment of a residence in Paris. This thesis finds ample support in the 
proposed definition of "residence"' in section lOI (a) (:}.'}) as one's "principal, 
actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent." 

In place of the present pre-examiuiitioi) techniques, section 24") of S. 2'h>{) suli- 
stitutes a procedure Knunvn as "a<l.iustment of status" which drastically curtails 
the authority of the Attorney (ieneral to grant relief in deserving cases. Where 
pre-examination is available to aliens who did not legally enter as nonimmigrants 
or wlio lost their nonimmigrant status, ad.iustment of status is limited to legally 
admitted and bona fide nonimmigrants who at all times preserved their original 
status. Thus, an alien wl)o lost his nonimmigrant status for reasons beyond his 
control would be barred from relief regardless of the merits of his case. In ad- 
dition, for the alien to qualify for ad.iustment (if status, a (piota immigrant visa 
nuist be immediately available to him both at the time of his application and at 
the time the application is approved. In the case of oversubscribed quotas, these 
requirements are obviously impossible to meet. 

I wish my colleagues would bear me out on this next point, l)ecause I think 
it is a rather important phase which should be discussed. 

A second uni'easonal)le jirovision of S. 2.V)0 is section 212 (a) (2.")), which, for 
purposes of immigration, abolishes the ])resent exemption from literacy I'equire- 
ments accorded the victims of foreign religious persecutions, and also accorded 
close relatives of legally admitted aliens and citiz/'ns of the United States. The 
proposed restrictions would adversely affect only our friends, those wiio have 
ties in the United States and look to us for sympathy h.^cause they are being 
hounded in totalitarian lands. At tliis time, when we are seeking to assist 
oppressed peoples throughout the world, I do not understand wby we are asked 
to eliminate a provision which is founded upon a noble and wholesou)e humani- 
tarian philosophy. 

A third major provision of S. 2r»r)0. which I believe worthy of condemnation, 
is section lt>l (a) (2(5) (F), which drojis college and university professors from 
the class of nonquota immigrants. Actually, the educators who have chosen 
America as tlieir lioine have made invaluable contributions to our national econ- 
omy and culture ; indeed, without them we would never have been able to acliieve 
the tremendous advances in technology which have characterizt>d our produc- 
tion in recent years. Wlien we strive by selective immigration tf) increase Amer- 
ican strength, we should udI erect new barriers against those who could do most 
to accomplish that end. 

Mr. Lehmax. Mr. President, will the Senator yield'? 

-Mr. Pastork. I yield. 

Mr. If,ii>[ax. As I understand, a pi'ofessor can now come in to the United 
States regardless of quota restrictions: but under the McCarran bill be wonld 
have to cojne in under the quota, as the Senator has already stated. 

The McCarran )»ill goes further and recites that he may not come in unless 
he proves that he is a man of exceptional ability whose services are urgently 


needed for the welfare of tlie T'liifed Slates. That wouhl eertaiidy liar a jireat 
many physicists and others who liave iieljjed so mnch in developiii;^; our pre- 
paredness projjrani. I'.ut also it would seem to me to har a .ureat many persons 
who have ^reat value in tlie humanities and the classics. TJnder that provisiim I 
■wondei- how a professor of Italian literature w<iuld (lualify, or a professor of 
(Jreek, or of art. I'rohahly they could not prove that they were urgently needed, 
and yet they would certainly add to the culture of thi.s country, and should be 
made very welcome. 

Mr. I'astoui:. The Senator from New York is ahsolutely correct, and 1 thank 
liim for his contribution. The next paia.uraph of my addrt>ss is moi'e or less 
conHued to the very subject discussed l)y the Senator from New York. 

In an attem]it to justify the elimination of professors from non-(piota status, 
it lias been contended that such pi'i'soiis hencefortli would qualify as tirst prefer- 
ence quota inuni.urants. This assumption is essentially untrue. Trofessors 
would so (lualify under the proposed bill only if they eould prove to the sati.sfac- 
tion of the Attorney (Jeneral that their s(>rvices were needed urgently in the 
United States. Most professors, like other inunigrants, come to this country 
not because an official of the Government has decided that they would be useful, 
but because conditions in their native lands have become intolerable or dis- 
tasteful. Such ordinary profes.sors. under S. '2~>~A\. would have to wait their turn 
as ordinary (juota inunigrants. The fact that admission of educators under a 
I)reterenc<^ would, in any event, postpone the entry of other worthy immigrants 
Is, presumably, beneath notice. 

These th.ree sections which I have mentioned are but a few of the provision.s 
of S. 2~m0 which would prevent the admission of immigrants who would be 
particularly valuable additions to our population. The harmful effects such 
restrictions would have upon American unity, upon the national economy, and 
upon the role of the United States as the moral leader of the world can readily be 
predicted. If nothing else, enlightened self-interest demands that the proposed 
provisions be wholly rejected. 

I could go on and on taking apart many other sections in the bill which 
I believe would have an over-all harmful effect. But to me the distribution 
of quotas imder the Immigration Act of 1924, as continued in effect by the 
pending bill, is a shocking display of a discredited theory of racial superior- 
ity. I respectfully submit that if we are to tinker at all with our present immi- 
gration laws, then one of our primary objectives should be to erase that obvious 
blot upon our national shield as quickly as possible. Yet, despite the gross 
injustices of its provisions, S. 25.10 would make no material change in the oi> 
eratiou of the 1924 statute. 

Ostensibly, the 1924 Quota Act bad as its sole purpose the reduction of inmii- 
gration to a point consonant with the ability of the United States to absorb 
this new population. If such control over admissions were the only real goal, 
however, it seems logical to me that a study of either recent or all inuiiigration 
statistics would have been made and an across-the-board cut upnn the fi<iures 
so determined would have been the technique upon which innnigration quotas 
were fixed. Such a formula, or any modified version thereof, would ha\e re- 
flected the then current pattern of entry for each nationality group, and would 
have given appropriate weight to the .influx of settlers from areas which had 
not made substantial contributions early in our history, but whose contribu- 
tions were constantly on the increase. 

This procedure, of course, would have resulted in relatively large quotas for 
the peoples from southern Europe and consequently was conii)letely intolerable 
to the racially biased framers of the 1924 act. Instead of an equitable quota 
system, based upon actual prior immigration figures, therefore, the draftsmeu 
instituted a foi-nuda based upon tlie comiiosition of the American population 
at the arbitrary cut-off date of 1920, which, in effect, placed severe restrictions 
upon immigration from southern, central, and eastern p^urojie in favor of the 
countries in the noithern and western portions of that Continent. As a few 
comparative figures will illustrate, this formula took into account not only how 
many individuals from a particular nationality group had ever entered the 
United States, but also how^ long those individuals or their descendants had 
been in this country, thus objectively discriminating against those who were 

In the period from 17S9 to 1924, for example. Great Britain sent to this country 
no more than 7,000.000 immigrants. For this contrKtution, that nation was 
accorded 65,721 quota nuitibers, of which, incidentally, it uses nuM-ely a frac- 


tlon. In the same period, Italy sent to this country approximately 4,100,000 
immigrants ; yet, for this great contribution that nation was accorded only 
5,802 quota numbers, for which, I might add, there has always been a heavy 

At this point let me say parenthetically that I hope the sponsors of the 
McCarran bill will ascertain how the descendants of those immisrants compare 
with the number who were in the American Army in the last World War, and 
how many of those boys were the sons of Italian immigrants. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Douglas. If the Senator will permit me, I should like to give a little 
personal testimony on this point. One can never be quite certain about one's 
ancestors ; but so far as I can tell, my people came to this country in 1700. So 
far as I can trace my genealogy, tliere is not a drop of blood in my veins that is 
not English, Scotch, or Scotch-Irish. 

I grew up in a Yankee comnuniity, where the only person who was not a 
Yankee was a fruit dealer. I went to a college where I think 95 percent of the 
students were Yankees. I then went to the city of New York and did graduate 
w^ork, following which I went to Chicago. I then became acquainted with the 
populations of southern and eastern Europe. I am proud of my own ancestry, 
but let me say that these other groups are as line American citizens as the old 
Yankee stock. 

As I grew older I became acquainted with the history, traditions, and achieve- 
ments of the Italian people. Probably the greatest genius who ever lived was 
Michelangelo. Next to him was Leonardo da Vinci. Michelangelo was the 
most breath-taking painter and sculptor in the history of art, and one of the 
great architects. Leonardo was a great painter who also tried his liaiul at 
sculpture. He was also a great scientist and engineer. In the world of art 
great achievements were made in the period of the Rennaissance by Italian 
painters, Italian sculptors, and Italian architects. One of the greatest literary- 
men of all time was Dante. Then there were Boccaccio and Ariosto, and the 
other great Italians. 

The Italian people have a heritage as great as that of the English people. 
The blood of Miclielangelo. of Leonardo, and of Dante still flows in Italian veins. 
Greek art was perhaps superior to Italian art. and the philosophers of Greece, 
Plato and Aristotle ; and the tragic playwrights of Greece. Aeschylus, Sophocles, 
and Euripedes, set a standard in literature which certainly has never been sur- 
passed. That blood has not stopped flowing. That blood still flows in the 
Greek people today. 

Therefore, without being self-conscious about this matter I am proud to 
pay tribute to the simple fact that the people of southern and southeastern 
Europe are as fine as there are on the face of this globe. They have made a 
splendid contribution to America as their circumstances, the time they have 
been here, and the difficulties under which they have labored have all made 

Mr. Pastore. Does not the Senator from Illinois agree with me that we should 
recognize the wrong that was done by the adoption as a basis of the Census of 
1920? At the time it may have been necessary to use the 1920 census. Perhaps 
when the law was written in 1924 all Congress could go by was the 1920 census, 
but here we are writing a law in 1951. By deliberately readopting the Census 
of 1920 we are insulting the boys of the racial stocks of which we talk who 
wore the American uniform and lie today under white crosses in some Ameri- 
can cemetery. If we did nothing else we ought to remove tliat horrible connota- 
tion that is being pprpetnated by this bill. 

Mr. Humphrey. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Humphrey. The Senator is making the point that because of the census 
basis being 1920 for immigration purposes there is discrimination against im- 
migration by southern and southeastern European stock to the United States. 
I think that is documented by statistical evidence which the Senator has placed 
in the Record. 

Is it not correct to say that some countries, such as Bulgaria, Hungary, 
Rumania, and Czechoslovakia, are behind the iron curtain? Is it not also cor- 
rect to say that the real liberty-loving people and the most passionately liberty- 
loving people have gotten out of those countries, have moved acTOSs the boi'ders 
and are known as expellees or I'efugees. and are now seeking entrance into the 
haven of freedom which is the United States as well as other countries? By 


reason of the fact that we are utilizins; the 1020 base and the fnct that we have 
the preference-clanse system in tli<^ use of th(^ inimisi'ation (jnotas, is it nut 
true tliat we are literally locking the door uiion those who would seek entrance 
and who are so devoted to freedom that they have taken their very lives into 
their hands in order to seek freedom? Yet we immeasurably block the gates 
to their «>ntrance into the Ignited States. 

Mr. Pastorf. My distin.uuished colleaiiue is absolutely correct. 

Mr. HuMPHKKY. Mr. President, I wish to pursue this thought a little further. 

I heard the very elo(iuent words and accurate description of the greatness of 
the Italian people, the Greek people, and the other p.'ople who made great 
contributions to the culture of the world. 

I^et me brini,' this point down to a ] arochinl level. In the noi'thern area of 
my State of ^Minnesota are tlie ureat iron mines. Iron ore comes from the great 
Me.sabe, Cayuma, and Veriiiilion iron-ore ranges. Nearly 90 percent of the 
iron ore np;)n which our industrial establishments depend comes from those 
mines. The men who go into those ])its come from Serbia, Croatia, Pulgaria, 
Hungary, and Rumania. They are Slavic people. They constitute in a way 
small united nations. Thirty-nine different racial groups live in St. Louis County 
alone. There are people of Finnish extraction, as well as of Norwegian, English, 
Spanish. I'ortuguese. and French extraction. They are all there. We have 
Negroes and Indians. There are also Moslems. 

As I say, it is a little world unto itself. I want the record in the Senate 
to be absolutely clear that as parents, many of them tirst generation Americans, 
tho.-^e men have contributed to America some of the finest sons and daughters 
this great country has even known. 

I should like my colleagues to know that a greater percentage of the sons 
and daughters of these inmiigrants from south and southeast Europe go forward 
and obtain university educations and enter professional life than from any 
other stock in our State. These people seek a better life. They build good 
schools and have fine homes. They build beautiful churches and cathedrals and 
synagogues. They are good citizens. 

I cannot understand how anyone in good common sense can write an immi- 
gration bill which in the face (»f that demonsti-able evidence and living testi- 
mony — not thi^^ory — discriminates against such people, against their blood and 
against their stock and national origin. It does not make any sense. There is 
plenty of room in this country for more Italians. There is plenty of room for 
more Greeks. There is plenty of room for more Hungarians, Austrians, Bul- 
garians, and Rumanians. There is plenty of room for them if they make good 
citizens and work in behalf of themselves and a new country. 

I would ask the authors of the pending innuigration bill to go to the great 
Statue of Liberty and look at its extending, welcoming arms. I would ask 
them to read the plaque on the base of the statue. The words were written by 
an immigrant, Emma Lazarus. The plaque reads : 

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp !" cries she 
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses .yearning to breathe free. 
Tlie wretched refuse of yotir teeming shore. 
Send these, the, tempest-tost to me, 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door !" 

Mr. President, we do not mean it any more, apparently. If we do mean it, 
we are not codifying it into law. We are saying in effect: "Take the trip if 
you wiint to, but we will send you back. Yon are not welcome. We welcome 
only a few elite." 

Mr. President, there is no su'h thing as the elite. There is no privilege, except 
the privilege of ability, not privilege of race or national origin. The sooner we 
get rid of tlie nonsensical, outmoded, and ari.strocratic notion that some blood is 
better than other blood, that some .skin is better than other skin, we will be 
better o!f. That is the curse of this generation, and it is driving us to a very 
unfortunate position in world affairs. 

Jlr. Pa STORE. I thank the Senator. 

Mr. Lr;HJrAN. Mr. President, will the Senator fi-om Rhode Island yield? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Lehman. The Senator, no doubt, will emphasize the fact that in proposing 
to use unused quotas we are not minimizing or belittling the very great contribu- 
tions that have been made to tins country by Anglo-Saxon stock. We never fail 
to express our deep sense of gratitude toward that contribution. In our bill 


we are not in any way reduoins tbe nnmlier of that stock that may come into 
tlie United States. As someone lias so well said this afternoon, onr invitation to 
Great Britain and Northern Ireland to send G5,0()0 people still remains. The 
invitation is a hearty one ; it comes from the depths of onr souls. We want 
that immiii'ration. All we are saying is, "If you do not accept onr invitaticm 
to come to our country, let us issi;e that invitation to people of other stocks, 
people from Ital.v, Greece, and other countries of southern or eastern Europe." 

We are not in any way proposing to reduce the nnmlier of persons who can 
enter the United States from England or from Northern Ireland, but we ai'e 
simply saying to them, "If you do not accept, for reasons which may seem to you 
to be sound, and wdiich probably are sound, our invitation to enter the United 
States, let us issue that invitation to other peoples." 

Mr. Pastore. ISIr. I'resideiit, to proceed with my remarks, let me say that 
these facts sharply emphasize that in terms of contributions, in terms of need, 
and in tenns of waste, the present operation of the quota system based on 
national origin is as out of balance as a ping-pong ball measured against a steel 

I do not ask that the entire national-origins quota system be repealed. I do 
request, however, contrary to the provisions of S. 2r).")0, that we take immediate 
steps to rectify the injustices which it has fostered. One method of so acting 
would be adoption of the plan for pooled quotas, which I have already mentioned. 
A second alternative, though of lesser effect, would be to modernize our law by 
substituting the 1950 census for that of 11)20 as the base for the computation 
of nationality quotas. To retain the 1920 census base, as the proposed legislation 
does, is to discriminate against those nationality groups whose proportionate 
contribution to our population has increased during the past 30 years. 

Again I refer to the remarks of the four dissenting meml)ers of the Committee 
on the Judiciary in stating : 

"When it is understood that recent immigration has reflected (a) love of 
freedom on the part of the alien, and (b) forces of oppression or intolerable 
economic pressiire in the country involved, the implications of the discrimination 
must soon become apparent. To discriminate against the immigrants of the 
past 30 years, at a time when we are battling to win the minds and hearts of 
the peoples of Europe, is to ignore our friends, to help our enemies, and to 
intensify population pi:essures and resentments that endanger the peace." 

Mr. HuiipiiRKY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point V 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Humphrey. The Senator from Illiode Island makes reference to the 
minority views of the Committee on the .Tudiciary. Is that correct? 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct. 

Mr. Humphrey. Am I correct in my understanding that there were four mem- 
bers of the Judiciary Committee who signed the minority views? 

Mr. Pastore. That is correct; and three of them were of the majority party. 

Mr. Humphrey. Am I correct in my understanding that those who signed the 
minority views vigorously opposed the passage of Senate bill 2550? 

Mr. Pastore. Precisely ; and upon more or less the same grounds we are 
giving this afternoon. 

Mr. Humphrey. Since everybody seems to be under suspicion nowadays as to 
whether he has read this document, would one be fair in assuming that the 
four members of the Judiciary Committee who signed the minority views possibly 
had read the bill? 

Mr. Pastore. They must have read not only the bill itself, but the report of 
the committee, in order to write the minority views. 

Mr. Humphrey. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that in the minority 
views the following statement appears? 

"The importance of this legislation certainly merited a section-by-section dis- 
cussion by the committee before final committee action." 

I read that from the first page. 

Mr. Pastore. I cannot answer that, but it should speak for itself. 

Mr. Hu^rpHREY. Would it be logical. I may ask the Senator, in view of the 
statement in the views of the minority that "the importance of this legislation 
cei'tainly merited a section-lty-section discussion by the committee before final 
committee action," to say that I am correct in deducing that there was no such 
section-by-section analysis? 

Mr. Pastore. I should say so. 

Mr. Humphrey. I may remind the distinguished chairman of the committee 
that last night I read the minority views twice. I have had that privilege, since 


I understood that I, too, was brought in as one of tho nonreaders. I have 
also had the distinction of having read the document known as S. 2r)r)0. which 
is, of course, supposed to simplify the innnigration laws and to codify them. 
If, however, it is an example of siniplitication, then I ma.v sa.v tliat a cross-word 
puzzle would he hut a straight line. So we may set the record straight, I have 
also had the privilege of reading the ma.jority report. 

Finally, 1 ask the Senator from Rhode Island whether he feels that organiza- 
tions such as the National Council of Catholic AVomen, the War Relief Services, 
National Catliolic "VA^'lfart^ Conference, the National Council of Catholic Charities, 
the National Council ol" Jewish AVomen, the Order of the Sons of Italy in 
America, the American Jewish Connnittee. and a dozen or more other outstand- 
ing citizens' ccnnmittees who have opi)osed ma.jor aspects of the ^NlcCarran hill 
may have read it and that their reading of it may he the basis of their opposition? 

Mr. Pastoke. Again. I cannot speak for them. l)ut I should assume that they 
have read it. 

Mr. IIUMPHuiY. At least, if they have not read it to the satisfaction of certilin 
of- the committee members, they have read it to the satisfaction of themselves 
that they found something wrong with it. 

Mr. I'ASroKE. Knowing of the character and integrity of the organizations 
mentioned by the distinguished Senator from INIinnesota, I know that before they 
would make any comment I'egarding legislation pending in the Congress of the 
United States, they, of course, would not only read the proposed legislation, 
but would study it thoroughly. 

Mr. IIuMPHKEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield for 
but one further observation? 

Mr. Pastore. I yield. 

Mr. Humphrey. Does the Senator believe that the San Diego Council of 
Churches, for example, which opposes this bill, might even have taken a fleeting 
glance at it? Indeed, would it lie fair to assume that, before an organization 
such as the San Diego Council of Churches expressed its opposition, it would 
have read the inll? Would that be a fair conclusion? 

Mr. I'ASTORi:. I think the Senator may state that as an assertion, rather than 
as a question to me ; because I think tliat is so. 

Mr. Hi'MPiiKEY. I may say the Senate rules require that interruptions be in 
the form of questions. I am aware of the fact that some of us might be put on 
the spot by the rules. Furthermore, I am sure the Senator would be interested 
in knowing that a great magazine, the national Catliolic publication known as 
America, in one of its leading editorials, on May 10, 1952, contained an article 
entitled "How To Amend the McCarran Bill." That article attacks the bill in 
no uncertain words, and points out its severe limitations. 

I think the Senatoi' would also be interested to know that the Right Reverend 
Monsignor John O'Grady. of the Catholic Welfare Conference, has a leading 
article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, of May 1902, attacking the 
McCarran bill. I have dozens of such articles and editoi'ials, all attacking the 
bill. I think it fair to presume that these distinguished Americans, these loyal 
Americans, these good citizens, have read tlie bill, and that they do not like it; 
and I happen to concur with their viewpoint. I consider it to be fair to assume 
that when people discuss and debate legislation they may have read that which 
they are discussing. 

