Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings"

See other formats




Given By 


82d Congress"! COMMITTEE PRINT 

2(i Session J 






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

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 


82d Congress\ COMMITTEE PRINT 

2d. Session J 







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

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 


25356 WASHINGTON : 1952 






Philip B. Perlman, Chairman 

Earl G. Harrison, Vice Cliairman 

Msgr. John O'Grady 

Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson 

Clarence E. Pickett 

Adrian S. Fisher 

Thomas C. Finucane 

Harry N. Rosenfield, Executive Director 

^'^Syr, n^,(A!5| 



Committee on the Judiciary, 
Washington^ D. 67., October ^3^ 1952. 

Hon. Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman^ Presidenfs Commission on 
Irninigration and N aturalizatwn^ 

Executive Office^ Washington, D. G. 
Dear Mr. Perlman : I am informed that tlie 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 dmmigi^ation and naturalization. 

Since the subject pf immigration and naturalization requires con- 
tinuous congressiojfal study, it would be very helpful if this commit- 
tee could have^i^e transcript of your hearings available for its study 
and use, ancj/'ror distribution to the Members of Congress. 

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

Emanuel Celler, Ghmrinan. 



President's Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization, 

ExECUTi-s-E Office, 
Washington, Octoher 27, 1952. 

Hon. Emanuel Celler, 

House of Refresentatives, 

Washington, D. 6. 
Dear Congressman Celler: Pursuant to tl^^^'equest in your letter 
of October 23, 1952, we shall be liappy to make available to you a 
CODY of the transcript of the hearings held by this Commission. We 
shafl Uansmit the record to you as soon as the notes are transcribed 
The Commission held 30 sessions of hearmgs m 11 cities scattered 
across the entire country. These hearings ^vere scheduled as a means 
of obtaiSng some appraisal of representative and responsible views 
on this subiect. The Commission was amazed, and pleased at the 
Zrmous aid active interest of the American people m the subject of 
immioTation and naturalization policy. 

Ev?ry effort was made to obtain the opinions of all, people who 
mi-ht have something to contribute to the Commission s coiiside a- 
tion All shades of opmion and points of views were sought and heard 
The response was ve/y heavy, and the record will include the testimony 
and statements of some 600 persons and organizations. 

Ths record, we believe, includes some very valuable information, a 
c^oony proportion of which has not .hitherto been available in dis- 
cussions of immigration and naturalization. It is of great help .to 
t e Snmission iS performing its duties AVe hope that this material 
will be useful to your committee, to the Congress, and to the country. 
Sincerely yours, ^^^^^^^^ ^ Perlman, Chmrman. 



New York, N. Y.: 

First: September 30, 1952, morning session. 
Second: September 30, 1952, evening session. 
Third: October 1, 1952, morning session. 
Fourth: October 1, 1952, evening session. 
Boston, jNIass.: 

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

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

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

Eleventh: October 8, 1952, morning session. 
Twelfth: October 8, 1952, evening session. 
Thirteenth: October 9, 1952, morning session. 
Fourteenth: October 9, 1952, evening session. 
St. Paul, Minn.: 

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

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

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

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

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

Twenty-fifth: October 27, 1952, morning session. 
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, 1952, mornings session. 
Thirtieth: October 29, 1952, evening session. 
Appendix: Special studies. 
Indexes : 

Persons heard or who submitted statements by session and order of ajjpearance 
Urganizations rei)resented by persons heard or by submitted statements. 
I'ersons heard or who submitted statements by alphabetical arrangement 

of names. 
Subject matter. 

(Page numbers may be obtained from indexes) 





Cpiicago, III. 
eleventh session 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Natnralization 
met at 9:30 a. m., i)ursuant to adjournment, in room 237, Federal 
Building, 219 South Chirk Street, Chicago, 111., Hon. Philip B. Perl- 
man. Chairman, presiding. 

Present: Chairman Philip B. Perlman, and the following Com- 
missioners: Msgr. John O'Grady, Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson, Dr. 
Clarence E. Picl^ett, Mr. Thomas G. Finucane. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. Our first wit- 
ness for this morning is Mr. Eduard D. Gallen. 


Mr. Gallen. I am Eduard D. Gallen, vice president of Latvian 
Relief, Inc., 5523 North Broadw^ay, Chicago, 111., which is the organi- 
zation I represent here. That organization has about 7,000 members. 