I thouglit tlie Senator from Rhode Island made a very telling point when he 
said tliat when one is being told that he has not made a ver.v cogent argument, 
it would be iiresumed that tlie pei-son expressing that particular point of view 
would have been present to hear the ai-gument. or else that he bad crystal-gazing, 
or jiroplietic abilities to judge what the argument was, without having heard it. 

Mr. LEiiirA.x. ;Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield for an 

Mr. Pastore. I yield to the Senator from New York for an observation. 

Mr. Lehman. Mr. President, I should like to point out to the Senator from 
Rhode Island that the Senator from Nevada made the claim or the assertion 
that T had neither read nor studied the bill. I denied that categorically. I as- 
sured liini that I bad both read and studied the bill. He persisted in his state- 
ment that I had not read the bill ; which, of course, under the rule I could 
have resented and could have caused the Senator to take his seat; but I do not 
believe in the rule, and therefore I did not raise the question. 

So that there may be no misunderstanding and no misapiu-ehension what- 
ever, I desire to say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada and to my col- 


leagues in the Senate that I have read the MeCarran hill. I read it carefully 
at the time it was introduced. I have spent countless hours since then study- 
in;? the hill. I have worked hard with my colleagues in the preparation and 
submission of the so-called Humphrey-Lehman bill, but I have studied for sev- 
eral weeks each provision of the MeCarran bill to which I took exception. I 
believe that I covered the tield pretty thoroughly in my speech on the floor of 
the Senate yesterday, and in many colloquies today. I want no misunderstand- 
ing about it. I believe that I know what is in the bill. I believe that I know 
what the objections to the bill are. I have expressed myself. 

Certain provisions of tlie hill are so decidedly without rhyme or reason, and 
so completely illogical, in my opinion, that I sought explanation from the dis- 
tinguished Senator from Nevada, as Senators know, on at least eight occasions. 
I intended to put to him in good faith (luestions for my own enlightenment and 
for the enlightenment of the Senate. Unfortunately, my requests were rejected. 
But I make this observation in order that there may be no question in the mind 
of anyone that the Senator from Nevada is without justification and without 
reason in making the statement that I have not read the bill and that I am 
unfamiliar with the contents of the bill. I have read the bill, and I am familiar 
with its contents. Finally, I thoroughly disapprove of many phases of the bill. 

Mr. Pastobe. Mr. President, in conclusion, I submit tliat these intolerable 
conditions must not be allowed to continue. If we are to accept the arguments 
of the sponsors of the MeCarran bill at face value, it is clear that this is an 
attempt to establish a permanent philosophy and a permanent program for our 
immigration procedures. This law would only tend to perpetuate the inequities 
and the injustices, the correction of which lias long been overdue. It would 
arouse resentment on the part of many good patriotic Americans who would 
naturally feel the impact of this discrimination. Consequently, it would tend to 
weaken the national economy and undermine the unity of the American people, 
which is ever so important, especially at this time. 

For myself, I am opposed to S. 2550, and I shall use the power of my vote to 
prevent its enactment. 

The Chairman, Is Professor Coryell here ? 


Professor Coryell. I am Charles Du Bois Coryell, professor of 
chemistry at the iNIassac-husetts Institute of Technology. I am testify- 
ing as the secretary of the Federation of American Scientists, which is 
a national organization. 

I do not have a prepared statement, but I wish to make some obser- 
vations concerning this problem. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear you. 

Professor Coryell. As I see the frame^vork and as I notice in the 
President's letter covering the formir.g of commission, you are 
to consider the problems beginning with the admission of aliens. In 
my duties in the association I have become rather heavily concerned 
with the ]^roblenis of visas for scientists. Now, the visa is a very 
small jn-oblem of the present MeCarran- Walter Immigration Act, 
but this act changed the previous situation, which was not in very good 
shape, by excluding the category that formerly included scientists and 
ministers. There is in the present act a possibility of an unstated 
number up to a fraction monthly quota in the national interest. My 
chief function here today would be to draw attention of the committee 
to the fact that the visa situation is certainly part of the immigration 
and naturalization process, and in tlie field of the professional man, 
the man in religion, law and, particularly in the universities, the pro- 
fessors both nonscience and science that we now have in here of foreign 
birth. These bulk large in our national process. Practicalh'^ none 


were born here but iirst I'aiiie in as students on student visas or with an 
excluuige visit visa beino; tlieir liist i-ontact. 

Therefore, one nnist consider that even tein[)()rary visas are in the 
long term convertible, or should be considered potentially convertible 
in our interests in the ultimate accumulation of these men in our stocks. 
Consequently, the visas are of concern. I would like to give you a 
copy of this report in the visa situation prepared by Pj-ofessor Weiss- 
kopf, for whom I am also speaking. I shall be ghid to mail forward 
more copies. I only brought two with me tochiy. 

The Chairman. Is that just directed to the visa situation, as of 
last May? 

Professor Coryell. Yes; it has improved somewdiat and its future 
under the new act is not known to me, and I beg you consider this as 
part of the problem for consideration. 

The CiiAiR-AiAX. Who is with you? 

Professor Coryell. Dr. Jmly P>regman. 

Mr. RosEXFiELD. Have you had any experience which might en- 
lighten the Commission in terms of the etlect of the general innnigra- 
tion law on the development of scientihc progress in the United States, 
or the relationship among scientists both in pure and applied fields? 

Professor Coryell. I think tliis: that I have been active since the 
end of the war at MIT in the group of nuclear science, and I would 
say that half of the progress was due to the [)resence in our group 
of visitors from abroad, or men newly immigrant from groups abroad, 
and we have had serious problems at all times to keep the visa situation 
in line with the rather diffuse law and the curious problem and diffi- 
culty of making exchange visas tranformable into permanent visas. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Are you saying that the immigration law, insofar 
as it relates to science, does have a very definite effect on the develop- 
ment of science and upon our own national security ? 

Professor Coryell. Yes, that is certainly true. As I see it and 
understand it, the laws covering the visa and immigration act were 
designed in 1920 for preventing the labor market from being flooded. 
Ko man who came in contrary to visa could stay without going back 
to the country of his origin. Tliis is serious, and at the start of the war 
I have seen cases of that. The restriction of visas with application of 
the McCarran Act are much more serious. It is very difficult for a 
man living under totalitarian rule or occupation. There is very 
great difficulty for many people ever to come into the United States 
becaase they have accidently belonged to organizations like the French 
Association des Travailleurs Scientifiques. 

After 6 months ago, as far as we could tell, not even a man or member 
•of that organization could come into the United States, and approxi- 
mately 70 percent of the French scientists belonged to that organiza- 
tion since the war for short or long times. The limitations have also 
been serious in consequence here and abroad. Although the Attorney 
General ha.s the option to admit such an apjilicant temj^orarily, it 
puts the man who applies in a deprecatory light. I thiidv of ])romi- 
nent scientists invited here, but because of activities in the past that 
they are now free of, still they cannot come here under the law. 

I might also point out that the American Psychological Society de- 
cided that they could not hold their meeting in the United States and 
held it in Toronto. The University of Chicago decided not to ever try 


to hold the International Congress on Nuclear Physics in this country 
in spite of the fact it had assistance from the Office of Naval Reserve 
and Atomic Energy Commission to get people in. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. From your point of view, would you ad- 
vocate that scientists be admitted into this country on a nonquota basis ? 

Professor Coryell. I would like to say for myself, personally, I 
don't feel as a scientist that I deserve undue distinction. I would like 
to see this thing handled more largely from the standpoint of profes- 
sors and with particular preference to education. 

The Chairman. If I understand correctly, you are also interested 
in the application for visas made by those asked to come over to take 
part in seminars and to deliver lectures? 

Professor Coryell. Yes. This is my statement as an individual and 
not as otherwise. 

Commissioner Fisher. In terms of scientists other than in France, 
have there been similar cases ? 

Professor Coryell. The situation has been similar, except in France 
the Department of State apparently took one of its deciding points. 
This one organization which caused the exclusion of so many. It is 
very bad from Great Britain, but not as bad as France. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Suppose a scientist belongs to Fascist or 
front organizations for any time 

Professor Coryell. I think it must be shown that he is nonpolitical 
aiid nondamaging to the United States. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Would you and j'our organization help this Com- 
mission by giving a memorandum to us concerning some of these 
kinds of cases with the actual facts? Perhaps you could illustrate 
the problems both in long range and short lange that you have been 
telling the Commission about? 

Professor Coryell. I have a four-page document prepared by Prof. 
Victor F. Weisskopf which surveys the problem, and copies have also 
been attached of letters from 20 people whose cases enter into the 
survey. I will provide more copies so each member may have one, if 
you wish. I am leaving this and will send to you in Washington 
about a dozen more for your use. I would be glad to give further 
service in Boston or Washington. 

The visa situation is somewhat better now than the report of Pro- 
fessor Weisskopf shows here, due to the effort of scientific advice, or 
to the Secretary of State and his representatives in Stockholm, Paris, 
and London; but this handles or represents just the State Department 
and doesn't handle the long-term ])roblem. 

jMr. EosENFiELD. To your knowledge, how many cases of scientific 
applications were held up ? 

Professor Coryell. The number of scientific cases known to us 
is well over 200. We have very poor facilities for sampling the 
whole. The people we have in personnel are not adequate. Our fed- 
eration has tried to get statistics on it. 

Commissioner Fisher. One of the things you said earlier would be 
well to clear up. If the provision in the law giving the Attorney 
General discretionary authority to admit temporarily or otherwise 'in- 
admissible persons is used with discretion, judgment, and speed, would 
1 hat not be a solution ? 


Professor Cokyell. Such a course for admission has been turned 
down by a great many men. I personally would do the same. I 
would hate to have it that way. They do not want to compromise, 
and it looks as if it is designed for criminals. 

Connnissioner Fisiieu. What makes them feel that way? 

Professor Coryell. It was designed to bring in — it is a provision 
that has been used rarely and in scientific circles no more than two 
or three a year. I think of none, but maybe some were brought in 
for special military purposes. 

It is used very rarely and is reported to Congress by the Attorney 
(xeneral. It is not clothed with dignity. If I may draw particular 
attention to a letter from Jaccjues jNIonod, the second letter in this 
group prepared by Professor Weisskopf. He gives a very movinjr 
statement about it. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you for coming. The report of Professor 
Weisskopf with its accompanying letters Avill be inserted in the record. 

(There foUoAvs the report of Prof. Victor F. Weisskopf on behalf 
of the Federation of American Scientists:) 

Repout on the Visa Situation 
(By Victor F. Weisskopf, for the Federation of American Scientists, May 1952) 

Since tlie end of tlie war it has l)een exceediniily difficult for foreign scientists 
to obtain Aisas to enter the United States. Tlie difficulties are generally at- 
tributed to the McCarran Act, wliich ctmtains severe restrictions on the granting 
of visas. Actually, altliougli the situation has deteriorated badly since the act 
was passed in 19ij0, there had, in fact, been much difficulty obtaining visas l»efore 
its passage. Scientists, as a group, have had a great deal more trouble than 
otiier groups. Among scientists, physicists, and indeed all those whose fields are 
believed "atomic" in the minds of nonscientists, are particularly affected. At 
present it seems that at least ~>i) percent of all the foreign scientists who want 
to enter the United States meet some difficulties. The figure is higher for Fi'encli 
scientists, when it may reach 70 or 80 percent. 

The difficulties experienced are as follows: 

(1) Delay. — The time between applicath)n for and receipt of a visa has been 
at least 4 months, and in many cases as long as or longer than 1 year. It has 
been much longer than first predicted by the considar agent. This delay has 
made it very difficult for foreign scientists to attend scientific meetings in tlie 
United States, since invitations usually are not sent out more than 6 months in 

<2) Refusals. — In many cases, thegranting of visas was not only delayed but 
actually refused. In general, the reasons have not been given, although they can 
l>e inferred from the tyiHj of questions which have been asked during the pro- 
cedures. Political activity suspected of being unorthodox l)y present United 
States standards appeai-s to i)e a frequent cause for refusal. There are many 
instances in which the scientists whose visas were refused are well known for 
their opi)ositinn to the Communist ideology. For example. Professor Polanyi 
of Manchester, England, did not receive a visa although he is well known to be an 
anti-Communist and has written a series of articles very strongly against the 
Communist ideology in science and economics. Details of tliis case are con- 
tained in a letter appended to this report. 

In France, almost everybody who was or is a member of the Association des 
Travailleurs Scientifiques has consistently been refused a vi.^a to the United 
States. Unfortunately, about 70 percent of the scientists in France are or have 
been members of this organization. It has never been sulnersive or comniunis- 
tic and includes among its members all shades of political colors. The probable 
reason for blacklisting this association is the fact that F. .Joliet was its president 
for 1 year after the war. 

{:>>) Qii(sn<))nHiir(><.—Kvory .scientist applying for a visa is iisked to fill in a 
form in which he must list those organizations with which he has been associated 


for the last 1.") years as well as all his addresses and professional connections In 
this period. This is even required for a visit of only a few weeks" duration to 
attend a meeting. The questionnaire is supposed to l»e sij^ned under oath. Such 
procedure is repugnant for any applicant. Furthermore, it is very hard to re- 
member every detail in the turmoiled times of the last 15 years, and any oinis- 
sion or any error could be interr.reted as perjury. 

(4) Intcfvieics with consuls. — xipart from this questionnaire, most of the ap- 
plicants are subjected to a rather intense personal quest ii-'ning; on details of as- 
sociations, of political beliefs, and political attitudes. Questions like: What do 
you think of the United States policy in Korea ; What's your stand toward the 
NATO; are not infrequent. Even inquiries as to which party the applicant has 
voted for have i?eeu reported. 

The total number of refused or indefinitely delayed visas which have come to our 
attention is about (50, and the indications are that the actual number is at least 
thre? times as large. The following well-known names are a few from among 
the foreign scientists who have applied for visas and were refused : 

Prof. E. B. Chain, Nobel-prize laureate, codiscoverer of penicillin, Biitish citi- 
zen, member of the U.N. Health Commission. Proi sable reason: several trips to 
eastern countries as an oflScial of the Health Commission in order to promote 
penicillin production. 

Prof. A. Kastler, physicist in France. Probal)le reason : membership in the 
Association des Travailleurs Scientifiques. 

Prof. Jean Lecompte, spectroscopist in France. Probable reason : nit^niber- 
ship in the Association des Travailleurs Scientifiques. 

Prof. H. S. W. Massey, physicist, England. Reason unknown. 

There are a number of important scientists in Europe who have in one con- 
nection or another expressed sympathy for .<ome ideas commonly associated with 
the radical left or have participated actively in the Stockholm Peace Appeal. 
Among this group are quite a few who have contributed fundamentally to the 
progress of science, and an exchange of ideas with them would be a decisive help 
to our own scientitic activities. From any rational point of view, the admission 
of tliese scientists to the United States cannot be a danger, since tbeir attitude 
is vrell known and effective measures can be taken to prevent them from access to 
secret material. At present, however, it is e:'pected that they would be refused 
visas; and for this reason, they are in many instances no longer even invited 
to meetings in this country. 

The detrimental consequences of this policy are listed below : 

(ff) It is C!)ntrary to the fundamental principles of our political philosophy 
which is based upon openness and freedom of information and movement. 
Any exclusion of people from this country on grounds of their political ideas 
should be kept to the absolute minimum and applied only when obvious danger 
exists of an abuse of the visit for conspiratorial purposes. The present restric- 
tive visa policy goes far beyond this minimum and, therefore, runs counter to our 
own political standards. We are undermining our basic ideas and principles 
v.ith actions and, hence, they must be considered as a grave threat and 
a serious source of danger to our society. 

(/*) It is harmful to I'nitcd States science. Today it is practically impossible 
to hold international meetinijs in tlie United States. This deprives United States 
scientists of a very important medium for the cross-fertilization and exchange 
of ideas. Thes.^ meetings and subsequent visits which foreign scientists make 
to American institutions are tbe only possibilities for exchange of opinions and 
ideas between foreign scientists and the bulk of oiu' scientists. It is obvious 
to anyone who knows scientitic life that the personal exchange of ideas is a 
most important way of productive work. The mere reading of foreign liter- 
ature can never replace the personal give and take, seminars, discussions, and 
actual collaboration. International excliange of ideas and discussion is in- 
dispensable because details of scientific research are never written down in 
the actual publications. Frequently, only conversation can reveal a si>ecial tech- 
nique or a special instrumental design which foreign scientists have used to 
make their experiments woik. Only their presence can help our own scien- 
tists to put these experiments into use for discoveries for the development of our 
programs. There is a long list of discoveries which can be traced directly to 
international gatherings. Indeed, some of these discoveries had direct applica- 
tion to the production of weapons such as radar or the atomic bomb. 

ic) Scientific life in Western Europe is also harmed. The cutting down of 
vists of I'^uropean .scientists to the I'nited States has an equally strong, if not 
stronger, damaging effect on the scientific life of Europe. The cross-fertilization 


is even more iini)oitant for them than for us. It is an essential step in the 
education of a foreiiin scientist to spend some time at an American institution, 
to become actiuainted with the type of instruments which we are using here 
and tcclini(|ucs which we liave developed. It will enaide him to luiderstand 
American scieiditic literature and put the results to his own use. If the stream 
of visitinji scientists from overseas is cut, the development of present European 
science will he seriously impaiiHMJ. 

{(1) The position of the United States abroad is seriously weakened. Ameri- 
can .scjcniiiii- en alivciH'ss and productivity are two of the stronijest sources of 
American rei)titation abroad. In spile of all attacks upon the United States of 
America abroad. American science is still cnnsiderod to l»e the most rigorous. 
creative field of American culture. The present visa policy is stronyly cutting 
into this reputation; not only does it prevent many foreign scientists from 
perscmal observation of American science, it also estal)lishes a prejudice atrainst 
it and a feeling of opposition. Tiiis effect l^as strong political implications. 
It is our jKiIicy to emphasize that the United States is an open country in con- 
trast to Ilussia. that it has nothing to hide and that, in contrast to the Kussian 
iron curtain, we are free and open to those who may criticize us as well as to our 
sui>porters. I>y means of the visa policy we are erecting on our side what 
French scientists have referred to as the "uranium curtain." We must not 
forget that the scientific and intellectual groups in Western Europe have rela- 
tively larger significance for the formation of public opinion than similar 
groups in American society. If tliese groups are alienated and given the im- 
pression that the United States of America is a closed country which does not 
permit visitors to represent theii- own countries, European opinion will be 
strongly influenced against the United States. We are strengthening a growing 
attitude which considers America and Russia both equally evil powers to he 
feared. The type of questioning and the gi-illing whicli accompanies our present 
visa procedures have lieeii conii)ared by many foreign scientists to similar 
methods used under the Nazi occupation or used by the Soviet bureaucracy. It is 
this looking into the j)rivate lives and interfering with the personal beliefs of citi- 
zens whicli made the totalitarian regimes so hated in Western Europe. 

At the end it may be wortli mentioning tliat among the group of foreign-born 
scientists in this country who contril)uted decisively to the success of the 
atomic bomb development, there are many who would have great difficulties 
olitaining visas if they applied now. Most of these people have spent some 
time either iii Russia or in eastei'u European countries. 

A few articles and letters from foreign scientists which may illustrate the 
situation are appended. 

St.\tement on Tin-: Qttkrtion of the Visas Requested by Fhencii Physicists 
IX Order to go to the United States 

(By M. Louis Leprince Ringuet, Member of the Academie des Sciences, Professor 
at L'Ecole Polytechnique, 17 Rue Descartes, I'aris ~^) 

For the past months the requests for visas to go to the United States made 
by French physicists have not been granted in a reasonal)le length of time, that 
is, in a time compatible with a schedule organized reasonably in advance. 

Thus, a P"'rench physicist is to go to a scientific congress in the United States 
which meets at a specific date; he starts making preparations several months 
ahead and requests a visa, reserves a place on a boat and makes all the necessary 
arrangements, but his visa does not arrive on time, and he must cancel everything. 

Another example: A physicist is invited to visit an American university for 
several months or a year; this visit can occur conviently at one particular 
time determined by the various commitments imposed by tiie work or teaching 
in France and also by the nature of the academic year in the United States. 
The visa does not arrive, although requested some months ahead. 

Hence, many French phy.sicists who would like to have contact with their 
colleagues in the United States are no longer willing to make the request, since 
the resulting formalities will complicate their lives with a problematical result 
for the desired date. 

We are often ignorant, moreover, of the reasons for these delays, in general 
they are not indicated to us. If it were a question of a vei-y long delay, but a 
sure outcome, one could, if absolutely necessary, take the appropriate measures 
despite the difficulties of planning a very long time ahead. 

But this is not the ease: Conversations with the American officials often 
raise hopes that visas will be granted after a short period, and this impression 


is repeated at each request for a complete inquiry. The result is quite dis- 
agreeable, and the applicant has the real feeling of being a suspect who is put 
ofE from week to week ; the more so because he receives a long interrogation 
as if before a police magistrate. This state of affairs seriously impedes the 
possibilities of contact with scholars in the United States and is most detrimental 
for science. 

One can specify that among the well-known physicists the Professors Jean 
Lecompte (infrared), Kastler (magnetic resonance), and Mile. Perey^ (dis- 
coverer of francium) were not able to go to the United States last year. It 
seems, in particular, that the fact of memliership in the Association des Travail- 
leurs Scientifique is a serious obstacle ; Imt I can say that the very great ma- 
jority of French physicists belong to this group, quite irrespective of their 
political opinions. 

M. Lecompte, for example, was personally invited to participate in the con- 
gress held in Columbus, Ohio, in .Tune, 19."1, by its president (Prof. H. H. Nielsen) 
and was given a series of lectures which were anticipated by American scientists. 

Lastly, the multiplicity of instances of delay produces a deplorable effect on 
French opinion : There is talk of it in the newspapers and the substance of the 
comments can only be injurious to the opinion that the great majority of 
French people hold of American democracy. I have even had occasion to see 
the expression "iron curtain of the West" quite widely applied to the United 
States, although "semipermeable wall" might be more appropriate when speak- 
ing of physicists. 

[Copy of a letter] 

From : Prof. Jacques Monod, Institute Pastour, Paris, Fiance. 
To : M. Larkin, United States Consul, United States Embassy, 2 Avenue Gabriel, 
Paris, France. 

My Dear Mr. Larkin : This letter is meant as a conclusion to the conversation 
which we had last Wednesday on the matter of my application for a United 
States visa. I have considered this problem very seriously in the light of the 
information which you gave me that, under the provisit)ns of the Internal Se- 
curity Act of 1950, I must be considered an "inadmissible alien" because I had 
belonged to the Communist Party from 1943 to 1945. To my regret I have 
come to conclude that I could not follow the course, which you suggested I 
should take, of applying to the Attorney General for special permission to enter 
temporarily the United States. 

In view especially of your extremely courteous and helpful personal attitude 
in this matter, I feel that I should explain in some detail the reasons which 
have led me to this negative decision. These are twofold. 

To begin with, my proposed trip to the United States was planned, you may 
recall, in answer to invitations extended to me by the American Chemical 
Society and by the Harvey Societ.v. However much I appreciate the honor 
entailed in these invitations, as well as the pleasure and fruitfuluess of a 
scientific visit to the United States, I caimot put these in balance with the ex- 
tremely distasteful obligation of personally submitting my "case" to the De- 
partment of Justice, and of having to ask for permission to enter the United 
States as an exceptional and temporary favor of which I am legally assumed 
to be unworthy. 

The second reason is that I am not willing to fill in and swear to any biographi- 
cal statement of the type apparently required for this api)1ication. This refusal 
is not l)ased on abstract principles only, but on a sad and terrible experience: 
This kind of inquisition was introduced into the French administration under 
the occupation. I will not submit m.vself to it, if I can possibly avoid it. Fur- 
thermore I feel quite sure you realize that such questions as "State name of all 
organizations of which you have been a member since 191S or to which you have 
given financial or other support, giving dates of membership and dates of con- 
tributions" cannot be answered both fully and truthfully. It is unfair to demand 
a detailed sworn statement wlien the slighest omission such as the date of a 
contribution might make one technically liable to a charge of perjury. You will 
also realize. I believe, that such statements, should they fall into the wrcmg 
hands, might conceivaI)ly be used as a source of information. The mere pos- 

1 Mile. Perey finally received lier visa, but too late to attend the meeting to which she 
had been invited. 


siliilily of this would make it impossible for me to submit one, even though I 
knew that mine would be most uninteresting. The fact that I have been com- 
pletely estranged from my former political affiliations makes this even more 

This being said, I should like to add that I did not reach this decision light- 
hearledly, as I fully realize that it means cutting myself partially away from a 
conntry whicli I love, and to which I am attached by very strong links. Not 
only am I half Amei'ican, but 1 have many very close friends in your country. I 
have h'a.rned by experience to respect and adnure American science. Indeed, I 
owe much to several American scientitic or other institutions, such as the Rockefel- 
ler Foundation, and I may i)ei-haps venture to say tliat, as a scientist, I have had 
more recognition in the United States than in my own country. 

However, all this is strictly personal and I would like to mention another 
more general aspect of these problems. Scientists themselves are quite unim- 
ixirtaul. But science, its develoi)ment and well'ai'e are overwhelmingly impor- 
tant. Isolation is the woi'st enemy of scientific progress. (If ju'oof of this 
statement were need(>d I would point to the strange and profound deterioration 
of Russian biology in recent years.) Measures and laws such as you are now 
obliged to enforce, will contribute in no small extent to erecting barriers between 
American and European science. I do not pretend to know whether or not such 
measures are justified in general, and in any case I have no right to express an 
oi)inion. But I can .say, because it is a plain fact, that such measures represent 
a rather serious danger to the development of science, and that, to that extent 
at least, they must be contrary to the best interests of the United States them- 

Thanking you again for your courteous help, I remain, 
Sincerely yours, 

Jacques Monod. 

[Copy of a letterl 

From : Dr. Manuel Sandoval Valarta, Institute Nacional de la Investigacion 

Clientifica, Puente de Alvardo No. 71, Mexico 3, D. F. 
To : Prof. V. F. Weisskopf, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge 39, Mass. 

March 25, 1952. 

Dear Vic : I have your letter of i\Iarch 19. For your information and that of 
the committee of the Federation of American Scientists, the following rfeume 
is submitted of the events leading up to the trouble we had about attending the 
meeting of the American Physical Society in Houston last November. 

I was invited by the society to deliver a lecture at the meeting and to be one 
of the after-dinner .speakers at the banquet. Further I was asked to choose 
among my students and collaborators a few who had papers ready for presenta- 
tion. Upon inquiry it turned out that three of them, all members of the society, 
had pai)ers ready, so titles and abstracts were sent in due time and printed in 
the P>ulletin of November .'iO, 19.11, as follows: On the Anomalous Magnetic 
.Moments of Nucleons, by Fernando E. I'rieto : Time Dependent Dvscripticm of 
Resonance Reactions, by ^Marcos Moshinsky ; Fourth-Order Effects in Vacuum 
Polarization, by .luan de Oyarzabal; The Enegy Spectrum of Primary Cosmic 
Radiation as Determined from Neuti'on Intensities, b.v myself. The title of my 
invited paper was "Recent Research in Cosmic-Radiation and Radio Waves 
Emitted hy the Sun." 

Of the f<mr of us who had made ready to attend the Houston meeting two, i. e. 
Oyaizabal and Moshinsky were luiable to get their travel visas at the United 
States Embassy here. U]ion learning of this, the third, I'rieto, who obtained hi.s 
without ditliculty, made up his mind that he would not go without his friends 
and colleagues. For my i)art I felt very strnn'_'ly that I could not leave all three 
of them behind and go all by myself, iiartieularly b:'cause all three of them are 
working with me and I knew nothing derogatory of them. 

So far as I know, theii- cases are as follows : 

(1) Juan de Oyarzabal, a Spaniard by birfh and a luitni-alized IMexican citi- 
zen for about 10 years, was a naval officer during the Sjianisli civil war. As 
you may remember, the Spanish lleet remained loyal to the Republic during the 
war and sd did he. At the end of the war the fieet surrendered to the French 
at r.izcire ,■111(1 the crews were interned at a concentration camp in southern 

25.356 — 52 27 


Tunisia, he with them. His aunt, Mrs. Isabel de Palencia, wa.s at that time the 
Spanish Republic's ambassador to Sweden and she prevailed on the Swedish 
Prime Minister to do what he could with the French Government to secure her 
nephew's release. In the summer of 1939, Oyarzabal was freed and proceeded 
by way of France and Denmark to Sweden, thence to jMexico by way of th& 
United States. lie has lived here since and. except for an Association of Former 
Spanish Combatants, which was reported to be infiltrated with Communists 
and to which he belonged for a time .iust after he came to Mexico, he has not 
been affiliated with left-Vv^ing organizations of any kind, political or otherwise, 
has not attended any peace congress or signed any peace declarations. He has 
worked with me in cosmic rays and quantum electrodynamics since 1944. When, 
he applied for his visa, he was asked the purpose of his trip. When he answered 
that he was attendinir a meeting of the society, the next question th|^n was 
whether he had anything to do with nuclear physics. Upon his affirmative 
answer the visa was denied. 

(2) Marcos Moshinsky. a Ukranian by birth and a naturalized Mexican citizen^ 
came to Mexico at the age of 8 together with his parents, more than 25 years ago. 
His father's relatives had to flee because of tlie revolution of 1917 and his 
mother's became lost during the German invasicm in 1941 ; so that he and his 
family have no relatives in Ukraine at all left. He held a State Department 
fellowship in Princeton for 3 years and got his doctor's degree in physics with 
Wigner, who knows him quite well. He was again there early in 1949. He has 
never i'ad anything to do with left-wing organizations of any kind w^hatever, 
political or otherwise. The lest of his story is identical with Oyarzabal's, except 
that he started doing research with me in July 19.11. 

(3) Fernando E. Prieto, a Mexican citizen by birth, was not asked any 
question similar to those mentioned in the two cases above when he applied for 
his travel papers at the United States Embassy here. He obtained his visa 
without any diffi.culty. 

As soon as the denial of the two visas became known to me I took up the cases, 
unofficially and of¥ the record, with the proper officials at the United States Em- 
bassy here and was assured that everything would be done to straighten them 
out. At all times I was treated with the greatest courtesy and friendship. In 
a few days I learned through a telep'ione call from the Embassy that Moshinsky 
would be granted his visa, but that OyarzabaTs case would have to be referred 
to Washington. So far as I know neither of them has actually got his visa up 
to the present. 

I had planned to invite the society to hold another meeting in Mexico, D. F., 
in 1954, as it already once did in 19.50. during my after-dinner address in Houston. 
That invitation still stands and, as I understand, has been accepted. It is our 
de.sire to keep close scientific and personal relations witii the American Physical 
Society and with American physicists in general and to allow nothing to inter- 
fere with this. We know only too well that open and free scientific discussion 
is the basis of science and its progress, but of course we are also fully aware of 
the difficulties of these trying times. 

Best regards to you and to all our friends in Cnmbridge. 
Yours most sincerely, 

Dr. MANTTEr. SAxnovAi, Vai.larta. 

[Copy of a letter] 

From : Monsieur Lutz, Haut-Commissariat de la Republique Francaise en Alle- 

magne, Office Militaire de Security, Division de la Recherche Scientifique, 

('o'n'ence, Allemagne. 
To : Monsieur le Professeur V. F. Weisskopf , Ecole Polytechnique Federate, 

Institut de Physique, Gloria Strasse 35, Ziirich ( Swisse ) . 

July 4, 1951. 

Dear Siu : As a-^^reed, during our meeting in Heidelberg. I am sending you 
excerpts from Professor Kastler's letter concerning the visa for his visit to the 
ITnited States, which was refused. 

I must repeat again that it is in itself by no means a question of a criticism 
of tho measure that the American authorities deem it necessary to take, but only 
to draw attention to the possible consequences of these measures, which all those 
who are interested in improving the friendly relations between our two countri*'« 
would deplore. 


It seems to me. csiiecially, that the application of the law should be less rigid 
aud annoyances smaller for scientists, especially when their researches are iu 
tields wliicli have insiunilicant importance for military applications. 

I slu.uld even say that if among these n searchers there are those whose 
opinions are not entirely orthodox, it would certainly be more profitable to 
make them realize American hospitality and the admirable work accomplished 
in the United States of America, rather than to force them definitely into the 
opposed camp. 

This is the only meaning that I am anxious to give to my petition to you and 
I asl: you, dear sir, to accept with my gratitude, this expression of my best 

M. LuTz. 

[Lettor to the editor] 

The Manchester Guardian Weekly, 

March 13, 1952. 


Sir : Since the coming into force of the McCarran Act in September 1G.50 the 
State Department is required to investicjate the political reliability of visitors 
applying for a visa of entry to the United States. I should like to call attention 
to some distressing aspects of this procedure. 

I applied for a visa 11 months ago and am still waiting for a decision — ■ 
whether positive or negative. I was born in Hungary, which, it is true, now 
lies behind the iron curtain. But I had been an insistent critic of Soviet com- 
munism every since 1917 and my attitude was never more distinctive and out- 
spoken then during the period of 1942— !.'>, though the popularity of Soviet Russia 
was at its heiglit in Britain and America at that time. Yet the investigations of 
the State Department are mainly concerned with an incident which occurred 
during that period and which formed the main subject of an extensive interroga- 
tion to which I submitted on January 28 (before I became fully aware of the 
humiliation inflicted upon me) at the United States consulate in Liverpool. 
Here is its story. 

In the depth of our desperate struggle with Nazi Germany, in September 
1942, an organization called German School of Higher Learning and Institute 
of Free German Culture in London (affiliated to the League of Free German 
Culture) asked me to take part in a course of popular lectures. Its notepaper 
bore some very distinguished British scientific and literary names as patrons 
and its program appeared entirely educational. I agreed, and on December 12, 
1942, I addressed the institute in London, choosing as my subject the freedom 
of science and its infringement by the suppression of genetics in the U. S. S. R. 
(The paper, first published in 194.3 in Britain aud soon after in the United 
States, was reprinted in both countries last year in a collection of my essays.) 
After my address there were adverse comments from the floor, but I was ac- 
customed at this time to be roughly treated whenever I criticized in public the 
Soviet regime. Yet even I was surprised when, on my return to Mancliester, I 
received an official letter from the council of the institute stating disapproval 
of my views as expressed in the lecture. I realized then that this organization 
was under Communist control and wrote back condemning their attitude in the 
sharpest terms. 

But for this curious interlude I should probably have forgotten after all 
these years having ever had anything to do with the Free Institute for German 
Culture in London and might easily have denied any knowledge of it. When 
questioned, however, I was able to tell the story of that lecture. But even so, 
I had no recollection that in the course of the correspondence leading up to it — 
and before the promoters had revealed their true colors — I was asked and had 
agreed to become a "patron" of the institute. This I discovered only after my 
return from Liverpool, when, in order to substantiate by statement about the 
unusual consequences of my lecture, I managed to hunt up the old file of my 
correspondence with the Free Institute. I notified the American counsul without 
delay of this additional point. 

I had wondered how the State Department had ever come to inquire into my 
trivial contacts with an obscure organization 10 years ago, and could only as- 
sume that it was in possession of the pro.spectuses and notepaper of the Free 
German Institute with my name on them as a "patron" and lecturer, and that 


all during the inquiry and questioning the officials had kept this fact from me. 
Instead of asking me to explain the evidence they possessed, they were question- 
ing me on matters known to them and taking down statements under oath from 
me made from memory after all those years. I wrote to the consul general 
forcefully expressing my misgivings and requesting an explanation ; his evasive 
answer fully confirmed them. 

Anyone who takes the trouble to look up what I have published at the time 
must be struck by the sharp contrast of my critical views on Soviet Russia 
with those then reflected in the English and American press. However, after 
an investigation extending over 10 months, which the consul general in Liver- 
pool was supposed to bring to conclusion under his own responsibility, neither 
he nor the vice consul conducting my interrogation in his presence had seen a 
single page of my writings. 

Questions the vice consul thought fit to ask me were : On which side my 
sj'mpathies were in the last war and whether my writings were concerned 
with justifying the regime of communism in Russia. It is no wonder, perhaps, 
that today — 5 weeks later — the investigation of my case has still not been 

I do not say this in criticism of the unfortunate officials in Liverpool, but 
of the procedure which requires them to make decisions in a field with which 
they are completely unfamiliar, basing themselves on criteria prescribed by 
law which are essentially irrelevant to the issue. I am aware that the pro- 
cedure of the McCarran Act is being strongly criticized in the United States 
as being against all the traditions of American law, but this is more than a 
domestic American matter. There is serious danger to international inter- 
course when, before people can visit the United States, they are induced to 
give declarations under oath on trival matters lying 10 years back, which 
are magnified today into sinister actions by legal rules having no concern with 
reality. This is the way to build up a world of phantoms in which men are 
lost in a maze of mutual suspicion. 


The Manchester Gu.\rdian Weekly, 

March 13, 1952. 


It is part of the historic relation between the United States and Britain 
that there should be candor and honest frankness between them. -:^ericans 
have never been backward in this exercise. That the relative material condi- 
tions of our two centuries have changed gives no reason why when things are 
wrong in America we in Britain should be silent for fear of giving olfense. 
Mutual criticism is part of the democratic process to which we both adhere. 
It is, indeed, more important than ever ; the essence of American as of British 
policy in the world is how to exhibit a pattern of freedom, to sliow that a free 
democracy with its tolerances is better than a totalitarian State with its re- 
strictions and tyrannies. When something happens in the United States that 
seems to belong more to the ways and habits of mind of tlte Communist world 
than to the free world it is a friendly act to point out the damage that is being 
done to the common cause. The question of academic freedom is one of the 
:sharp tests of sincerity of principle by which the United States is being judged 
abroad ; we make no apology for having given space to the long and interesting 
correspondence on it opened by Lord Russell. A like question is the conditions 
which Congress, overriding the President's veto, has applied to entry and exit 
to the United States. Most countries have their immigration absurdities, but 
there are aspects of the McCarran Act that go beyond mere bureaucratic 
arbitrariness and are repugnant to civilized intercourse. 

The circumstances Professor Polanyi describes in his letter today are not 
isolated. He has, of course, long been one of the strongest and most effective 
critics of communism in this country, but eminent Americans as well as eminent 
Europeans are victims. Prof. Howard Mumford .Jones, of Harvard, has de- 
scril>ed how a distinguished American historian "was for one solid year denied 
a passport by our Department of State because, unknown to him, his name had 
appeared as a sponsor of a school that somebody or other said was a Communist 
front. (He) was given no explanation at the time his passport was denied him, 


aud not until the occasion which required tlie passport was a 12-nionth in the 
past, did lie learn, and then only indirectly, why he had been adjudged un- 
worthy to rojiresent his country in a foreign institution of learning." 

The procedure under which the harassed American consular officials have to 
work — poor fellows — reads for all the world like a legal process behind the iron 
curtain. The prosecution keeps its data (whatever their value) up its sleeve; 
the victim has to prove himself innocent of a charge of which he is in ignorance. 
The consular official has to work to rigid rule (since he himself lives under the 
terrifying shadow of Senator iMcCarthy he dare not depart irom it) ; he is not 
required to know anything of his victim save a document in a dossier ; if he 
were to read his victim's books or to seelc the advice of eminent Americans he 
might find in 2 minutes that the FBI's stock questions were moonshine, but that 
is not permitted. Naturally the best American opinion is sensitive to these 
injustices. The New York Times said recently that the American Visa Depart- 
ment has "made a mockery of American demands for freer exchange of persons 
as against the Soviet iron curtain and has seriously lowered our prestige among^ 
key groups in Western Euroiie and elsewhere." But unless intelligent Amei'ican 
opinion will moI)ilize itself and unless the higher direction of the State Depart- 
ment (for instance, Mr. Acheson and Mrs. Shipley) brings some common sense 
into its passport machinery distrust and dislike of the United States will mount. 
That is only one side of the question. What to the liberal mind is almost more 
alarming is the debasement ot the international standard of law. The McCarran 
Act, the American loyalty oaths, and the rest are a way of saying that men are 
guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent ; and by the stupid- crudities of 
their bureaucratic procedures they implant the very fear, anxiety, and suspi- 
cion to rid the world of wliich the United States is supposedly spending its' 

[Chemical and Engineering News, 28, 4330 (1950)] 

Exce:rpt fkom Inteknational Exchange of ScrENTnic Information 

(By Wallace R. Erode, Associate Director, National Bureau of Standards) 

A distinguished Scandanavian professor was recently invited to lecture at an 
American universit.v. A check with the American consul, whom we knew per- 
sonally, indicated that he would have no difficulty obtaining a visa. Unfortu- 
nately, the consul left shortly after the inquiry on a vacation, and contact with 
the vice-consul, who was more concerned with the minutia of regulations, devel- 
oped the unusual information that imiversity professors and research woi-kers in 
certain fields of science (not political) were by Government orders barred from 
direct admission to the United States, and that only alter extensive investiga- 
tion, which usually requires several months, could such individuals hope for 
admission. Note that this prohibition is not directed toward specific individuals, 
races, political parties, or countries but rather at certain fields of science, of 
which one is the field of electronics. 

[Excerpts from letters] 

From : Mile W. Perey, Laboratoire de Chimie Nucleaire, University de Strasbourg, 

4, Rue Goethe, Strasbourg, France 
To: Prof. C. D. Coryell, Department of Chemistry', Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Cambridge 39, Mass. 

August 22, 1951. 

I am absolutely brokenhearted because I must give up my trip to the United 
States to whicli I had been looking forwai-d so much. I have waited until the 
last minute, since I should have left tomorrow for Paris and taken the 2Vew 
Amsterdam Saturday, but the authorities in Washington have not even thought 
it necessary to answer my request for a visa made 3 months ago, or telegrams 
sent by your consulate on July 10 and again on August 14. I must give up even 
expecting an answer, although your cultural attache lias assured me that nothing 
can prevent me from obtaining the visa. One must believe that I am considered 
very dangerous. 

I was looking forward so much to coming, to visiting your institute, to talking 
of our work, and to enjoying your very kind invitation. 


Please tell Mrs. Coryell how mnch I regret not being able to come, and I ask 
you to share with her all my best wishes. 

October 5, IQJjI. 
The visa was granted, but too late for me to be able to come. 

From : Prof. P. Grivet, Universite de Paris, Laboratoire de Radioelectricite. 24 
Rue I'Homond, Paris 5, France. 

To : Prof. S. A. Goudsmit, Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Labora- 
tory, Upton, Long Island, N. Y. 

Janttary 23, 1952. 