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

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Gallen. Mr. Chairman and other members of this, the Presi- 
dent's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, because of 
the many calls, messages, etc., received daily at our oilices, and because 
of our [jersonal knowledge of conditions in a few parts of the world 
from recent visits overseas, there is no doubt in our minds at Latvian 
Relief that the free world is looking to America for guidance. As 
long as the United States helped the DP's, many other nations did 
too. The United States stopped heli)ing them — most of the other na- 
tions stop]jed helping them too. In fact, the free world is very dis- 
appointed whenever and wherever American moral leadership is fail- 
ing or lacking. 

Leadership is most definitely needed in regard to the millions of ref- 
ugees, remaining DP's and expellees. Among them are many gallant 
soldiers, fighters for freedom, who have upheld our own American 
principles in spite of tremendous odds behind the iron curtain and 

Many counti'ies have been and still are over))opulated, and therefore 
can render very little, if anything, in the way of assistance to these 



suffering and homeless millions. If no further assistance is given by 
other countries which can and should do so, many thousands of these 
people will pei'ish, the cause being plain starvation. The Kremlin 
knows all that and is making the best use of this situation. Their un- 
holy propaganda machines are blaring out daily — "You see, we told 
you so. The goodness and so-called liberty and justice for all is noth- 
ing but capitalist propaganda. Actually they are dealing with people 
worse than Hitler did. He killed them, but these capitalists put them 
in camps and then starve them to death, etc., etc." 

It is plain as it can be that we cannot afford to fall into this kind of 
Communist propaganda and therefore must do something to assist 
these DP's, refugees, and expellees. 

While we cannot and should not attempt to feed or buy oft' the so- 
called free world, we must witliout fail prove to the wliole world that 
we mean what we preach and that our principles are high and worth 
more to us than anything else. 

One way to achieve this, without additionally burdening our tax- 
payers is by opening our immigratioji doors for at least another 
800,000 to 350,000 DP's, refugees, and expellees. This number is 
small, of course, but it most definitely will represent a good start, and 
other countries no doubt will wish to follow this gallant example, as 
many countries did the last time our DP program began operating. 

Before the last DP bill was passed, there were those who said — "We 
cannot afford to help. We are short of housing, short of work, and 
short of money, which is badly needed for reconstruction programs, 
etc." But there Avere also those who said, what the Good Book says in 
Luke 6 : 38 — "Give, and it shall be given unto you ; good measure, 
pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give 
unto you. * * * '' 

Thar.k God our Congress passed the so-called DP bill through which 
approximately 300,000 were admitted to this country. 

Let us examine what has happened. Today we have more housing 
than in 19^8 when this bill was passed. We have more employment 
and more money. We spent approximately $19 million in order to 
bring these DP's over, but have received from them in taxes approxi- 
mately $51 million back, and there is more money coming in daily. 

That, of course, is not all. A great number of former DP's have 
been and are fighting in Korea, bleeding and dying for America and 
the principles for which it stands; thus not only showing gratitude for 
what, the American people have done for them, but moreover, saving 
many American-born boys, who otherwise would have had to bleed 
and to die there. 

We have been repaid in many other ways too numerous to mention. 
One thing, hoAvever, is clear, instead of losing we have gained, gained, 
and are still gaining. "We have gi^^en and it was given to us, good 
measure, pressed doAvn and shaken together and running over." 

In vieAv of all this, Latvian Relief, as well as the approximately 18 
Latvian organizations of Chicago, firmly and unquestionably believe 
that American interests can be served best if an emergenc}' bill in 
regard to special immigration is passed by our Congress as soon as 
possible. In fact, such a bill is long overdue. This bill should admit 
to this country, within a period of approximately 3 years, at least 
another 300,000 to 350,000 refugees, DP's and expellees. These people 


should be allowed to enter the United States of Anieiica on a nonquota 
basis. The existino- quotas should not be mortoruoed, and in the case 
where mortgaging was done in order to operate the just completed DP 
])rograni. the quotas should be unmortgaged or released at once, 
because some nations have been mortgaged now for 200 years or more, 
thus excluding these peo])le from emigrating through regular immi- 
gration channels — while othei- nations have never wanted to use the 
(|Uotas which were allotted to them. This, of course, is very unjust 
aiul uii-Amei'ican. and therefore there should be no (^uota mortgaging. 
This would be strictly an emergency immigration bill and should be- 
looked upon as such. 