I wanted very much to pay you a visit in Octobi^r 1951., but I was not able to do 
so. Here is why : In May 1951. I was invited by my friend Professor Marton 
of the National Bureau of Standards to give a review paper on electron optics. 
I prepared this, as well as several other communications from my students, but, 
not receiving my visa in time, I was unable to attend the Congress. Indeed, there 
is also work in my laboratory on an electron accelei'ator, an activity considered 
"nuclear", and I become involved in the formalities of the McCarran Act, long, 
long formalities. 

I received my visa 5 months late, that is, about 8 days ago. I hope to use 
it this year, and to have the pleasure of paying you a visit. 

[Copy of a letter] 

From : Prof. J. Cabannes, Doyen honoraire de la Facult(^ des Sciences, Labora- 
toire des Rpcherches Physique a la Sorbonne, Universite de Paris, Paris, 
To : Prof. V. F. Weisskopf , Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 
39, Mass. 
My Dear Colleague : I regret that some French scholars who would have liked 
to visit American laboratories — where they have much to learn — have not obtained 
visas for the U. S. A., or they have obtained them only after an excessively long 

It is not possible for me to pass .iudgment on particular cases, but I believe 
that, in that which concerns French physicists, the American oflScials would 
avoid regrettable errors if they would ask the advice of the Department of 
Cultural Relations of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

By consulting our Ministry, the U. S. A. would show that they have confidence 
in the government or a country which is a friend and ally. 

I do not insist that my letter remain secret ; you may use it as you wish for 
the greatest good of science and the harmony between our two countries. 

We, in tlie laboratory, retain the pleasantest recollection of your visit, and I 
thank you for the valuable advice which you gave my collaborators. 
Very cordially, 

J. Cabannes. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Fitzgerald here? 


Mr. Fitzgerald. I am James E. Fitzgerald, an attorney at law, 28 
Tremont Street, Boston. 

I am here representing the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Associ- 
ation of New England, the Chinese Merchants Association, the Chinese 
Order of Freemasons, the Chinatown Post 328 xlmerican Legion, the 
Gee How Oak Tin Association of Boston, the Wong Wnn Sun Associa- 
tion of Boston, the Yee Moo Kai Association of Boston, the Lee Lung 


Sai Association of Boston, and many other smaller associations, the 
representatives of wliich are here in the back of this room. 

The Chairman. Will you have a seat and Ave will be glad to hear 
from you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I have a prepared statement I wish to read. 

Tlie Chairman. AVe Avi]] be pleased to hear it. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chinese here today represent practically the 
entire Chinese population in Boston and to a lesser extent in the New 
England States. 

A short history of the Chinese problem leading up to the present 
status of the law may clarify in the minds of the committee the prob- 
lems of our Chinese-American citizen community. 

Up until the repeal of the Chinese exclusion law in 1943, only cer- 
tain exempted Chinese could enter this country such as merchants, 
diplomats, and a few other minor categories. 

The groat majority of the Chinese entering the country during that 
period, and even at present, were and are native-born United States 
citizens or the children of American citizens who derive their citizen- 
ship from the American-citizen father. 

Due to economic circumstances and the need to bring only those 
members of the family who could contribute to the support of the 
family, tlie male members only w^ere brought to the United States. 

The few Chinese females in the United States were either native- 
born or the wives and daughters of merchants. 

If a man wished to marry a woman of his own race, which the great 
majority did, it was necessary that lie travel to China. The result 
was that his children were born in China as his wife was not admis- 
sable to the United States. Due to the natural increase in population, 
the number of derivative citizens of the United States born in China 
became quite large. 

After World War II, the first group of wives of American citizens 
began to arrive as nonquota immigrants due to a change in the law. 
However, the alien minor, unmarried childi'en were still admissable 
only under a quota. None that I know of were able to receive a quota 

Let me call your attention that the Chinese have no desire to haA^e 
the ]McCai-ran-Walter bill repealed as it has placed them on an even 
basis with other citizens, in this regard, as their minor, unmarried 
children are eligible for admission as non-quota immigrants as is 
the husband of a citizen. 

This section does not have anything to do Avith a child claiming 
citizenship. Right to citizenship is not something to be disposed of 

The conditions that existed after World War II at the American 
consulate at Canton Avere terrible. At one time the consul at Canton 
made no effort to document cases to the United States. Later, after 
the fall of Canton, the matter of documentation Avas removed to Hong 
Kong. Delays of 2, 3 and 4 years resulted from the consul's inability 
or refusal to process these cases. 

In 1950, the Chinese Benevolent Association of Boston, under the 
able leadership of Mr. Chin Park of the foreign relations department 
of tlie National Shawmut Bank of Boston, made a concentrated effort 
to bring to the attention of the United States Congress the plight of 


his fellow citizens applyinor for transportation documents at Hong 
Kong to come to the United States. I herewith present as exhibit 
No. 1 the information sheet furnished to our New England Members 
of Congress at that time. 

As a result of these efi'orts, the State Department sent a group of 
experts to Hong Kong to see what could be done. I present at this 
time exhibit No. 2 which consists of correspondence between the State 
Department and Congressman Lane. 

Conditions improved somewhat for a time, but gradually regula- 
tions, demands for documentary evidence, blood types. X-rays and 
numerous other forms of delay has caused the processing of an ap- 
plicant, at the present time, to average 2 years. 

Again the association, under the leadership of Mr. Chin Park, 
recently made another concerted effort to help their people. I here- 
with offer exhibit No. 3 which is the information sheet now being 
furnished our Representatives in Congress. 

The cost of maintaining the applicants in Hong Kong, which is ex- 
tremely high, for the long periods forced on them by the consul plus 
the costs of transportation, legal fees and other expenses have con- 
stituted a terrific drain on the finances of the resident Chinese- Amer- 
ican citizens. The life savings of these citizens go merely to bring 
the family together. 

I have been authorized to say that some parts of this bill show a 
tendency to attempt to do justice by eliminating grave injustices im- 
posed upon citizens of Chinese ancestry in the past. 

At this time I will not dwell upon the question of Chinese immigra- 
tion as such, but am instructed to register to this comuiittee our pro- 
test and opposition to the manner of grouping for purposes of de- 
termination of quota as set forth in section 202 (b) of the act, it being 
the general sentiment of our American citizens of Chinese heritage 
or extraction that the basis used therein is not fair to such persons of 
their ancestral nation who might desire to become, but have not yet 
had the opportunity to be, citizens of this great United States of 

We appear here to protect and insist upon the rights and privileges 
of persons of Chinese heritage and extraction already established and 
of which they have been and are still being deprived. 

In this respect I wish to present the fact that the injustice of com- 
pelling a child of a United States citizen to arrive in this country 
before the age of 16 years when such arrival had become almost an 
impossibility has been modified by the extension of such limitation 
of 16 years to 23 years under the provisions of section 301 (a) and 
(b) replacing title 8 United States Code Annotated 601 (g). 

However, we are dismayed by reading section 360 (b) of this act 
in discovering that the act has given us a right and deprived us of a 
remedy in that the said section 360 reverts back to age of 16 and 
deprives those between 16 and 23 of any process of law whatsoever. 

Section 360 (b) appears to supersede section 503 of the Nationalitv 
Act of 1940, 8 United States Code Annotated 903, which former 
section gave the applicant certain rights for a declaratory judgment 
in a proper court of law. This new enactment deprives your citizen, 
unless he can personally get to the United States of America, of any 
court redress whatsoever. His entire rights are relegated to and iii 


the hands of the State Department and the State Department ah:)ne. 
This is manifestly nn-American and in all probability unconstitu- 
tional. We wish to go on record as statin^; to this committee that, 
from past exi)eriences, the confidence of Chinese- American citizens 
in the ability of the State Department, and the American consul, to 
jud<re the merits of citizenship has been rudely shaken and they desire 
a restoration of these powers to the United States Immigration and 
Naturalization Service where it properly belongs and they insist that 
the I'ights of such eventual determination should be within the courts 
and that the powers of the said court as set forth in section 509 of the 
Nationality Act of 1940 should be retained. 

I (juote from a very expressive statement made by Mr. Chin Park 
which shows the sentiment of Chinese citizens : "The Chinese-American 
<'itizen never again want an exclusion law either one passed by Con- 
gress or developed by the usurpation of authority by the State 

(The three exhibits referred to by Mr. Fitzgerald in his prepared 
statement, follow:) 

Exhibit No. 1 

By sheer inaction the United States Department of State has for the past 5 
years imposed an unwritten Chinese exclusion law upon American citizens of 
Chinese descent. No other racial group in the United States would have tolerated 
the injustice so patiently and quietly. 

For several generations it has been the custom of American citizens of Chinese 
<Jescent living in the United States to maintain their families in China, at least 
until the children acquire a primary Chinese education, and usually until the 
hoys are old enough to support themselves and the girls old enough to marry. 
The children born in China to American citizens of Chinese descent residing in 
the United States ai'e American citizens. 

Under a law effective in time of war or national emergency American citizens 
coming from the Far East must have American passports t)efore they embark 
for th.e United States. Several thousand applications by these children of Ameri- 
can citizens of Chinese descent for American passports with which to travel to 
the United States and join their fathers accumulated between 1945 and 1949 at 
American consulates at Canton, Shanghai, and elsewhere in China and at Hong 
Kong. With the closing of all American consulates in China in 1949 in the face 
of Red occupation, all these American passport applications are now registered 
at the American Consulate General, Hong Kong. There they are decided at the 
rate of about two a day, confronting the applicants with a wait of from 4 to 12 
years for a decision on their applications. Meanwhile, until this arrearage is 
overcome, no new applications for American passports will be accepted by the 
American Consulate General, Hong Kong, from the American-citizen children of 
American citizens of Chinese descent, unless the applicants present conclusive 
evidence of their citizenship and identity. Conclusive evidence is rarely obtain- 
able, because birth records are not maintained in China, families in China do 
not maintain continuous photographic records, the essential witnesses are in 
the United States, and letters and i-emittances over the years are usually made 
through intermediaries. For no other purpose is such a degree of proof of citi- 
zenship required. It is far easier for a nonquota alien Chinese to obtain an 
immigration visa to come to the United States than it is for an American citizen 
of Chinese descent to obtain an American passport. 

The Passport Division of the Department of State attempts to justify its treat- 
ment of these American citizens by alleging that there is a high incidence of 
fraud among such passport applications. The Passport Division estimates the 
fraudulent cases as high as .50 percent, without indicating the basis for such an 
extravagant estimate. However that may be, fraudulent applications for Ameri- 
can passports are by no means exclusive with Chinese. Polish, Italian, and 
native-born American Communists cases of passport frauds have hgured con- 
spicuously in records of the Passport Division in recent years. It is not hard 
to imagine the uproar that would follow any departmental policy of delaying 
from 4 to 12 years all Polish-American applications to the American Embassy 


at Wai'saw or Italian-American applit-ations to the American consulates in Italy ; 
our Polish-American and Italian-American populations in the United States 
would immediately so besiege the Department of State and the Congress that 
some way would be found to separate the genuine from the doubtful cases in 
short order. 

The Passport Division takes the attitude that our Chinese-American citizens 
have allowed their children to remain in China many years without trying to 
bring them to the United States and without registering them as American citi- 
zens at American consulates in China; that at the end of hostilities in World 
War II, and in the face of the Communist occupation of China, these American 
citizens flocked to the American consulates by thousands and demanded imme- 
diate issuance of travel documents; and that they cannot be heard to complain 
of whatever delay the Department of State may impose. This attitude fails to 
recognize the long-standing custom of Chinese-American citizens to maintain 
their families in China pursuant to the right of an American citizen to decide 
for himself where he will live and where he will maintain his family. This 
attitude ignores the fact that it makes no difference to their American citizenship 
whether these children were registered with an American consulate. It also 
ignores the fact that from 1941 to 1945 the war prevented travel from China to 
the United States. 

Lack of help at the American consulate general. Hong, Kong, is offered as an 
excuse for the long delay in deciding passport applications, but nothing is done 
to shorten the long and tedious procedure which the Department has set up for 
handling these applications. The passport applicants must register in person at 
an American consulate, usually necessitating travel from the interior of China. 
The passport applicants must present their fathers' affidavits in triplicate, bear- 
ing, their photographs, and explaining how they derived American citizenship. 
This affidavit, although difficult and expensive to obtain, carries no weight with 
the American consulate general as evidence of citizenship. Unless the applicant 
has conclusive other proof his name is merely placed on a waiting list at the 
American consulate and he is sent away and told not to call, telephone, or write 
the American consulate. The prospects are that he will wait from 4 to 12 years 
for a letter from the American consulate giving him an appointment for a per- 
sonal interview, consuming about 3 hours, and stenographically recorded, after 
which the poor applicant is again sent away to wait while the American con- 
sulate exchanges letters with the immigration authorities in the United States 
for the purpose of comparing the results of the interview with the contents of the 
immigration record of the applicant's father. This step alone takes several 
months. At long last the applicant may be recalled to the consulate and told 
whether be may be given an American passport. In most cases an American 
passport is not issued, but the applicant is allowed to execute an affidavit at the 
American consulate explaining who he is and why he claims to be a citizen. With 
a warning that the affidavit is no assurance that he will be admitted to the United 
States, the citizen is then able to reserve transportation to the United States. 
As neither a passport nor a travel affidavit is evidence of American citizenship. 
and as citizenship must be decided at the port of arrival in the United States, 
it is obvious that the long delay and so-called processing of American passport 
applications at the American consulate general, Hong Kong, serves no puri)ose 
whatsoever except to prevent these American citizens from embarking for the 
United States. 

The long delay not only separates these children from their American fathers 
whi](» their applications are pending, but threatens to separate them forever. 
Red China may claim them at any time for military or other service that would 
cause forfeiture of their American citizenship. The closing of American con- 
sulates in China leaves these American citizens no consulate with which they 
could lodge a protest. Red China may decide at any time not to allow these 
American citizens to leave China, as Soviet Russia and its satellite countries 
have been doing to American citizens since the end of hostilities. Such treat- 
ment of American citizens in RhI Cliina and Hong Kong by the Government of 
the United States should give great satisfaction to the Communist cause in the 
Far East. Although the situation of these American citizens is critical and 
although the Department of State expresses its concern, it moves at snail's 
pace to relieve them. 

The long delay may deprive these American citizen children of their chief 
witness, namely, the father in the United States. Many of these fathers are 
advancing in years and will inevitably be gone by the time their children reaeh 


a port of arrival in the United States where the issue of citizenship is actually 
determined. Through the simple expedient of withliolding a decision on a 
passpt)rt application and of refusing to accept new applications, the American 
consul may cause some of these American citizens to lose their citizenship under 
laws passed in 1034 and 1IJ40 which require them to reach the United States 
hefore they become 16 years old. 

The inaction of the American consulate general, Hong Kong, deprives these 
American citizens of the right expressly given them by law to have their citizen- 
ship determined in court. Until their applications for passports are actually 
refused, they cannot appeal to the courts in the United States. 

As might be expected, the situation has resulted in abuse of the American 
citizen applicants and their fathers by unscrupulous brokers and agents in 
Hong Kong who undertake for large sums of money to obtain prompt and favor- 
abk! decisions on American passport applications. Some of these brokers and 
agents are kn(nvu to the American consulate general and have been warned to 
keep their distance from the consulate general, but they continue to operate, 
and American fathers have invested from ?G0O to .$1,000 in such futile efforts to 
obtain action on their children's passport applications. 

The Chinese-American population of the United States may b^ roughly esti- 
mated at 90,000. These American citizens should individually and as groups- 
demand of their Department of State and of their Senators and their Repre- 
sentatives in Congress that this fictitious and unjust bar to the travel of their 
American citizen children to the United States be immediately removed. The 
administration and the Congress are daily showing the greatest concern to 
relieve aliens residing unlawfully in the United States, inadmissible aliens 
abroad, alien refugees known as displaced persons, and other categories of 
aliens. The Eighty-first Congress now in session has legalized the residence 
of thousands of aliens who entered the country illegally. However, the plight 
of American citizens of Chinese descent in the Far East receives only a polite 
expression of concern by the Department of State, which is barring their travel 
to the United States, and no relief either from the administration or from the 

Exhibit No. 2 

congeess of the united states, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, December 11, 1950. 
Mr. LoY Wong, 

President, Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Asociation of New England, 
14 Oxford Street, Boston 11, Mass. 
Dear Mr. Wong : With further reference to my letter of December 5, I am 
enclosing the report that I have received from the Department of State, in your 
interest, which I am certain you will find to be self-explanatory, regarding the 
admission of American citizens of Chinese descent to the United States. 
With all good wishes, I remain 
Sincerely yours, 

Thomas J. Lane. 

Department of State, 
Washington, December 8, 1950. 
Hon. Thomas J. Lane, 

House of Representatives 

Dear I\Ir. Lane : I have been requested to reply to your letter of December 5, 
1950, to the Secretary enclosing a letter from Mr. Loy Wong and a statement 
relative to the admission of American citizens of Chinese descent to the United 

The enclosed circular outlines this procedure and you may note that it has 
been adopted after consultation with the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 
ice of the Department of Justice and American diplomatic and consular oflBcers 

While the delay in processing many of these cases is caused by several factors, 
most of which are entirely outside of the control of either the Department or of 
the Foreign Service of the United States, the Department recently conducted an 


investigation of ttie matters to which Mr. Ley refers in his letter to you and is 
taking steps to liave special and immediate handling of these cases by a group 
of experts. The work of this group should eliminate all backlog cases received 
from American consular offices in Cliiua, as well as at Hong Kong, by the end of 
June 1951. 

As of possible information, it may be stated that the Department has been 
informed by the American consulate general at Hong Kong that it is giving 
priority to and facilitating the applications of persons who are nearing their 
sixteenth birthdays, and who, under existing law, must enter the United States 
for permanent residence before reaching the age of 16 years in order to retain 
-any claim they may have to American citizenship. Such cases are kept in a 
special file at the consulate general to insure consideration being given to them 
before the applicant's substantive rights are affected by operation of law. A 
large number of applications are being received from persons who will reach 
the age of 16 years within the near future and the consulate general has further 
reported that the actual processing of such cases is usually begun from 2 to 3 
months prior to the applicant's sixteenth birthday. 
Sincerely yours, 

R. B. Shipley, 
Chief, Passport Division. 

Enclosures : Copy of this letter. Personal letter and statement. Circular. 

Procedure for Documentation of Persons of Chinese Origin Who Claim 
American Citizenship for the First Time 

This Department, after consultation with the Imaiigration and Naturalization 
Service of the Department of Justice and American diplomatic and consular offi- 
cers concerned, has adopted the following procedui'e for the documentation of 
persons of Chinese origin who claim American citizenship for the first time: 

Persons who claim American citizenship must take up their cases with the 
appropriate diplomatic or consular officer, sultmitting such evidence of the basis 
oi their claim to American citizenship and documentary evidence of their iden- 
tity as may be required by the diplomatic or consular officer to whom application 
is made. In cases where the applicant was born abroad, the officer will com- 
municate directly with the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the De- 
partment of Justice to verify the citizenship status of the parent through whom 
an applicant claims to have derived American citizenship. 

All American consular offices on the mainland of China have been closed. Upon 
the closing of the American consulate general at Canton, China, the citizenship 
files of that office were transferred to the American consulate general at Hong 
Kong, and claimants to American citizenship residing on the mainland of China 
should be advised to take up their cases with the American consulate general 
at Hong Kong. Claimants to American citizenship residing on the island of 
Formosa should take up their cases with the American consulate general at 
Taiiiei, Formosa. 

The following procedure should be followed in cases where the applicant claims 
American citizenship by birth abroad of an American parent : 

I. If the applicant's father is in the United States, the following documents 
should be forwarded to the applicant for presentation at the appropriate con- 
sular office : 

A. An affidavit in triplicate by the applicant's father, mentioning his evi- 
dence of citizenship and giving the following data in tabular form : 

1. The dates and places of his various entries into and departure from the 
United States. 

2. The names, sex, birthplaces, birth dates, and present places of residence 
of all his children. 

3. The name of his present wife and, if previously married, of his former 
wife, with date or dates of marriage ; where applicable, dates and means of 
termination of marriages should also be stated. 

All names should be in both English and Chinese. Recent photographs of 
the father and the applicant sliould be attached with glue, under notarial 
seal on the affidavits. 

B. An affidavit in triplicate, executed by a reputable United States citi- 
zen, attaching a recent photograph of the applicant's father (glued and 
sealed) and stating that the latter is the same person named in the evidence 
of citizenship mentioned. 

C. Evidence of the father's American citizenship. 


II. If the father is deceased, a hrother or other near relative of the appli- 
cant residiiiju' in the United States may prepare the documents mentioned above^ 
referring to the applicant's father. 

III. The prepared documents, together with all ol)tainable documentary evi- 
dence which may l)e of assistance in establishing the applicant's identity and 
claimed relationship, should be forwarded to the applicant, if he is residing in 
Hong Kong, instructing him to submit the documents to the American consulate 
general by double registered mail. If the apiilicant is residing on the mainland 
of China, it is suggested that the documents be forwarded direct from the United 
States to the appropriate consular office. No assurance can be given that either 
the consulate general at Hong Kong or the consulate general at Taipei, Formosa,, 
will be able to render any assistance to the applicant unless he can arrange to 
appear at the consular office upon appointment. 

IV. If the father of tlie applicant is in China or Hong Kong, and it is possible 
for him to call at the consulate general with the applicant, the affidavits de- 
scribed above need not be prepared. In such event the applicant should com- 
municate with the consulate general by double registered mail, requesting an 
a])iiointment and informing that office that his American-citizen lather is avail- 
able to call with him at the consulate general. This communication from the 
applicant should set forth the type of evidence of his American citizenship which 
his father has in his possession. The father should not fail to take with him 
to the consulate general satisfactory documentary evidence which will be of 
assistance in identifying the applicant. 


The following suggestions are not requirements and neither include all pos- 
sible means of identification nor exclude other evidence which applicants may 
be able to submit ; the suggestions merely illustrate types of evidence which 
have been of value in the past. 

1. An identifying witness, preferably an American citizen, wlio is well and 
favorably known to the consular office. The witness should have known the 
applicant well for at least 1 year. 

2. A birth certificate issued by a reputable hospital or by the local authorities 
of the lUace in which the birth occurred, especially if in the United States or 
Hong Kong. 

3. An official Chinese certificate of identity issued by the authorities of the 
district or city of the applicant's re.sidence. 

4. Letters from parents or relatives in the United States. 

5. Evidence of remittances of money over a period of years from parents or 
relatives in the United States. 

G. Old photographs of the applicant, especially group photographs containing 
other members of the familj\ 

7. School diplomas or other documents issued by schools attended by the 

Passport Division, August 4, 1950. 

Exhibit No. 8 

The procedure ad(»pted by the Passport Division of the Department of State 
for the documentation of American citiznis of Chinese descent at the American, 
consulate general. Hong Kong, has proved unworkable after .several years. Pro- 
tests against the long delay in documentation are rising from the relatives and 
friends of these American citizens, who are generally children born in China to 
United States citizens of Chinese descent. 

Early in lOf)! the Passport Division of the Department of State sent a group 
of citizenship experts to the American consulate general, Hong Kong, to con- 
centrate on reducing a backlog of several thousand passport applications. This; 
special force did accomplish a reduction in the arrearage and consequent delay^ 
but at the present time an average of 2 years elapses l)etween the date of an: 
application for an American passport and the decision of the American consul' 
g«>neral, Hong Kong. Housing and food in Hong Kong are scarce and almost 
prohibitive in cost, yet during those 2 years of delay awaiting decision the pass- 
port applicants must be maintained in Hong Kong because they can go nowhere 
else than to Communist China whence their exits are rigidly controlled by local 


Communist authorities. Unless the American citizen passport applicant has 
conclusive evidence of his citizenship and identity, he is required to bring other 
members of his family to Hong Kong from Red (^hina as vs^itnesses. The same 
rigid controls are imposed by Red China upon the travel of the witnesses, and 
depending upon the whim of the particular Communist village or district authority 
it is often impossible for the witnesses to appear in Hong Kong. For the past 
several months the American consulate general has been requiring blood tests 
of the passport applicant in Hong Kong and of his father in the United States, 
adding to the expense and adding many months to the delay in deciding an 

Under the established procedure of the Passport Division a passport applica- 
tion can be initiated only by the personal appearance of the applicant at the 
American consulate general, Hong Kong. However, when the applicant appears, 
his name is merely placed on a long waiting list unless he is one of the ex- 
tremely rare individuals who has evidence of his identity and citizenship which 
the American consulate general considers conclusive, a degree of proof which 
is not only unreasonable but exceeds that required for actual admission to tl o 
United States. 

When the American citizen appears at the consulate general to register on 
the waiting list, he is supposed to present his father's affidavit explaining how 
.the father acquired American citizenship, what visits the father has made to 
■China, and the names, birth dates, and whereabouts of his wife and children, 
and the affidavit must bear photographs of the passport applicant and his father. 
The applicant is also asked to present evidence of his father's citizenship, and 
on top of this an affidavit by a reputable United States citizen stating that the 
father is the same person named in the evidence of citizenship. However, these 
affidavits and this evidence accomplish little or nothing but are merely placed 
on file. No passport application is accepted on this first appearance of the 
applicant, and the American consul later exchanges letters with the Imniigratiou 
and Naturalization Service in the United States to verify the father's citizen.ship 
record and prior mention of the members of his family. Even if the father 
traveled from the United States to Hong Kong to identify his child in person, 
the father would be required to provide corroborative or documentary evidence 
of his child's identity. 

One item of corroborative evidence suggested by the Passport Division is an 
identifying witness, preferably an American citizen well and favorably known 
to the consular office, who has known the passport applicant well for at least 1 
year. Obviously, it would be a rare case indeed in which an American citizen, 
well and favorably known to the consular office at Hong Kong, could be found to 
identify a passport applicant from an interior village in China. 

Birth certificates, suggested by the Passport Division, are generally available 
for passport applicants who were born in Hong Kong but the ratio of these cases 
must be no more than 1 to 10,000, because most of the families of American 
citizens of Chinese descent are born and live in a small interior Chinese village 
of their ancestors where there are no vital records of any kind. 

Another item of documentary evidence suggested by the Passport Division is 
an official Chinese certificate of identity issued by the authorities of the district 
or city of the applicant's residence. As far as that is concerned, the American 
consuls at Canton and Hong Kong considered such certificates worthless even 
before the Communist occupation of China, and one issued now by a Communist 
authority would be worse than worthless — it would render a passport applicant 
suspect of being a Communist or Communist collaborator and would delay his 
passport application endlessly for a security investigation. 

The Passport Division also suggests old photographs of the passport appli- 
cant, especially group photographs containing other members of his family. In 
Siome cases such photographs can be produced, but these are closely examined for 

After getting to Hong Kong and being allowed to place his name (m the wait- 
ing list at the American consulate, the passport applicant waits indefinitely for 
a preliminary interview, for a second interview, and as many other interviews as 
the consular office may require before he may be ])ermitte(l to execute a formal 
passport application, which is usually denied. However, in the majority of 
oases the aiiplicant is at long last permitted to execute a travel affidavit reciting 
his claim to United States citizenship. After approval by the American consul 
general, this affidavit enables the holder t<t embark for the United States, though 
with a warning that the travel affidavit is no assurance whatsoever of the 


holder's admission to the United States because United States citizenship for 
the puri)ose of admission to the United States can only lie decided hy the Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Service at a port of entry to the United States. 
B'or tliat matter, a United States passport is no assurance of admission to tlie 
United States. Its purpose is to certify to foreign governments that the bearer 
is an American citizen and Piititled to the protection of the United States aliroad. 
The passport applicants at Hong Kong are not seeking to travel abroad under the 
protection of the United States. Tiiey seek only to embnrk for the United States 
as directly and promptly as possible to join their relatives here, where their 
citizenship is actually determined, and where the essential testimony of their 
fathers and other relatives will identify them. Therefore, the cumliersome and 
impractical procedure adopted by the Passport Division serves no other purpose 
than to delay, discourage, or prevent the embarkation of these American citizsn.s 
for our shores. 

The Passport Division takes the position that under the law it can issue a 
passport only to an American citizen and that it must therefore determine for 
itself whether any individual applicant for a passport is a citizen. This position 
might lie reasonable if tlie determination could as well be made in these cases 
in Hong Kong as it could in the United States, if it could be made with any 
degree of promptness, and if a passport were actually necessary and finally 
issued. However, when a determination of citizenship requires as long as 2 
years during which the citizen applicant and his relatives are under severe 
hardship and expense, when the essential witnesses are in the United States, 
and when a passport is finally denied anyhow, the position of the Passport 
Division is untenable. The Passport Division need not requii'e a passport for 
the embarkation of these citizens. It has authority to make exceptions to the 
wartime or national-emergency passjiort requirements and does make such 
exception when it apiu-oves the travel affidavit executed by these citizens at 
Hong Kong consulate in lieu of passport. The Passport Division is not obliged 
to determine United States citizensliip for the purposes of approving a travel 
affidavit and might as well permit the citizen to execiite such an affidavit when 
he first appears at the consulate general instead of making him wait 2 years 
before executing the affidavit. 

The citiz<jnship claims of Chinese-American citizens at Hong Kong are con- 
sidered in an atuiosphere of suspicion and belief that a very large percentage 
of them are fraudulent. The innocent or genuine admittedly suffer because of 
instances of fraud which have overimpressed the Passport Division, which does 
not Imve the background and records of more than a half century of experience 
that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has. The Passport Division 
judges the citizenship claims of American citizens of Chinese descent froBi the 
point of view of its exjierience with the citizenship claims of native-born 
Americans or Americans of European or other national origin, to whom official 
records of birth and evidence of identity are readily available, and whose psy- 
chology and family customs ai'e radically different. 

The result of the established procedure for handling passport applications 
by American citizens of Chinese descent at the American consulate general, 
Plong Kong, is to exclude thousands of these citizens from the United States. It 
nmst be remembered that these are citi'zens in the lower-income brackets. Their 
fathers are mainly restaurant or laundry ownei's or employes, to whom the 
expense of maintaining tlieir children and witnesses in Hong Kong for as long 
as 2 years is so prohibitive that they must either abandon the effort to bring 
their children here or mortgage their future by borrowing the necessary funds 
for the long struggle. 

Under the Nationality Act of "1040 the denial of a passport by the American 
cfinsul general, Hong Kong, may be reviewed in court in the United States and 
tlie pas.«pf)rt applicant be permitted to come here temporarily for that purpose. 
However, undei- the revision of the immigration nnd nationality laws effective 
December 24, 1952. the decision of the consul general in such cases will be final 
excei)t for a possible appeal to the Passport Division. 

The immediate remedy is for the Passport Division to instruct the American 
consulate general to pei'niit these citizenship claimants to execute a travel 
affidavit when they first appear at the consulate general so that they may embark 
for the United States promptly and have their citizenshi)) determined by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, as was d<me for half a century. Other- 
wise, Congi-ess should provide funds at once expressly for the assignment of 
enough citizenship expc^rts to tlie American consulate general. Hong Kong, to 


reduce the present 2-year waiting period to a reasonable period for handling 
such official business ; and the Passport Division should expedite and adapt its 
procedure to the realities and inaugurate a sensible handling of these applica- 
tions. "It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly ad- 
mitted than that one natural-born citizen of the United States should be 
permanently excluded from his country" (Kivock Jan Fat v. White, 40 S. Ct. 566, 
253U. S. 454). 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I ayouIcI like to make this sujigestion to the Com- 
mission : That a claimant to American citizenship, in order to avoid 
the long delay in documentary certification necessary to come here to 
prove his claim, should be able to post a bond or surety of some kind 
guaranteeing the person of return passage in the event he fails to prove 
his claim. 

Commissioner Fisher. I take it that in these cases you are discussing 
the issue relating to satisfying the consid general as to whether these 
people are in fact entitled to certificates? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. In fact, entitled to certificates. It is a matter of 

Commissioner Fisher. Isn't it of real concern that some of these 
people may be trying to get improper identification ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. There is a United States Supreme Court decision 
which says it is far better that many Chinese- American citizens be 
admitted to this country than that one true American citizen should 
be kept out. Although there is an incident abroad, there is no doubt 
about it, the proper people to determine fraud are those making up 
a proper hearing body for a proper hearing. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, due to their long experience, have developed 
these boards of special inquiry. They have the necessary investi- 
gative agencies in the Department of Justice. 

The witnesses for these people who are applying in Hong Kong 
are practically all in the United States. Their records and everything 
they have is here. It is not a matter for the consul over there to try 
to decide their citizenship when we have the properly organized group 
here to try their citizenship. We had better remember this: That, 
no matter what the consul does, if he allows someone to come here, they 
are entitled to be heard by the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 

Commissioner O'Gradt. Are these people trying to get back into 
the United States? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. They are not trying to get back in, although some 
are. They are native-born citizens who went back and got caught 
by the way. Some are citizen children, derivatives of citizens of the 
United States. 

Commissioner Finucane. Hasn't it been past practice to permit 
the Chinese who claim United States citizenship to come in on affi- 
davit, without the determination of their citizenship by the State 
Department ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. I know out in San Francisco they had some diffi- 
culty, but it wasn't because of the investigation so much as it was to 
the number of immigrants and the number of these people who came 
in. Right after the war they had a tremendous influx of them at San 
Francisco, and there were long delays up to 5 months, if I remember 
correctly. Most of that has been cleared up. 


Commissioner Fini'caxk. Some are still in detontion out there 
waitiiio- for hearings and have been there in detention for many, many 

Mr. FiTZGEiuu). 1 don't know too nmch about San Francisco, but 
in Boston we haven't any. 

Conniiissioner P^isiikr. Are you saying they can't get back here 
to file for a declaratory judgment^ 

Mr. FiTZGKRALD. That is right. I can bring an action in the United 
States district court here in Boston for an a})plicant in Hong Kong 
in his own name, but cannot under this new section. 

Commissioner Finucane. Do you see any reason why the practice 
of the State Department of issuing a document enabling an appli- 
cant for a passport to come to the United States to litigate the issue 
of ciizenship sliould not be continued? 

Mr. P^iTZGERALD. What I am driving at is that, although it is not 
perfect, at least it gives the right to recourse to court. I don't say that 
the State Department is handling these cases right as it is. I think 
if some arrangements could be made by bond or surety of return, 
passage in each case, so these people could avoid all this difficulty 
and red tape and have the matter heard here before a proper tribunal, 
then if an applicant was excluded the Government is not losing any- 
thing because the bond is there to take care of his return passage. 

The Chairman. Is it not generally true that, once they are here,, 
it is difficult to obtain enforcement of an order to go back ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. These are exclusion cases and not deportation 
cases. They have never landed in the United States if they have 
been excluded. It is not as if they had gotten in here and then 
attempted to depart. These people never landed. 

The Chairman. Are you saying this act lias taken away a remedy 
we did have ? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. The only possible appeal I could see from the 
State Department would be directly to the President of the United 
States. That is not logical or practicable. 

Of course, our basic form of Government depends on checks and 
balances, and in this particular balance you are taking away the 
check against an administrative department by the court. 

The Chairman. Are you speaking primarily about these cases of 
claims to American citizenship? 

Mr. Fitzgerald. That is right. 

The Chairman. Isn't it very difficult to find out the facts in these 

Mr. Fitzgerald. But if an American citizen were not admitted to 
the country and he was truly an American citizen — I do not think 
there are in general too many of these fake cases, just once in a long 

Because of the fact that they are different, their particular faults 
have been a little })articularly brought to the fore. They are probably 
not any more incidental to the Chinese than they are to other 
nationality groups, but nobody bothers to check that while they do on 
the Chinese. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Prof. Paul Chalmars, you are scheduled next. 

25356—52 2S 



Prof. Paul Chalmers. I am Paul Chalmars. professor and adviser 
to foreign students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I am 
also past president of the National Association of Foreign-Student 

While I don't speak oiRcially for them, I have been in on their 
deliberations about immigration problems as they concern foreign 
students. It is near the end of the day, and I can't attempt to give 
you a whole picture, but I would like to make one or two generaliza- 
tions and suggest that we do have in our national association the 
foreign-student advisers who are concerned with the foreign students 
and the big college populations of the country, and I will ask our 
president to communicate with you so that you can have the organi- 
zation's views officially if you would like it. We would like to 
present you our views. 

I Avould like simply to say this: We have about 30,000 foreign 
students in the country here at the present time. This is gradually 
I'ising. These are, from the point of view of our own national 
interests, a very important group, because among these, as you are 
aware, there are those w^ho wall become probably the leaders in their 
own countries as they go home; and, therefore, our treatment of 
them is extremely important. 

I think it is fair to say that all of our immigration regulations have 
not. perliaps, given consideration to tliis group, as a group, and the 
difficulties which we face in dealing witli tliem are that in every con- 
sideration they are one corner of a hirger group; for iui-tance, as you 
know it is customary for all American students who need to do work to 
work their way tlirough college. It is now tlie custom in my own 
school in graduate school for at least half of our population of gi^ad- 
uate students to carry on a part-time job, an assistantship and a re- 
search job, in conjunction with their gi\aduate study; and, therefore, 
the restrictions against emplo3'ment, whicli, perhaps, quite properly 
are made for the temporary visitor to this country, spill over and 
affect the person Avho is to be a bona fide student on our list^ and may 
stop the man from coming here, may interfere with the effectiveness 
of his study. 

What I am pleading for wo-ald be a section or a consideration of 
the immigration regulations which would be particularly concerned 
with tlie person who comes here as a bona ficle student for a temporary 
stay and expects to return to his own country on the completion of 
his studies. Each fall we receive in our camj:)us bona fide students 
who will come with as many as 12 different kinds of visas. 

Now, as you are aware, part of this tlifficulty comes from the fact 
that we are dealing with two different bureaucracies. Tlie Foreign 
Service abroad is concerned Avith the granting of the visa, and the 
Immigration Service in this country with the cliecking of the visas 
status — making sure that he isn't employed; that he goes home when 
lie shoidd and so forth, and we do have a good many difficulties be- 
cause of this dual responsibility. We do have a good many fellows 


who coiiu' wlio perliiips have heon ^iven the wrong kind of visa. This 
is one minor ilhistration of the dilficuhy. 

There are a comparable nnmber who will be given temporary visi- 
tors" visas, and J think we are nnder the impression that they are given 
this instead of tlie vStndent visa becanse it is a little easier for the con- 
sular official to issue it; and after they j:^et here the Immigration Serv- 
ice is put to the bother and they do this very well and very easily, of 
changing this to a student visa status. 

This hap])ens to be important to the young man because in the latter 
status he isn't eligible for the Selective Service. This is a minor point 
perhaps, but 1 think it is an illustration of the fact that not enough 
care has been given to the ]:>roblem of this small but very important 
segment of our foreign temporarv pupils, and that is the foreign stu- 

I won't take moi'e time unless you have questions to ask. 

Mr. RosEKFiELD. Mr. Chalmers, you discussed two points — one is the 
restriction against employment, and the other is the character of the 
visa. Are thei'e any other issues which in your judgment require sep- 
ar;ite treatment for the foreign students 

Professor Cfialmers. I think those are the two main issues, sir, 
however, there are other difficulties he runs into. He also must be 
cleared if secui'ity is involved or if the whole McCarran Act is involved, 
and this sometimes causes delays up to 6 months, with the result that 
the graduate student will simply give np, and he won't come because 
it is too much trouble. 

We don't run into this so much. I think the chief difficulties come 
in those two fields. There are related difficulties, but they are fortu- 
nately not your concern. 

Mr. RosEXFiELD. Have you any proposals to make? 

Professor Chaimers. In general, 1 would propose that all people 
who are admitted by a recognized institution in this country, for ad- 
mission for study, be given a student visa, and that they be made the 
responsibility of the institution which is issuing; that that institution 
then be responsible to the Immigration Service to certify at the begin- 
ning of every semester this man is a bona fide student. This may very 
well mean for a graduate student getting his doctorate in physics that 
they will give him a full-time job at $3,000 a year. That is the pattern 
for some students. 

This does not mean that his graduate study is being inteiTupted or 
interfered with: it is ])art of his graduate study and is part of his 
normal education. 

But where we have to prove that he is a student despite his employ- 
ment, and where we have to make an individual case that he is not 
endangering the labor supply of the counti-y in some way by this 
employment, we do run into some delays and clifficulties. 

I think we have had, it is fair to say, very fair interpretations by 
the Immigration Service, and very fair administration; but I think 
I should say in their behalf that in order to be decent they have been 
forced to put quite a lot of elastic in the regulations which areji't 
:specifically there. 

The Chairman. Thank vou verv much. 

Is Mr. Frederick F. Cohen here ? 



Mr, Cohen. I am Frederick F. Cohen, sin attorney, and I should' 
like to make a brief statement. 

The Chairman. We will appreciate it if you can be brief as pos- 
sible, since we are short of time. 

Mr. Cohen. I understand, sir. I w^ill try to cooperate. 

Gentlemen, I am here to speak to you as an attorney who has had 
the experience of handling deportation cases among others in the 
practice that I have, and ^fhile I don't pretend to be an authority in 
all phases of the law, and perhaps not even an authority on these 
matters with which I have had to contend, I still feel that within 
my ex23erience I have run up against sufficient aggregation of aggrava- 
tions and difficulties that the law and the law before it, the internal 
security law and the Smith Act, has presented to individual people,, 
that I do feel qualified to make a few remarks; and I shall try to 
sunnnarize, gentlemen, of where I think at least in these instances 
the law should and indeed must be improved. 

The Chairman. This Commission is not concerned with the Smith 
Act or the internal security law. 

Mr. Cohen. I understand, sir. I shall propose to be very brief and 
give you in summary the things I would like to speak of. 

I think the law insofar as it refers to bail is so very difficult, if 
the Attorney General or those who need not give bail may take it away,, 
may change it, take it away — that should be changed. 

In the matter of liearings, I find in my practice that a person 
arrested for deportation does not even have the rights that a civil 
litigant would have in an ordinary court action of law. We never 
have the benefit of knowing anything of what the case is all about 
until it has been put in. We don't have the right that a person has 
in any court to depositions, interrogatories, motions to produce or 
inspection of records. 

On evidence, usually the evidence in my experience has been old 
and motli-eaten ; I am properly entered — in one case that I have had 
entered, in spite of statutory law against the introduction of such 
evidence in the circumstances that it was so entered. 