The bill should give preference to the reunitmg of separated fami- 
lies such as parents and children, brothers and sisters, etc. It should 
also give preference to those who, in the just passed program, remained 
in the so-called pipeline, but because of lack of visa numbers, could 
not enter this counti-y. 

The new bill could be operated ap])roximately the same way the old- 
one was, or better yet, the United States Government could take ovei 
the operational duties in its entirety and pay traveling expenses from 
place of origin to destination. 

The recipient DP's, refugees, or expellees could repay some of the 
Government's expenses within a period of 3 years. The re])ayment 
could be as follows : Every person over 16 years of age should repay 
the Government $100. Everyone between the ages of 12 and 15 could 
repay the Government about $50 whereas children under 12 should 
not be required to pay anything. This repayment should be over and 
above the regular taxes which each and every citizen or permanent 
resident of the United States must pay. 

This bill should also give an opportunity to the ^olnntarv agencies 
to assist the Government in securing housing and job placements which 
the voluntary agencies will undoubtedly be glad to do. 

In concluding we must repeat, that to fail to pass such a bill would 
mean to fail America and the whole free world in the ideals for which 
we all stand. It would mean to surrender our j^rinciples to Commun- 
ist ideology and to fall in the hands of their propagtinda machine. 
It would mean to do one of the most unjust and inhuman things Amer- 
ica lias ever done. It would mean that American leadership and pres- 
tige would get an enormous blow from which it may not be able to 
recover for many years to come. 

On the other hand, if we help tlnese ])eople by opening our immigra- 
tion doors to them, we will gain respect before the whole world, other 
nations most likely will follow our example, and we will benefit in the 
long run financially and many other wa3's. 

Therefore, we again most strongly urge that an emergency innnigra- 
tion bill be passed as soon as possible. 

The Chairman. Are you satisfied with the new immigration law? 

Mr. Gallen. Mr. Chairman, I am not really sufficiently familiar 
to make an unbiased and a good statement. I can, however, say that 
I have read some of the provisions in this legislation and one of the 
provisions which I have studied rather carefully has been the quota 
system, and we can state that the quota system will not be able to 
deal with the present emergency situation which at the moment exists 
in Europe. 

2r):i5(! — 52 42 


The Chairman. Are you principally interested in the emergency 
situation ? 

Mr. Gallen. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else you wish to state with respect 
to the permanent immigration policy of the United States? 

Mr. Gallen. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Palmer Di Giulio, you are scheduled next. 


Mr. Di GiULio. I am Palmer Di Giulio, 150 South Ottowa Street, 
Joliet, 111. I represent the immigration and naturalization commit- 
tee of the supreme lodge, Order Sons of Italy in America, of which I 
am a member. The organization has between 100,000 and 200,000 
members and is represented in the 47 States and the District of 

I have a statement I wish to read first, and a prepared supplement 
containing detailed comments on the law which I wish to submit for 
the record. 

Mr. Di GiULio. My name is Palmer Di Giulio. I live at 150 South 
Otta Street, Joliet, 111. I am a lawyer by profession and for the 
past 21 years have made a specialty of immigration, deportation and 
exclusion matters. Citizenship and naturalization cases, too, have 
been part of my work. During my practice I have had occasion to 
ol)scrve the operation and functioning of our immigration and nat- 
uralization laws as well as to study the various bills relating thereto 
introduced in Congress during the past 5 years. Moreover, I have 
studied and carefully checked both S. 2812 and the ImmigTation and 
Nationality Act of 1952. 

I am here as a member of the immigration and naturalization com- 
mittee of the supreme lodge. Order Sons of Italy in America, a fra- 
ternal organization with upward of 2,000 lodges in 37 States of the 
United States, including the District of Columbia. 

The Order Sons of Italy in America is vitally interested in our 
immigration and naturalization laws. 