Furthermore, even though we run up against these matters of evi- 
dence, we have no right to have the evidence reviewed in the courts. 
I believe that there should be some line drawn. There is no statute of 
limitations in deportation cases that I know about. There should be 
a doctrine, such as we have in the ordinary equity courts. In all of 
the courts of the land w^e don't have it there. In my experience I have 
handled cases — the Latva case is one — 8 or 10 years old. I have an- 
other case where the evidence is 30 years old and a very skimpy bunch 
of evidence at that. 

Also, I would like to make a point that frequently statements are 
taken from people who are inarticulate, perhaps, illiterate, and don't 
understand what is being done, and this is evidence, the only evidence 
frequently that is used against them. I think that the law which 
wiped out the application of the administrative procedures law to 
immigration cases should be repealed, and a law requiring the admin- 
istrative procedures law to be invoked in the Immigration Department 
should be passed through Congress. 


Another i)oint 1 would like to make briefly is that, very frequently, 
in fact in every case today a person has been arrested on one law, a 
law that wasn't even in existence at the time the acts complained of are 
alle<ied, and even after, not until this hearing has been held is he then 
notified that he is being charged under a new law which didn't even 
exist at the time of the acts and didn't exist at the time that he was 
arrested. I am against the retroactive characters of the laws. I am 
against the points of law where the evidence is just put in, no matter 
what it may be, no weight is given to it, no question is ever raised of 
intent, of personal ])articipation, activity on the part of the indi- 
vidual, or even knowledge for that matter. 

Those things are never considered, and I think I may suggest that 
the Latva case was one such example. The law, basecl as it was, in 
my opinion, is even worse in these respects now. I think I mentioned 
that the law was affected, past laws, and especially present laws have 
affected people for alleged conduct dating back 30 years or more, 
affecting people who have lived in this country in one case that I have 
had over 50 years. 

I also feel particularly that the Latva case is very much symptomatic 
of it; the fact that the courts do not have even the slightest discretion 
in overruling or changing what would obviously appear to be an in- 
justice in the decision of the Department. 

Finally, gentlemen, concerning the Latva case, I do trust that before 
5'ou gentlemen leave this city, or should you have the opportunity, 
that you will go over the record of the Latva case. If you do I hope 
that you will find, as I honestly believe, that if the Latva case is any 
•criteria of the operation of this law, and the laws before it, that that 
law is very definitely bad if it can affect an individual like this man 
the way it has and in the terrible fashion that it has. 

I would like from you gentlemen the opportunity of presenting a 
memorandum at some further or future dates if I may. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to make the statement. 

The Chairman. Thank you. We will appreciate any memorandum 
you decide to send to the Commission's office in Washington, and the 
sooner you can do it the better, because our time on the whole problem 
is very short. 

Mr. Cohen. I thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. George K. Demopulos. 


Mr. Demopulos. I am George K. Demopulos, 1133 Industrial Trust 
Building, Providence, R. I. I am here to represent the Order of the 
American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, which has 
about 300 chapters throughout the United States, in addition to its 
women's organizations and junior organizations. 

I am a Greek by birth. I came here when I was 10 years old. 

Now in 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt found a condition exist- 
ing in the United States concerning naturalization that was not 
good, and a Commission, similar to yours, was appointed to make a 
study and a survey of naturalization throughout the world, and to 


recommend to our Congress, and to our Senate, and the basic law of 
our naturalization laws today is that law. 

But since 1906 we have drifted away from it to the extent that 
naturalization of an ailen is not the important thing that it was. We 
take away rights from the citizen who becomes naturalized as years 
go by, and I have this as a practical example : If a man lived in the 
United States for 40 years, and became a citizen, if he should go on 
the wrong path and commits a crime, we not only penalize him as we 
would a native citizen, but we go a step beyond that and we want to 
take away his citizenship and also order him to be deported. I think 
the nation of his origin would be foolish to accept that deportee, and 
I recommend that once a person is naturalized, if he should violate 
our law^s, his penalty should not be any greater than a native-born 
citizen's penalties. 

I further recommend removal of tlie limitation base thnt exists 
now of 60 days before the election time during which our courts do 
not grant citizenship. I think that does not belong in the act because 
all States have laws requiring wdien you must register to qualify for 
voting, so that our voting laws will not be hampered in any way if 
that restriction of 60 days is taken away. It will help the courts 
naturalize every month throughout the year. 

Now something was said here by others, and at the outset may I 
say that for the past 25 years I have practiced before the Naturaliza- 
tion and Immigration Service, and I have always found them coopera- 
tive, kind, and I think in the future they will be, regardless of what 
some people have said here. 

Now as to our present McCarran Act, that is a misleading act to the 
American people. The law provides for 154,000 annually, plus, to be 
admitted. But the mechanics of the act are such that it is doubtful 
if 50,000 a year will be admitted. The mechanics are that bad. It 
discriminates against some nations in favor of others, and we feel that 
the surplus of unused numbers of nations that do not use their annual 
quotas should be given to those other nations that have an over sub- 
scription of their quotas. There is nothing in our act to help Ameri- 
can citizens who have adopted a minor child to bring it to the United 
States, other than as a quota immigrant. 

We feel that our laws should be amended with proper restrictions 
and safeguards so it will not be abused, whereby any United States 
man and wife can adopt, or a citizen can adopt, a child under the age 
of 15, and if he wishes to bring it to the United States he should have 
the right to bring it as a nonquota inmiigrant before its eighteenth 

Visitors. We have constant complaints from our people overseas,, 
relatives and friends who go to the American consulate for visas to 
come to the United States as visitors. Most of them are denied that 
right. We feel that anyone who meets the character and health re- 
quirements, and wants to visit the United States, should be allowed to 
do so, and we should protect ourselves by them giving us substantial 
security that they will depart when their visit ends. 

There is another serious thing to consider : A citizen of the United 
States, whether it be man or wife, if he wants to marry an alien, we 
say to him : Go overseas and marry and then bring the spouse over. 
We are putting that citizen into a terrific economic detriment. We 


lire askin<i: him to go overseas, spend his luonej' ratlier than spend it 
in a home here. We feel that if a citizen of the United States, man or 
wojnan, has an intended sponse overseas, as long as that spouse can 
meet tlie requirements of character and health, and the financial re- 
quirements, they should he allowed to come here without the citizen 
going to the expense of going overseas. 

Now there is nothing in the McCarran Act to provide for profes- 
sional and scientific people. They must come here under a quota. 
"We tliink that is a grave error, and a detriment to the United States. 
Clergy were allowed to come as nonquota. We feel that professional 
and scientific persons who are needed in industry, or in our schools 
here, should he extended the same privileges of nonquota immigra- 

The way our Innnigration Act has been administered, and the 
McCarran Act will be administered, the Immigration Service is the 
complainant, is the ])rosecutor and the judge — this is not American 
jurisprudence as I learned it in the schools ; and I refer you gentlemen 
to the Wickersham Commission which so many years ago made a study 
of this situation and recommended changes, and we feel the recom- 
mendations of the Wickersliam Commission should be looked into and 
reconnnendations made accordingly. 

Thank you for your courtesy. I shall be glad to answer any ques- 

The CiiAiEMAX. Thank you for a])pearing. 

Mr. HosEXFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to incor- 
jjorate in the record at this point some memoranda that have been sub- 
mitted for incorporation? One is from tlie Harvard Law School 
Chapter of the Xational Lawyers Guild; and the other is a statement 
from Mr. Prokos Kutrubes. 

The Chairmax. They may be inserted in the record, 

(There follows the statement of the Harvard Law School Chapter 
of the National Lawyers Guild :) 

Statement STTB?vriTTr:i) ry Harvard Law Scttooi. Chapter, National Lawyers 


Harvard Law School Chapter, 

National Lawyers Guild, 
Camhridge 38, il/'cr-ss., October 2, 1952. 


Federal Buildinfj, Boston, Miis.s. 

Gentlemen: In the name of the Harvard Law School Chnpter of the Student 
Division of the National Lawyers Guild, we respectfully submit the foUowing^" 
for your consideration. 

Our interest in the Iinmifrration and Nationality Act stems from our con- 
cern for the le^al safeguards, and the strengthening: of such, for aliens within, 
and naturalized citizens of. the United States. We contend that the securing of 
these safeguards flows from the spirit of the Federal Constitution and the laws 

In particular, we desire to point out several sections of the said act which we 
contend are repiTJrnant to the spirit of the United States Constitution. These se- 
lected provisions and suggested amendments follow : 


Sec. 242 (a). Pending a detprminntion of deportability. any alien taken into 
custody may he at the discretion of the Attorney General he continued in cus- 
tody without the right to hail or hond. 


This section is defective legally and morally in that: (1) No standards are set 
forth by which the granting of bail can be determined; (2) there is no judicial 
review of the discretionary decision of the Attorney General as to whether 
to grant bail or not. 

As was pointed out in Carlson v. Landon (186 F. 2d 1S3), "The imagination 
can hardly create a situation more incompatiltle with the spirit of our insti- 
tutions than that where the will of one official's completely secret viewpoint can 
be the basis for siistained imprisonment." This quotation is in reference to the 
refusal to grant bail in an immigration case. 

Judge Sylvester Ryan in Klig v. Shauhnessy, a hearing on bail, stated, "cer- 
tainly the principal inherent in the eighth amendment applies to deportation 
proceedings whether or not such proceedings technically or not fall within its 

In view of the manifest incompatibility between the actions sanctioned vander 
this section and the spirit of our denjocratic procedure, we respectfully submit 
the following as a proposed amendment to this section : 

"Pending the determination of deportability of any alien as provided in this 
act, such alien may petition the hearing officer for release on bail, and subse- 
quently on his denial have the right to judicial review of such by the appropriate 
court official by those standards which are provided by existing Federal Criminal 
Procedure and the eighth amendment to the Constitution." 

Skc. 242 (b). Sets up that a special inquiry officer shall conduct all proceedings 
under this act. It continues to spell out the procedure under which a deporta- 
tion proceeding shall be held. 

This procedure, we contend, does not guarantee the alien the requisite stand- 
ards of due proces.s. In that it omits: (1) The right to and availability of 
<?ounsel ; (2) impartial judge and or tribunal; (3) a bill of particulars of knowl- 
edge of the charge by the alien so charged; (4) failure to provide for judicial 
review of a discretionary decision by the inquiry officer; (.5) failure to provide 
for a petition to remove a prejudiced inquiry officer, judge, or tribunal. 

In the light of the patent necessity to secure for the alien a fair and impartial 
hearing, the following is proposed as an amendment to the above section : 

"Any alien subject to deportation under this act shall be guaranteed the fol- 
lowing requisites of procedure in any deportation proceeding, hearing, action, 
trial, or investigation : 

"1. Right to and availability of counsel. 

"2. An impartial tribunal and or judge including the separate functions of 
judge and prosecutor. 

"3. Presenting the alien with a bill of particulars or statement of the charge. 

"4. Pending the final decision, there shall be a right of judicial review of the 
Attorney General. 

"5. The court shall provide the alien with an opportunity to petition for the 
removal of a prejudiced inquiry officer, to be heard before the appropriate Federal 
court of law." 

Sec. 242 (d). Any alien against whom there is a final order of deportation 
outstanding, shall be subject to the following: (1) To appear from time to time 
before an immigration officer for identification; (2) to submit to medical and 
psychiatric examination; (3) to give information under oath as to nationality, 
circumstances, habits, associates, activities, and such other infoi-mation whether 
or not related to the foregoing at the discretion of tlie Attorney General ; (4) to 
conform his conduct and activities at the discreticm of the Attorney General. 

In eiTect, this section strips the alien of all his rights and safeguards and makes 
him into a prisoner of the Attorney General. This is both a violation of the basic 
human rights of any person, citizen, or alien and of the spirit of the first amend- 
ment of the United States Constitution. 

We, therefore, amend the above section to specify the following: 
"Any alien subject to deportation under this act shall — 
"1. Appear from time to time before an immigration officer for examina- 
tion only upon a certification of an order to appear by a court of law ; 

"2. Submit to a physical examination only when that is stated by the alien 
as his reason for failure to appear ; 

"3. All of the particulars stated in (3) and (4) of above are hereby 

Sec. 287 (a) (1). Any officer of the service shall be empowered to without 
warrant, interrogate any person or alien believed to be an alien as to his right 
to be or to remain in the United States. 


This section urants unlimited power nnd autliority to all personnel of the 
Ininiifiration Service to condnct an in(iuisition into the private life and personal 
conduct of any and all citizens or aliens suspected of heinjj; aliens, for any cause 
be it lej;itiniate or not. 

We. therefore, amend the above section to specify the following: 

"Xo officer of the Service shall be permitted to inferro.ijate a citizen or an alien 
without the reipiired warrant. The reiiuirements for the warrant bein.^ probable' 
cause and shall establish due limitations of tiin<' and locale. Any person sub.iect 
to a warrant under this section shall enjoy all the riuhts and privileges as 
guaranteed by the I'nited States Constitution and existing law." 

A rider to an appropriation bill for the Immigralion Service placed the Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Service beyond the scope of the Administrative 
Procedure Act of IJMG. Previously, the question of the applicability of the 
Administrative Procedure Act has been discussed and litigated and held to bring 
the [nnnigration Service within its provisions. 

The issue is significant for two major reasons : 

1. Sec'tious 5 and 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act provide for the 
appointment of hearing officers by such procedure as will guarantee the 
impartiality and ability of hearing officers. 

2. Section 10 provides for judicial review of the decisions of the adminis- 
trative agency or administrative head. 

It was not until February 20, 1950, that the Immigration Service joined each 
and every Government agency in coming within the provisions of the Adminis- 
trative Procedure Act. This decision was the holding of the United States 
Supreme Court in the leading case of Winf/ Yain/ Sung v. McGnith. Justice Jack- 
son speaking for the majority eloquently stated the reasons f(»r their decision, 
"* * * -Qyii jii;,!- fjj^ safeguards it (Administrative Procedure Act) did set up. 
were intended to ameliorate the evils from comingling of functions as exemplified 
here is beyond doul)t. And this comingling, if objectionable anywhere, would 
seem to be particularly so iu the deportation proceedings where we frequently 
meet with a voteless class of litigants who not only lack the influence of citizens, 
but who are strangers to the laws and customs in which they find themselves in- 
volved and who often do not understand the tongue in which they are accused. 
Nothing in the nature of the parties or proceedings suggests that we should strain 
to exempt deportation hearings from the procedure applicable to all other 

As one legal writer has expressed it in Habeas Corpus in Immigration Cases, 
by Abraham Orlow% Ohio State Law Journal 10: 314-;:').") : 

"It is hard to understand why such exemptions (from Administrative Proce- 
dure Act) is desirable, particularly, regarding the provisions for judicial review. 
The immigration laws of the United States and the problems which arise there- 
under cannot be judicially reviewed with certainty and promptness by a writ of 
habeas corpus alone. A collateral and 'backhanded' procedure is not the ideal 
means to determine the happiness and welfare of a substantial section of the 
resident population." 

Ill view of the foregoing, it is clear that fairness, procedural due process and 
administrative and judicial efficiency warrants the inclusion of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Act within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Procedure 

We submit the following as an amendment to the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Act : 

"This Act shall be ruled and governed by the rules, regulations, provisions, and 
sections of the Administrative Procedure Act without exception." 

As law students, we are particularly aw^are of the necessity of providing as far 
as possible these procedural guaranties which the history of the law in our coun- 
try has shown to be essential (o the fair administration of judicial and quasi- 
judicial actions. These guaranties are desirable, not only so that the alien will 
be offered every opportunity to present the true facts of his case but that the 
officials responsible for the action will be responsible under the law to see that 
each alien is accorded every right and privilege under existing requirements. 

We believe that these recommendations will substantially aid that result and 
we thereff)re respectfully submit them as, 
Respectfully yours, 

National Lawyers Guild, 
Harvard Law Chapter. 


(There follows the statement of Mr. Prakos Kiitrubes :) 

Statement by Prakos P. Kutrx'kes, Steamship Agent, 320 Tkemont Street, 

Boston, Mass. 

To THE President's Commission of Immigration and Naturalization. 

Gentlemen : I wisb to make a statement in regard to the Nationality and Immi- 
gration Act baseu on my experience as steamship agent for the past 45 years. I 
believe that the Immigration and Nationality Act should be revised regarding the 
provisions of parents of American citizens, wives or husbands of American citi- 
zens, and adopted children of American citizens. Under the act, parents of 
American citizens are placed on a preferred-quota status. That means that in 
small-quota countries like the southeastern European countries, these parents will 
have anywhere from 2 to 4 years' waiting period before their quota number 
is reached. In many cases where parents have applied for quota numbers, they 
died or became totally incapacitated for travel before their number was reached 
and the children or grandchildren were deprived of the opportunity to see their 
parents or grandparents. For this reason, I think that parents of American citi- 
zens should be permitted to come as nonquota immigrants. Regarding spouses of 
American citizens the act also works hardship in many cases. Under the act, 
a foreign spouse of an American citizen must wait 1 year before they can come 
to the United States. Besides that an American citizen engaged to a foreign 
spouse must go out of the country and marry and then a year later bring his spouse 
back into the United States. In practice, many American citizens who became 
engaged to nonresident foreigners arranged to go to Bahamas or other nearby 
countries, marry there and then eventually return to the United States. It is 
submitted that American citizens should be permitted to marry their respective 
spouses in the United States and that upon marriage they should become non- 
quota immigrants. 

Many American citizens who have no children are desirous of adopting minor 
children of their close relatives and bring them to the United States to live with 
them as their own children. Under the act, this is impossible unless the adopt- 
ing parents and the children at least 1 year live with them before they can qualify 
to come in as nonquota immigrants. As a practical matter, this is unworkable. 
The child must either come here as a temporary visitor on a pretext and then 
be adopted after a year or the adopting parents must go to tlie foreign country 
and stay there 1 year with the child and then adopt it and bring it to the United 
States. This procedure makes it practically impossible to adopt such a child and 
bring it to the United States. 

It is submitted that if American parents are willing and do adopt a minor child 
in a foreign country the.v have committed themselves legally to the support and 
care of such a child and that such child should have the same rights as a natural- 
born child of the adopting parents. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Pkakos p. Kutrubes, 

The Chairman. Mrs. Florence H. Luscomb. 


Mrs. Luscomb. I am Mrs. Florence H. Luscomb, 140 Huron Avenue, 
Cambridge, and I am State chairman of the Progressive Party of 

Like all but an infinitesimal number, a handful of Americans, and I 
am sure like everybody who is here, I am a descendant of aliens. 
Therefore, I must regard the foreign-born not as hated and dangerous 
enemies, but as the wonderful, raw material out of which America is 
made. The bipartisan McCarran-Walter law violates every basic 
principle of American democracy; first and foremost, its quota pro- 
visions individually discriminating between races repudiates the Dec- 
laration of Independence for the principle that all men are created 


equal. The quotas substitute the master-race theories of Hitler. We 
should certainly advocate the doing away with the national quotas. 

Secondly, the law violates the freedom to think and speak according 
to the dictates of one's conscience, in its deportation provisions. Aliens 
and naturalized citizens are penalized for mere beliefs and opinions 
^Yilllout committing a single illegal act. 

Third, the provision that the foreign-born are deportable for such 
undefinal)le ottenses as actions prejudicial to the public interest, and 
that there is reason to believe that they would be likely to do some- 
thing — ;> million aliens, and 11 million naturalized citizens — subject 
to the totalitarian whims of whatever current administration happens 
to be in office. 

Fourtli, the law subjects men and women guiltless of any crime 
to bankruptcy and inhumanity. It tears families apart, exiles 
mothers from their children, sends old people who have lived here 
from infancy to strange and friendless lands without means of sup- 
port. It even sends anti-Fascists back to execution by Fascist govern- 

We cannot so tear up the Declaration of Independence, and the 
fundamental laws of democracy, justice, and humanity, for the 
foreign-born, without tearing up the guaranties of our own freedom. 
It is as inexorable and inexorably tiiie today as it was when Lincoln 
said it: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for them- 
selves and under a just God cannot long retain it." 

More than 150 years ago the American people, led by Thomas 
Jefferson, rose against a similar alien tradition law similar to this, 
and I believe every lover of American liberty today will demand the 
repeal of this McCarran-Walter law. 

The Chairman. Prof. Pettibone Smith. 


Professor Smith. I am Louise Pettibone Smith, professor of bibli- 
cal histor}' at Wellesley, Mass. I am speaking for the American 
Connnittee for the Protection of the Foreign-Born, of which I am 
cochairman. I am also honorary chairman of the Massachusetts 

In the few moments that I have, I would like simply to under- 
line one or two of the things that have already been said about deporta- 
tion. The American committee has at this moment some 250 people 
who have appealed to us, or to the local committees affiliated with us, 
for aid. Most of these 250 are being deported because they were at 
one time members of the Communist Party. 

So far as I understand it, the McCai'ran Act procedure, in regard 
to deportation, assumes that deportation is not a penalty ; therefore, 
when a man is ordered deported, since he is not receiving a penalty, 
he is not entitled to the protection of the law. Now, one of the people 
under deportation sentence is 68 years old. She has been 45 years in 
this country. She brought up four daughters, several of whom are 
married, and she has grandchildren. It is cei'tainly — whatever it is 
in law — it is certainly a definite penalty to send that woman back to 


a country she left 45 years ago. I checked the first T-t names on the' 
Last list that we had last summer. Out of that first 74, three-fourths 
were meii and women over 50 years of age. Sixty-three out of the 
seventy-four had been 25 years or more in this country, and only 
4 out of the first 75 had been here less than 25 years — 20 years. One- 
half of the 70 had been under 20 when they came to this country. 

Now when boys in their teens, just wanting to get married couldn't 
get jobs in the depression, a lot of them ran with the Communists. 
They grew up, they married, the depression was over, and they are no 
more Communists than I am. But tliey had for a while, like Carl 
Latva, joined the Communist Party, technically, therefore are de- 

It seems to me that whatever the intent of the law, the working ou.t 
of the law has made it a tool in the hands of people who want their 
own way, A lot of these men have been active in union work. It is lots 
more peaceful in the town where they live, I suspect, if some of them 
aren't there. Some of them, I think, have incurred the jealousies or the 
irritation of somebody in authority. 

Here is the McCarran law. One person already has spoken of the 
way people threaten one another in a quarrel with deportation. Un- 
less we can have legal safeguards in this matter of deportation, and! 
unless we can get rid of this retroactive clause, that threat is serious. 
I know some of these people personally. As one said of Carl Latva,. 
whom I don't know, that he is good at tools and he is the kind of 
neighbor that you can wake up in the middle of the night when your 
plumbing goes wrong and he will fix it for you. Most of these people 
that I have met I should be glad to have as my neighbor. 

It seems to me that we are forgetting the guaranties of this Consti- 
tution. It was in 1945 that Justice Frank Murphy said : 

When one is an alien, lawfully enters and resides in this country, he becomes 
invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our 

The McCarran Act in its present form abrogates that decision. Like 
Mrs. Luscomb, my people were Americans for a long time. I want 
America to play fair with the aliens. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. There is one thing I am 
curious about. You talked about this woman who had been here 45 
years, who had in the meanwhile become a mother and a grandmother- 
Why did she never become a citizen of the United States i 

Professor Smith. "Wliy she as an individual didn't, I am not sure,. 
With a good many of these people of whom I do happen to know, it is 
because they moved around looking for jobs. They never stayed in 
one place long enough to get naturalized, and there is also the fact — 
which I am sure must be within your experience — that in a good many 
small towns, in a good many places in this country naturalization of 
people who don't speak good English is not so easy. Some of them 
have tried and been turned down once or twice, and they just got sick 
of it. 

One woman, on the west coast, came to this country as a baby and 
didn't know she wasn't a citizen since all her brothers and sisters were, 
until they threatened to deport her. A good many of the foreign 
women don't think of getting naturalized.. You see, anybody as old 
as Mrs. Kratochvil, what was the point? When she was a young 


woman over here and since she is older, I suppose it just didn't occur 
to lier. She is being deported because she was a member of tlie direct 
])redecessor of the C'ommunist Party. 

Tliere is no suggestion of the fact, apparently, that slie is a member 
or ever has been a member of the present Connnunist Party. It does 
look, as if in certain i)arts of the country, the McCai'ran Act is being 
used as a tool to terrorize, but 1 have no proof of that, I just can't 
understand some of the things that have happened on any other 

If you cau"t deport a militant uuion leader because he is boru in 
America, but you can deport his mother or his father, or even maybe 
his grandmother who wasn't born in this country, and then maybe he 
will keep still or the others like him will. I don't think })eop]e think 
that out in so many words as clearly as I have put it, but I think 
tliat is an underlying motive in a great many of these deportation 

The Chairman. I am still curious why that those who have been 
here such a long time — and you mentioned that you know of cases, 
many of them in that category — I'm curious to know why they never 
became citizens of the United States. You said in many cases it was 
because they moved around the country a great deal. 

Professor Smith. That is true of the boys especially. They took 
a job 2 years here and they went somewhere else and took a job, and by 
the time they were settled down and grown up 

The Chairman. But surely some of them have located in a particu- 
lar spot and stayed there, and yet never became citizens. 

Professor Smith. How many citizeus stay away from the polls every 
year? I think with some of them it is just that same kind of indiffer- 
ence. It just didn't occur to them that it was important. Now I 
don't think you would want to drive out of this country all of us who 
don't go to the polls when we ought to, and for many of them the 
naturalization seemed just like that. They weren't thinking; they 
were already here; they had a nice house and the town was all right, 
why should they mix in politics. 

The Chairman. Thaidv you very much. 

I'rofessor Carl Friedrich will be our next witness, 


Professor Friedrich. I am Carl P'riedrich, professor of govern- 
ment at Harvard University. 

The Chairman. The Commission will be glad to hear whatever 
statement you may desire to make in comiection with the work of the 

Professor Friedrich. I have just returned from Europe where I 
have been acting as a consultant to the people who are engaged in 
bringing about the unification of Italy, France, Germany, and the 
three Benelux countries, so-called. I got back yesterday afternoon. 

I have been very much struck by the fact tliat here we have a 
striking illustration of the forward "march of events, these European 
nations, and others who are in the process of being associated with 
them, like the Greeks, the Turks, and the Scandinavian countries. 


They are all more and more inclined to look upon themselves as one- 
family, with one common cultural tradition, with one common interest 
in the maintenance of democracy and liberty ; and yet in our immigra- 
tion laws this is the thing that 1 found when I bought the paper yes- 
terday upon my return, we insist on continuing the distiiiction between 
Italians and Germans, between Greeks and Scandinavians. It seems 
to me out of date, and I know that it seems out of date to the Euro- 
pean experts and statesmen with whom I have been working in the 
last 3 weeks. I think if these old nations can now get together as one 
common family, it seems only right that we here in the United States 
should recognize this progress, and also put these nations on a common 
basis rather than differentiate between them on a quota system, and,, 
of course, I hope you will forgive me if I, as a scholar, say that to me 
the quota system is based upon some antiquated ideas on anthropology 
and sociology which no longer make much sense. 

I don't think that anyone who examines the history of American' 
social progress in the last 50 years could possibly substantiate the 
proposition that some racial stocks have made substantiall}^ greater 
contributions than other racial stocks. We from all racial stocks liave 
had to work hard with the hands to contribute to the progress of this 
Nation, and the educated have made their contributions; but, let me 
take Harvard University : We have tlie Russians represented by Soro- 
kin, and the Italians represented by Feifer and several others, and 
we have the Dutch represented and the Scandinavians represented and 
the Germans represented, and none would want to say that the con- 
tributions of the Scandinavian was greater than that of the Italian or 
the German, and greater than the people from some other nations. 
That is one thing that I wanted very much to say to your group. 

The other thing I wanterl to say was on a more personal basis but 
it happens to have been reinforced by my recent experience in Europe ; 
and not to mislead you, this recent experience is not something that 
just came about. I was constitutional adviser to General Clay in 
1946, 1947, 1948, and I was constitutional adviser to the Puerto Rican 
Government last year so that these activities are part of my regular 
work and have been for many years. But I was very much perturbed 
when I received the draft of the new legislation and found that it 
reenacted a number of provisions which amount to making the natu- 
ralized citizen a second-class citizen. 

In the first place, I think it is quite definitely contrary to the ideas 
upon which this Nation was built. A great many of the greatest 
Americans were immigrants. Carl Schurtz was an immigrant, but 
he was a Secretary of the Interior and he was the founder of the 
civil-service system in the United States. I mention him because 
being myself of the German lineage he comes readily to mind. But 
you will know of many others of a similar sort. 

Now there seems to me no excuse whatever for providing that an 
American citizen who freely chose to become a citizen of this country 
should be subject to a proceeding whereby he can be deprived of his 
citizenship unless he acquired citizenship by fraud, which is a different 
matter. He really never acquired it, and so the judgment is a 
declaration that he never required it. 

But if a man like myself came to this country — I came to this 
country approximately 30 years ago and married an American giri 


and raised cliildren wlio were American and wlio served in tlie Armed 
Forces of the United States — who has completely identified himself 
with the fortunes of this country, and who has been repeatedly told 
by the most respected amono^ his fellow citizens that his services have 
been valuable — should he contiiuie to be living under a situation where- 
under lie could de de])rived of his citizeJishipi' Not unless you want 
to reco<rnize tluit anybody can be dei)rived of his citizenship, which 
is a completely outmoded notion in the modern world. In the ancient 
world that was the case; you could banish people because you hap- 
pened not to like them. You could banish them because they could 
go to other places. But in the present situation tliat is frequently net 
the case. 

For instance, if you today deprive a Pole who becomes an American 
citizen of his citizenship, he has no place to go. If you had deprived 
me of my citizenship 10 years ago, since I was a known and very de- 
tei-mined opponent of the Nazi system, that was a death sentence. 
Now, I don't tliink that any law enacted in this Nation shouH contain 
provisions of this kind. 

I will make a concession. If you wanted to say a man should prove 
himself, I would be willing to say "all right." Let us say that for 
5 years, or 10 years even, he is like a new club member on a basis of 
proving himself: but. after that, there should' be no such provisions 
in any law, and I woidd like to conclude this by assuring you that I 
have just gone through these lengthy deliberations with European 
jurists on the constitution that they are now in tlie process of making, 
and we got into an argument when we discussed citizenship in the 
new United Europe. There was a sharp criticism of this tendenc}^ in 
the United States. They said: We are now creating a common citi- 
zenship for Europe, and we are much interested in the experience in 
the Ignited States of America, but when we hear that you, after 150 
years of experience which you claim to have been successful, find ifc 
necessary to provide yourself with the power of dej)i'iving people of 
their citizensliip, after a lifetime of association with your Nation,, 
we are wondering whether your democracy is such a success as you 
claim it to be. 

Now, this was to me a very hard argument to take, but I report it 
to you, because I was confronted with it in Brussels ?> days ago, and I 
think myself that for the very fact that we are today in the United 
States placed, and would like to fulfill the role of leader of the free- 
world, we should not give ourselves this type of weakness which offers 
easy opportunities for attack by our enemies. 

Now, I am very happy, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions; 
but these are the two very general points which I wanted to lay before 
your Commission as I have reflected upon the law that you are 

The Chaiioian. With regard to the deportation provision contained 
in this act, how do you look upon those cases where ])ersons admitted 
to this country voluntarily choose to remain aliens for a long period 
of time, and they violate the laws of this country in which they are- 
guests ^ 

Professor Frieurich. I hesitate to comment on this question, Mr. 
Chairman, because I am not fully conversant with the provisions of 
the act, and to the extent to which I have knowledge of this matter, a 
number of cases that have come up in which I have had occasion tO) 


reflect upon it, I have been struck with the variety of situations that 
confront you ; for instance, this summer in New Hampshire, we have 
a little country place up there, and this case of this fellow came up 
who was a Communist some time ago, and although he is married and 
settled and everybody thinks highly of him, now he must be deported 
because what he had done at that time has become an offense. Now, 
but quite apart from the retroactive aspect, I have been impressed 
in this and in a number of other cases with the fact that w^hen you 
say a man has voluntarily chosen not to become a citizen, I'm wonder- 
ing in how many cases this really w'as truly a deliberate act. 

It is true, for instance, that in the case of some of these old Italian 
workers they really didn't know what it was all about when the 
matter was tinally drawn to their attention ; they didn't realize that 
this was not like a connnon-law marriage ; that after a certain number 
of years you just are part of a thing, and since they just worked at 
their place they were caught. 

I know of one case, that of former Chancelor Bruening, who de- 
liberately chose to remain a German citizen for reasons which are a 
bit understandable since he was a prominent political figure, and he 
is actually returning to Germany and I think he always intended to 
return to Germany, which is a very strange statement to make if you 
know Dr. Bruening, but Dr. Bruening committed a very serious crime 
in 1939. He had come to this country as a refugee from Nazi terror 
and persecution. I believe myself that to execute Dr. Bruening, de- 
pending upon the nature of the crime, would have been entirely ap- 
propriate. He should be treated like everyone else. But to deport 
Dr. Bruening to Nazi Germany, from which he lied here, w'ould have 
been probably unjust, unless you wanted to execute him, and if you 
did want to execute him I don't see why you couldn't execute him 
here rather than go through all the expense of shipping him back 
to Germany and creating an international incident. 

So, I would rather, on the ground of prudence be inclined to say 
you don't want to have a hard and fast rule; you would not want to 
reclude the possibility of deportation when that seemed indicated, 
)ut I w'ould rather have no general provision for deportation, and 
say that when the legislative authority, in connection with a particular 
kind of crime wishes to provide for deportation, it should be con- 
sidered a special type of punishment to be meted out in connection 
with a special kind of crime; and ordinarily, as is true in all civilized 
countries, the resident in the country shoulcl be treated as a resident 
in the country even if he had citizenship elsewhere. 

Deportation is a very antiquated method under modern political 
conditions, and I am particularly inclined to urge this because the 
moment you raise the issue of deportation you bring into the picture 
an authority — namely, the immigration authorities — which are, due 
to the clear line of judicial decisions by the Supreme Court and other 
courts, much less subject to judicial restraint than other governmental 
authorities. And I think we ought to be very slow to involve these 
judicially unrestrained authorities in connection with the punishment 
of crime. 

The Chair:max. What would you do in those cases where deporta- 
tion orders issue but cannot be executed as where the alien's country re- 
fuses to accept him ? 



Professor Friedricii. Well, my inclination would be, sir, this 
spriniis from my general thou^iht about law: That it would be per- 
fectly justifiable to say that the commission of certain kinds of viola- 
tions by an alien is a more serious crime than the commission of the 
same acts by a citizen ; and, therefore, an alien should be given 2 years, 
where a citizen is given 1 year. But deportation is, in my opinion, 
not the way to cope with these situations because it is an undiifer- 
entiated judgment. It always reminds me of the days a thousand 
3'ears ago when for any number of crimes, as you can read it in 
the laws, people were killed, and the reason was there were no prisons, 
no administrators, and the only thing you coidd do when somebody 
did something you didn't like was to chop off his head. Well, the 
whole program of criminal law has been to differentiate and to intro- 
duce humane considerations so that the punishment fits the crime, 
as we say. 

Now, deportation is a punishment that very frequently doesn't fit 
the crime at all ; and, as you say, the result is that, since no one wishes 
to enforce the unsuitable punishment, no punishment at all is pro- 
vided, which is a mistake. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What are your views on the retroactive 
aspects of this act, especially with regard to membership in organiza- 
tions that are designated by the Attorney General as subversive? 

Professor Friedricii. You are raising now, sir, the question of retro- 
active legislation ; on this I am very firm — I mean I am opposed to all 
retroactive penal legislation. I think it is subversive of all good 
order and law. The Nazis do it, and the Communists do it, and it 
is an uncivilized, undemocratic, illiberal method to say that because 
I now feel differently about something that was done 10 years ago 
than I did 10 years ago, I will now decree that what was done 10 
years ago was then a crime or a criminal act. This is slightly un- 
acceptable for any kind of legislation. 

The Chairman. Should the penal aspect be restricted to the case 
of membership in a subversive organization involving more than the 
single act of membership alone? 

Professor Friedricii. You know — probably others have told you — 
that one of the most unfortunate things that we have done was the 
provision in the McCarran Act by which aliens were barred from 
coming to this country because of membership in organizations objec- 
tionable for one reason or another to people in this country. You 
pr()bal)ly heard about the reaction in Italy where somebody got up in 
the Parliament in Italy and said he wished to introduce a law that 
the consulates in the United States be instructed that no one could 
be granted a visa to Italy from the United States who had belonged 
to the Ku Klux Klan or any other antidemocratic organization. It 
riled our friends in Euro})e no end that we should concern ourselves 
with wliat people had done, often 20 years ago. 

You have heard about all these cases of peo])le who were one thing 
or another in ll>2r) or W')!. In other words, while I stress the penal 
aspect, ]\Ir. Chairman, I am not sure it is quite right restricting it to 
the penal as]:)ect, because while strictly speaking we speak of punish- 
ment in relation to crime, actually to deny, for instance, a person a 
passport who wants to go and visit his old mother in Italy is a punish- 
ment. Now, you can say "Oh no; this isn't a punishment; I'm just 

25356 — 52 29 


not giving him a passport,'' but to this man it may be more of ti punish- 
ment than if you fined him a thousand doUars. If you said to him 
"Because you belong to a Communist organization I won't give you a 
passport but for a payment of $500,'' he might say "All right; I will 
give you the $500." He would much rather do this than not be able to 
visit his old mother in Italy. Yet, this is precisely what is being done 
at the present time. 

Now it is wholly objectionable. However, I haven't had that part 
of the act examined. I have concentrated on these points which I 
spoke of first which at one time Senator Saltonstall asked me to 
comment on. 

Commissioner Fisher. Many of the witnesses who have appeared 
have criticized the national-origin quota system as having anachronis- 
tic qualities, but there has been a considerable difference of opinion 
as to what to substitute for it. Have you any opinion as to what you 
would propose in lieu of the national-origin quota system ? 

Professor Friedrick. I was struck by the very fact that Senator 
Lehman, in his testimony the day before yesterday that was reported 
in the New York Times — and I only know what was said in the New 
York Times — said that the admission should be leased upon consider- 
ations of qualifications. Now, I think that introduces a very doubt- 
ful possibility. In the first place, what constitutes qualification? 
That could be worse than a quota system under which you admit any- 
one who wants to come, provided he is an Italian and is not over the 
quota. Very vicious kinds of discriminatory judgments could readily 
develop under such an arrangement, and I would myself be inclined 
to say that, as long as you develop a more flexible program, the thing 
that's bad about the quota system is that you take an arbitrary year, 
before the beginning of this century, and you say, "According to this 
year, that was a good pattern of immigration ; according to this year, 
we permit immigration every year ever after." That doesn't make 
very much sense. 

Commissioner Fisher. Would you favor an immigration system 
with a ceiling based on present-day population on an across-the-board 
basis, without any distinction between Europe and Asia ? 

Professor Friedrich. I would draw a distinction, sir, between the 
nations of European culture who have founded this Nation and in 
terms of whose culture this Nation's culture has developed. To my 
way of thinking, America is in broad, overglobal cultural terms part 
of what we call western culture. That is to say, broadly speaking, 
the area of Christianity. And then you get to the areas of the world — 
and this is not involving in judgment in values — whose people are 
shaped by Buddhism, Confucianism, Mohammedanism, or what have 
you ; and, due to the fact that I attach a great deal of importance to' 
religion as a formative force in shaping human beings and shaping 
human culture, I would say that I would consider these two things as 
separate. I would say that there is no reason why a vital and vigorous 
community like the United States of America — or the United States 
of Europe, for that matter, if they come into existence — could not 
assimilate a certain number of people from a wholly alien culture — 
Confucianism or Buddhism or Mohammedanism — but it would neces- 
sarily be a limited number. So, I would say that in the case of tliese 
the argument for a quota is much better founded scientifically than 


in niakinir a discrimination between Germans and Italians or between 
Scandinavians and Spaniards. I wonld say, as far as — let's call it — 
the European culture is concerned, my inclination wonld be to say, if 
we ai-e \villin<r to admit ir)0,000 Euro]:)eans, I would set the quota 
between them accoi'dino; to tlie ])opu1ation in each of these countries. 
If there are 45,000,000 Italians, then they would have that percentage 
of the quota, and if there are 50,000,000 Germans, that percentage, 
and if there are 8,000,000 Dutclnnen, tliat percentage, and I would 
parcel it out between them in this way. 

Commissioner Fisher. With the rationalistic iirgings present in 
areas of tlie non-Western World today, such as the Middle East, would 
it not be a mistake for the Ignited States to identify itself solely as a 
Avhite Christian country? 

Professor Frikurich. I would say simply that here you have a po- 
ten.tial problem of the magnitude of personal assimilation because if 
3'ou applied your standard of population, why, then you woukl have 
to admit 10 times as many Chinese as yon would Italians. 

And this is absurd, and consequently what I am saying is that, in 
connection with the admission of people from wholly alien cultures, a 
diflE'erent criteria has to be considered than in connection with the 
admission of people from the same culture, and this criteria, I w^ould 
say, was in terms of absorptive capacity. 

Commissioner Fisher. Is it good policy for the United States to say 
that in terms of assimilation there are two worlds, the white Christian 
world and the Middle and Far East? Will that not be seized upon 
for propaganda purposes by the Communists ? 

Professor Frtkdrich. I think that you find quite a bit of sympathy 
between those broad-minded people with whom I have been working in 
Europe. It is confronting them in connection with Africa, particu- 
larl}' north Africa. Tlie European union that is now being built will 
have to include some north Africans. Why? Because the people who 
live in Africa are already part of France, the elective part of the 
French Assembly, and they will necessarily become part of Europe 
because they are part of France. If they do, if the people in Tunisia 
and Morocco, why not people further down, and you get into this same 
kind of problem and of course there j^ou raise a problem of how' you 
want to define the terms. 

Mr. RosENFiEij). How do they meet it ? How- is the European union 
planning to meet that issue ? 

Professor Friedrich. At the present time they haven't arrived at 
any decision. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : If you were going to 
allocate the number that could be admitted to the United States on 
the basis of population, what would you do with the unused portion 
such as England's and Ireland's, which they haven't been using? 

Professor Friedrich. I would transfer them. I Avould use those for 
the emigration of people where you have surpluses, that's what I 
meant by transferring them. That is, if you have an allocation of 
X-thousand for Britain and only X minus Y people want to come 
from Britain than otherwise, then I would give Y to Italy if, say, 
YX plus Z want to come. 

Tlie Chairman. Would you give it all to Italy or would you make a 
reallocation on the basis of use? 