Our membership is much disturbed by the implications of the re- 
cent Inmiigi'ation and Nationality Act, because such act is discrim- 
inatory and in many respects unjust. Some phases of this new law 
lend themselves to great abuse for it confers upon the Attorney Gen- 
eral, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Foreign 
Service of the United States, broad discretionary powers of a judicial 
nature. Moreover, a cursory reading of the act reveals that it con- 
tains most of the prejudices and hostility of those charged with the 
administration of it. For these and other reasons we feel that the 
law needs a thorough revision — a revision which makes our immigra- 
tion and naturalization laws liberal, humane and just. 

The purpose of our committee is to study innnigration and nat- 
uralization problems and to make recommendations as to how laws 
applicable thereto can be improved. As American citizens, our main 
concern is to have such laws applicable to immigration and naturali- 


zatioii which are most beneficial to the Government of the United 
States, so that our country can maintain friendly and cordial rela- 
tions with other nations. Therefore, we feel that our Govermnent 
can derive much oood from liberal, humane, and just immigration 
laws. Furthermore, since the United States may be com})elled to 
defend itself against hostile totalitarian powers, we feel that our 
country needs more peoi)le to preserve itself and to help save western 

Since a study of [)opula(ion trends shows that the })opulation of the 
United States is not reproducing itself, it is important for us to con- 
sider an adequate population growth as part of our defense program. 
We should bear in mind that population growth in our possible enemy 
countries exceeds by far the growth of our own. If this trend con- 
tinues we may find ourselves greatly outnumbered and too weak to 
face the dangers to our existence. Although at present we have large 
resources and the greatest industrial potential, the power of numbers 
is still a decisive factor to the well-being of our national existence 
and to our Jeadership in the modern world. Heretofore, the normal 
growth of our population has been made possible through immigra- 
tion. Since 1924, however, such normal growth has been arrested by 
our restrictive immigration laws. Possibly the time has come for us 
to reexamine such restrictive laAvs and to adopt a more practical 
policy in immigration so that our source of manpower may always 
be adequate. 

Since the national origin quota system established in 1924 and 
continued in force by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 
has proven to be illogical and discriminatory against people of Eastern 
and Southern Europe, such a quota system should be revised. As we 
know that only 44 percent of the authorized quota numbers are actu- 
ally used each year, the elfect of such a quota system is that some 
countries have too many quota numbers available, while others do not 
have enough. Simple justice demands that such a system be changed 
so that such available quota numbers be distributed more equitably 
and the unused quotas be made available to countries where such 
quota is oversubscribed. Furthermore, possibly the 1950 census should 
be used in lieu of that of 1920 to determine the quotas for the various 

In the allocation of the quota numbers the McCarran law fixes cer- 
tain categories and establishes preferences for aliens having certain 
skills needed in this country. We feel the administration of this 
phase of the law lends itself to administrative abuse, for the doings 
of political administrative officials is not always inspiring. These 
officials often are easily swayed by clamorous groups prejudiced 
against immigration. Furthermore, the act is not clear as to who and 
how those aliens are to be selected. We believe much confusion ^^ill 
arise in the administration of the act regarding admission of aliens 
possessing re(|uired skills and have our misgivings about the matter. 
Possibly the allotment of quota numbers should prefer ascendants and 
descendants, brothers and sisters, and surviving spouses of deceased 
citizens; also spouses and minor children of legally resident aliens; 
also adopted children of citizens where the adoption takes place prior 
to January 1, 1953. The establishment of such preferences would be 
quite logical because we could judge the quality of the immigrant by 
the reputation and standing of his sponsors. 


Another objectionable feature of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act of 1952 is that it categorizes our citizens. A native-born citizen 
is in a class by himself, for he has privileges and immunities which 
protect him against loss of citizenship. But, a naturalized citizen 
is constantly in danger of being harried by denaturalization proceed- 
ings and loss of citizenship if he takes up residence abroad. This 
situation, we believe, should be corrected and all citizens placed at an 
equal footing. In this connection it is well to bear in mind that many 
of our most chaigerous subversives are native-born citizens of the 
United States. The law^ as it stands categorizing citizens is most 
harassing and unjust. We cannot understand why the United States 
Government, so generous in many ways, should be so inconsiderate 
of its naturalized citizens. Xearly all countries of the world acclaim 
their citizens or subjects. Our country, on the other hand, seems to 
want to shun them — particularly if they are naturalized. Possibly, 
our provincial thinking should be deleted from our laws. 