Professor Friedrich. I would be inclined to make a reallocation on 
the basis of use. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do I understand you are opposed to having 
a quota system based in part on selection according to skills ? 

Professor Friedrich. Yes ; that's yshy I expressed my apprehension 
about any criteria type of selection. I'm all for flexibility, generally, 
in administrative matters, provided that the flexibility does not lead 
to excessive bureaucratic authority in substitution for law. This, I 
think, is always the danger of flexibility. 

At my headquarters in Europe I had plenty of opportunity to watch 
that and see our struggles with it and, as you know, it continues. Poles 
arrive, Czechs arrive, there are the German expellees — but I agree 
with George Shuster that the numbers involved are often greatly 
exaggerated. Probably the greatest single pool of people who are 
ready to go tomorrow are the Italians. 

Commissioner O'Grady. From what part of Italy ? 

Professor Friedrich. Southern Italians, Italians from the starving 
agricultural district where they cannot make a living. 

As a matter of fact last year I talked with Mr. DeGasperi and two 
or three members of the Italian Government about whether or not 
something special could be done for this desperate situation — but on 
the whole I think he is right, that the tendency is to exaggerate the 
numbers involved and I am concerned about starting to say that we 
will take farmers, or we will take maids or we will take textile work- 
ers and so forth, because this type of approach presupposes really 
the kind of directed, if not planned economy which we do not have 
in this country. Here is your handy and undeserved bonus to some- 
body on the basis of bureaucratic discretion which I think is not good. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Statement Submitted By Vera B. Haxson, Cranston, R. I. 

Mr. Rosexfield. I have a letter here, Mr. Chairman, from Mrs. 
Vera B. Hanson. 

The Chairman. Please read it into the record. 

(The letter from Mrs. Vera B. Hansen, read by ]Mr. Harry N. 
Rosenfield follows :) 

Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman, Commission on Immicjration and Naturalization. 

Dear Sir: Just noticed an item in Monday's papers as to this meeting so am 
rather late for Boston meeting but maybe the thouuht expressed will not be too 

Read over the names of the criminals in this country. 

Should we not limit emigration from these places until those already here 
have become better citizens? Why let them in under the title "displaced"? 

The McCarran-Walter Act is all risht as I see it. One or two may be hurt 
but these cases could be carefully examined and pardoned if found unjust while 
the law would keep out such floods as are unworthy and are working to destroy 
the ideals on which this Government was founded. 

Call a halt on immigration until the world settles down to more peaceful living 
is my advice. 

.Just one voice among millions, but may it be heard. 

Mrs. Vera B. Hanson. 

57 Brandon Road, Cranston, R. I. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Mr. Chairman, may I request that the Boston 
record remain open at this point for the insertion of statements sub- 


mittecl by persons unable to appear as individuals or as representatives 
of organizations or who could not be scheduled due to insufficient time. 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

This concludes the hearings in Boston. The Commission will stand 
adjourned until we resume our hearings in Cleveland, Ohio, at 9 : 30 a. 
m., October 6, 1952. 

(Whereupon, at 6: 30 p. m., the Commission was adjourned, to re- 
convene at 9 : 30 a. m., October G, 1952, at Cleveland, Ohio.) 


(Those submitted statements follow:) 


coxgukss of the uxited states, 

House of Representatives, 
Washi)if/tou, D. C, September 18, 1952. 
Hon. Harky N. RosENFiEr.o, 

Executive Director, President's Coniinissio)} on Imini'./ration and 
Naturalization, 17-'i2 G Street XW.. Wasliinf/tov. D. C. 

Dear Mu. Rosenfiei.d : I was indeed pleased with the President's action in 
setting up a new commission to study the present immigration policies of the 
United States. 

The recent action of the Congress in overriding the veto of the McCarran Immi- 
gration Act was, in my opinion, unwise and a great disappointment to me. 

Racial prides and prejudices are not adequate or fair criteria on which 
to base an immigration act, coupled with the name of the United States. 

The McCarran Act militates against the proud tradition tliat the United 
States is the refuge for the persecuted and the enterprising, who will not submit to 

The underlying prejudices of immigration laws, including the McCarran Act, 
based on racial origins of Americans, dated either 1790 or 1920, are obvious to 
even the casual student of these measures. T!ie most positive and ample evidence 
that they are unfair and unrealistic is found in the scurrilous, unprincipled 
publications of our native bigots which come uninvited to every congressional 
office and praise these recent "exclusions," not "immigration," measures. 

Discussion and passage of the McCarran Act came during a period when the 
entire world is most sensitive and alert to the thinking in tlie United States. I 
doubt that any piece of legislation, even those wliich affected directly the economy 
of other nations, so jeopardized American prestige and international relations 
as this so-called immigration bill. Passage of the Displaced Persons Act in 1948 
and its amendments in 1950 enhanced the reputation of our country of being 
tolerant, humane, and, above all, charitable. Passage of the McCarran Act did 
more to wreclf the good reputation we enjoyed for centuries than the Kremlin 
could do in years of propaganda. 

Underlying this vicious and completely un-American philosophy of the Mc- 
Carran Act is the shabby, outworn myth of Nordic superiority, discredited so 
thoroughly by the Nazis. Differences between nationalities do not mean in- 
feriority. If southern lOuropeans, for example, kept their own cultures behind 
some silken curtain of their own, virtually every art museum in the United 
States would have to shut up shop and our symphony orchestras might well have 
quite a monotonous repertoire. 

If a fair immigration law is to be written — and I hope fervently that one will 
be drawn — and if a survey of racial origins and an evaluation of what national- 
ities have given most to the United States is made, then dusty, disintegrating 
records of decades or even centuries ago should be disregarded. 

Let the legislators scan the records of the men and women who served the 
American cause so gallantly in World War I and World War II and those now 
defending the cause of freedom in Korea. It would not be too much to ask of 
these lawmakers to take a stroll through any of our military cemeteries and read 
the names of those who made the supreme sacrifice in upholding our national 
honor and defense. 



Thp McCarran Act sliouUl be revised quickly. My own preference would be 
for the ptMilinir of unused quotas from all nations, as provided in some of the sub- 
stitiuc proposals. We must remain the hope of freedom-loving peoples 

With all fiood wishes, I am 
Sincerely yours, 

Foster Furcolo. 


40 Wellesley Street, Weston 93, Mass., 

October 2, 1952. 
The Libeial Citizens of Massachusetts, a voluntary association of Massachu- 
setts citizens, wishes to go on record as favoring the extensive revision or repeal 
of the so-called McCarran Act dealing with immigration and naturalization. 

The Liberal Citizens of Massachusetts regards it as a great misfortune that 
the opportunity for wide revision and improvement of the previous confused 
body of immigration law should have been lost through the adoption of the above- 
mentioned act, which has incorporated many of the objectionable features of the 
older laws and made our immigration legislation in many ways more rigid, 
restrictive, and illiberal than before. 
In particular we condemn — 

The broadened application of restrictions based on nationail origin and 
race. These restrictions confirm and advertise a theory of the superiority 
of one racial stock over another, regardless of individual character and 
abilities, which we consider untrue to traditional American principles. 

The elimination of sections of the previous law which provided special 
admission for ministers and professors. The new requirement placing such 
persons on regular quotas will put new blocks in the way of intellectual 
and religious exchange between nations which is vitally important at the 
present time. 

The establishment of procedures for revocation of naturalized citizenship 
<m the basis of associations which may be contracted up to 5 years after 
naturalization. This threat establishes an inferior class of citizenship where 
all citizens should be equal before the law. To make the prize which the 
immigrant must work hard to obtain one which may be arbitrarily taken 
away is to cheapen that prize. 

Provisions which virtually bar immigrants without special skills or pro- 
fessional qualitications. Such provisions dispel at one blow the vision of 
America as a haven for the oppressed and unfortunate of other lands and 
serve notice that our generosity is to be extended only to those who will 
bring with them everj^thing they need, who will, in fact, make no demands 
whatever upon that generosity. 
The Liberal Citizens of Massachusetts believes that the great need in the 
world today is a progressive lowering of barriers to the movement of peoples, a 
progressive increase in the exchange of ideas and a progressive abandonment 
of discriminations based upon ideas of racial superiority which are obsolete in 
the modern world. We therefore believe that the McCarran Act should be 

Liberal Citizens of Massachusetts, 
(Signed) John N. M. Howells, 

John N. M. Howells, Chairman. 



405 Barnum Avenue, Bridgeport 8, Conn. 

October 3, 1952. 
Commission on Immigr.\tion and Naturalization, 
Executive Office, Washington 25, D. C. 
Gentlemen : I regret very much that I was unable to attend your meeting in 
Boston, Mass., to which I was invited, held on October 2, 1952. 


Please pei'mit m» to express my views now, in tliis letter, pertaining to the 
immigration and naturalization policies of the United States. 

I am very much opposed to the McCarran Immigration Act because it does 
great injustice and discriminates against honest and hard-working people who 
have proved their devotion to democracy. It favors certain people from certain 
countries, who during the world wars contributed very little to the victory of 
the Allies. The countries, especially of central Europe, received very little or 
practically no consideration for their effort to uphold democracy. The central 
European countries like Poland, with a population of 33,000,000 people before 
the Second World War, received a set quota of approximately 6,000 eligible to 
enter this country yearly. 

There are about 165,000 Poles living in Germany, people who are now exiled 
from their native land because they refuse to knuckle under to Communist 
tyranny. Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and other Slavonic countries are deprived 
of freedom same as the Poles. Italy is desperately overpopulated. Yet, under 
this new law, Italy is given a quota less tlian 6,000. 

Your honorable body should take under particular advisement and considera- 
tion the pitiful plight of the 165,000 Poles left in Germany at the present time, 
according to latest information. 

You can rest assured that the Germans are not friendly and kind to them. 
The Poles in Germany cannot obtain jobs. They are fed poorly and receive very 
little medical care. There are many so-called hard core people amongst them 
and many, many children and young people who should be given an opportunity 
to attend schools, and receive decent education under the guidance and super- 
vision of the United States and other democratic countries. 

The Poles are thrifty, hard-working people who desire to make an honest living. 
Those that were brought here to this country through IRO are an asset to this 
country. They are working in factories, farms, and homes of American people, 
and, with very few exceptions, they are praised by their employers. Their chil- 
dren, as well as the parents, make splendid material for future citizens of our 
country. I am basing my latter remarks on actual experience with recent 
arrivals of so-called DP's, having had a splendid opportunity of coming in close 
contact with them through the State of Connecticut Governor's Committee on 
Displaced Persons, of which I was a member. 

As you are undoubtedly aware, Poles came to this covmtry in 1608, when 
Captain Smith, leader of the Jamestown, Va., Colony, asked London to send him 
some Polish craftsmen. Ever since then the Poles have been rendering valuable 
assistance in the building of this great country of ours. Such outstanding sol- 
diers as Brigadier General Pulaski, father of the United States cavalry, who died 
for the freedom of the Colonies ; Brigadier General Kosciuszko. the founder of 
West Point ; and hundreds and thousands of others that participated in the vari- 
ous wars of the United States, gave a splendid account of themselves and 
have a splendid record as valiant soldiers and heroes. 

You will find them not only as gallant soldiers but good builders of our great 
industrial empire. You will find Poles in the steel mills of (^ary, Ind., and 
Pittsburgh. Pa. You will find them as miners in the mines of Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia and you will find them in the various factories throughout the 
country. Tliey are splendid farmers in the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Minne- 
sota, New York, and New England. They are fine tobacco growers in the Con- 
necticut Valley. You will find them in the various professions of our country, 
in banking, and all types of business enterprises and in all walks of life. 

Gentlemen, we need people of that type now in this country. They ai'e ready 
to stand shoulder to shoulder in the defense of our liberties and our democracy. 
People of Poland are enthusiasts of freedom. They know what it means to be 
slaves, and they are anxiously waiting for the United States to yank them out 
from behind the iron curtain. 

Gentlemen, I submit these few remarks for your consideration and I appeal 
to you from the bottom of my heart to correct the Immigration Act in such a 
manner that it will bring justice to all the people of Europe, especially those 
that are behind the iron curtain. 
Very respectfully yours, 

(Signed) B. L. Smtkowski, M. D. 



Massachusetts Congregational Conference and Missionary Society, 

Iff Beacon Street, Boston 8, Mass., October 6, 1952. 
PREsroENT's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. 

Gentlemen : I was present at your hearing in Boston on Thursday, October 2, 
but I was not able to remain long enough to register my feelings about the Mc- 
Carrau-Waltcr Immigration Act. I have the following objections to this act: 

1. It is based upon an outmoded quota system. 

2. It tends to discriminate against certain groups of people such as those 
from Greece, Uatvia, Turkey, and the Far East. 

3. It does not permit our country to pursue, in the spirit of a generous policy, 
in helping people from other countries. 

4. It places unnecessary limitations on the rights of native-born first-genera- 
tion Americans. 

5. It does not provide adequately for fair hearings or offer a proper basis of 
appeal in connection with the issuing of visas and deportation procedures. 

6. This act is fraught with injustices and inequities and so it tends to discount 
and weaken the influence of our Government within the United Nations and 
among other peoples. 

I wish very much that the law might be amended in view of the above facts 
and also that the quotas for Greece, Italy, and Turkey and for orientals be liberal- 
ized. I am not sure that the best way to accomplish this purpose is by distribut- 
ing unused quotas. I would favor recognizing each country with an adequate 
quota assuming not every country would use it completely. I would hope that 
these objectives might be reached in a revised law without weakening the pro- 
tection against subversives. 

While this letter is written to express my own personal views, the social- 
action committee of the Massachusetts Congregational Conference and Mission- 
ary Society tried to induce our Massachusetts Senate and House of Representa- 
tives to vote against the McCarran act. The legislative committee of the Massa- 
chusetts Council of Churches, of which I am chairman, did the same thing. Our 
conference at its annual meeting in Worcester in May 1950 passed unanimously 
a resolution urging support of Senate bill 2842 and House bill H. R. 411. It was 
the opinion of this group that the Senate bill 2842 offered a much more construc- 
tive and satisfactory solution to the problems involved than did the McCarran- 
Walter bill. 


(Sgd.) Mtbon W. Fowell. 



Polish-American Citizens Club, Inc., 
9 Daniels Street, Salem, Mass., October 6, 1952. 

The Honorable the Members of President Truman's Special Commission on 

Washington 25, D. C. 

Gentlemen : The Polish-American Citizens Club of Salem takes this oppor- 
tunity to express its protest and opposition to the McCarran Act on immigration 
and particularly to those features which, based on the lamentable National 
Origins Act of 1924, even more strictly limits immigration from countries of 
eastern and southern Europe as well as reduces the naturalized citizen to a 
second-class status. 

It is the feeling of our membership that the immigrants from the countries 
which are being discriminated against have on numerous occasions amply demon- 
strated their absolute loyalty to our Nation and tliat the theory of national origins 


as applied by the jNTrCarrau Act is obsolete, un-American, and vicious. Further, 
in the matter of sacrince the naturalized citizen has in many occasions responded 
to a greater degree than even the native-born. 

In view of the foregoing we take this opportunity to urge you most strongly 
after your investigation that you recommend such changes as would remove the 
objectionable features of this particular legislation and thereby place all regard- 
less of national origin on the same level. 
Respectfully yours, 

Adam F. yrF.twNSKi, 

Raymond Z. Sobocinski, 

Mrs. Stasia Zmyewska, 
President, Women's Polish-American Citizens Cluh. 
Mrs. Sophie Quellette, 
Receiving Secretary, Women's Polish-American Citizens Club. 


Yale University, 
409 Prospect Street, New Haven, Conn., October 16, 1952. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : In reply to your letter of October 14, may I say that I 
do not have satisfactoiily expert opinion on the immigration and naturalization 
policies of the United States to be of any service to your committee. In general, 
I hope a way may be found to ease them on behalf of displaced and stateless per- 
sons who would make loyal citizens and of highly qualified technical and pro- 
fessional men and women from whatever country or race whose coming would 
be an asset to the United States. 
Very truly yours, 

(Signed) K. S. Latourette, 
Professor of Missions and Oriental History. 


October 27, 1952. 
Mr. Chairman : I would like to go on record as being definitely and strongly 
opposed to the quota system of the McCarran Immigration Act. It reflects a false 
and undemocratic philosophy in its practical result of all but excluding entirely 
certain "inferior" racial groups. 
Sincerely yours, 

(Signed) Rev. Frederick J. Buckley, 

Professor of Social Ethics. 


Department of Chemistry, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

Cambridge 39, Mass., Octohcr 29, 1952. 
The Honorable Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman, President's Committee on Immigration and Naturalisation, 
Executive Office, Washington 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Perlman : Concerning the difficulties experienced by foreign scien- 
tists trying to obtain visas to enter this country, I concur in large part with the 
testimony given by Prof. Charles Coryell before your conamittee in Boston on 
October 2, 19r,2. There are two points that I should like to add to Professor 
Coryell's testimony. 


Althouiili tlu' visa difiiculties of the younger scientists liiive rec-eived less pub- 
licity tliaii those of the better-known older scientists, the restrictive visa policy 
is particularly daniai:in,i; in the case of the younuer men. These i^eople, less 
well known and wiili fewer cojuiections, have fewer avenues of recourse than 
do the older men when their applications for visas are seriously dela.\ed or de- 
nied. In addition, many of the younger scientists have not been to the United 
States before, and one unpleasant visa experience will he a large part of their 
first-hand information about this country. The resultant bitterness due to our 
restrictive visa policy may well be greater than is engendered when an older 
man is denied a visa. 

The October 1052 issue of the BulletiB of the Atomic Scientists provides an 
admirable survey of the situation as it affects both temporary and permanent 
immigration of scientists and scliolars. This issue documents the problem and 
discusses its adverse effects on scientific progress in this country as well as on 
the United States reputation abroad. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Judith Bregman, 
Judith Bregman, 
Secretary of the Committee on Visa Problems of the Federation of 
American Scientists. 


Yale Uni\'ersity, 
Department of Sociology, 
New Haven, Conn., October 30, 1952. 
Mr. Harry N. Rosexfield, 

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Third Floor, lUiO G Street NW., 

Washinyton 25, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Rosen field : As I pointed out as early as 1923 in my A Constnictive 
Immigration Policy, in 11)30 in World Immigration and more recently in my 
pamphlet, What Shall We Do About Immigration? (1946), and my book. Refugees 
in America (1947), there is urgent need to eliminate the racial and discrimina- 
tory provisions of our immigration and naturalization acts, to improve the 
administration of our immigration and naturalization laws, and to modernize 
and codify our intricate body of legislation on these matters. These were the 
conclusions of an objective, scientific study of the subject. I now find that none 
of these needs or goals has been adequately met by Public Law 414, the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act. So the problem still remains, and it will continue to 
vex and hamper us both at home and in our international relations until it is 

While the new Immigration and Nationality Act has some meritorious fea- 
tures, it has many more provisions that are seriously defective. Chief among the 
defects is its racial and ethnic discrimination evident in (1) retention of the 
national origins quota system, which obviously and intentionally discriminates 
against southern and eastern Europeans, (2) the establishment of the Asia- 
Pacific triangle (wliich is a modification of the objectionable Asiatic barred 
zone provision of the act of 1917) with a racial basis of quota allocation — even 
carried out to the degree of intermixture — instead of place of birth as a criterion 
such as is applied in other cases, and (3) the provision charging immigrants 
born in a dependency to the quota of the governing country and limiting this 
number to lUO a year. The racist concept evident here is both unnecessary and 

Granted a general policy of restriction or limitation in numbers of eligible 
Immigrants, some sound basis of apportionment needs to be worked out. The 
authors of the Immigration and Nationality Act appear to have neglected this 
point, merely continuing the national origins provision and not even considering 
an up-to-date modification of it by using the 1950 population instead of the 1920 
population as the base. Actually, the national origins quota system has proved 
to be inadequate and ineffective as well as insulting to many nationalities. 
Even the slight modification of pooling the quotas so as to permit unused quotas 
to be used by other countries was not made. Nor was any consideration given 


to the appropriate size of the total quota uor to a more flexible system which could 
adjust to changing conditions and needs both in this country and abroad. We 
have the absurd situation, under the limitation of the Displaced Persons Act, 
where half of the quotas of some countries have been absorbed until the next 
century. The new act makes the quota system more rigid, limited, and mal- 
adjusted than before. Also it ignores the question of applying numerical limita- 
tion to the Western Hemisphere as well as the rest of the world. 

The new act has compounded the difficulties of any woukl-be immigrant enter- 
ing this country to the point where one wonders how anyone can gain admission. 
The authors of the act reveal an excessive zeal to screen out possible subversives, 
and tliey give extraordinary, almost dictatorial, powers to the Attorney General 
and various administrative ofiicers with reference to admission of immigrants, 
naturalization and deportation. The whole spirit of the act is anti-immigrant, 
antialien, anti-Negro, anti-Oriental, and anti-southern and eastern European, 
and it is hysterical on the matter of safeguarding the security of the United 
States within the framework of immigration and naturalization legislation. 
Ideally, the act should be repealed and a new start made to create a comprehen- 
sive measure that is sound, nondiscriminatory, and adapted to the best interests 
of this country including its stake in world peace and security. Lacking repeal, 
it should be thoroughly modified. 

(Signed) Maurice R. Davie, 

Professor of Sociology. 


3 llllllllllll 

3 9999 06352 477 9