As to dual citizens, we feel that the Immigration and Nationality 
Act goes too far. Possibly the hostility and prejudice of owr Foreign 
Service has had its sway upon the mind of our Congressmen. While 
we do recognize the dual citizen problem as a difficult one, we feel 
that the policy of generous liberality prevailing before the adoption 
of the act was the proper policy for our Government. As time passes 
there will be fewer and fewer dual citizens, so that the problem will 
ultimately solve itself. All immigrants who today come to tlie United 
States for permanent residence liave no intention of going back to their 
native country or elsewhere. The periodical trips of former days to 
the native country to raise children is no longer in vogue. 

With reference to de])ortation proceedings, the Immigration and 
Nationality Act is unduly harsh in its requirements of prolonged resi- 
dence before administrative relief can be granted. The old law, im- 
proved by making undue hardship to the alien involved a ground for 
affordi]ig him administrative relief, should have been retained in tlie 
new act. The prolonged residence of the deportable alien before the 
privilege of suspension of deportation is available, is unreasonable. 
Too many circumstances can arise pending deportation which make 
it imperative that the alien be not deported. Furthermore, the re- 
quirement that suspension of deportation be ap])roved by a congres- 
sional resolution is unduly dilatory and irksome. Whiit difference does 
it make in a proper case if suspension is granted by the simple act of 
the Attorney General without such a congressional resolution? We 
trust the Attorney General with so many discretionary functions, why 
not trust him with the function of making final orders of suspension? 
We see nothing wrong in this. 

In the Immigration and Nationality Act our Congressmen, possibly 
under pressure from those charged with the duty of administering 
our innnigration and natui'alization laws, have granted broad dis- 
cretionary powers not only to tlie Attorney (xeneral but also to our 
Foreign Service. We feel tliat the placing of such broad powers at 
the disposal of sucli authorities goes much too far. In some instances 
the power conferred is so great as to vest into such authorities powers 
which are entirely judicial. Possibly judicial powers should not be 
conferred too freely upon administrative officials, much less to consu- 
lar officers. 


Altlioiifjli Ave do not (lisa<i"roe with the <ii;iiitin«i'()f power to iiimiiaru- 
tioii officers to determine dejjortation and exchision cases, we feel that 
tlie ri<rhts of the alien should be more amply jjrotected by ])roper appeal 
directly to the Attorney General or to the l>oard of Immiiiration Aj)- 
peals. In the lnnni<>ration and Nationality Act the Attcnney General 
is giyen so many functions that he cannot humanly attend to all of 
them. He must perforce dele<iate them to assistants, wdio possess 
special skill to perform them. Why not create a Board of Immigra- 
tion Appeals by law rather than to leaye the creation of it to the dis- 
cretion of the Attorney General^ This would be more in accord to 
goyernment by law rather than to goyernment by men. 

In this statement we haye tried to stress the most objectionable fea- 
tures of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. To some extent, 
we haye offered suggestions as to how oiu- immigration and naturaliza- 
tion laws can be improyed. But this statement is far too incomplete 
to adequately cover such a broad and intricate subject as immigration 
and naturalization. To do justice to the subject, prior to the writing 
of this statement, I wrote yarious comments on the Inniiigration and 
Nationality Act. These conniients, though not in form required by 
your rules, we present to you herewith. We hope you will consider 
them for what they are worth in making your report to our President. 

Possibly this statement, long as it is, would not be complete unless 
we say a word about the displaced persons and the refugee problem 
in cevtain areas of Europe. We fayor legislation which seeks to relieve 
such a problem. Humanitarian reasons impel us to take such a stand. 
We trust you will seriously consider this matter, for immediate relief 
is imperative. 

In behalf of the supreme lodge, I thank you for affording us the 
privilege of discussing immigration, naturalization and the refugee 
problem with you. We hope your work will be successful and fruitful. 

The Chairman. If the sentiment against the new act is as you have 
expressed it in your statement, how do you account for the law having 
been passed by the Congress over the President's veto ^ 

Mr. Dr Giulio. Well, possibly Congress did not have all the facts 
and the implications of the act were not brought to the attention in 
a proper manner. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Did your organization appear at any of the hear- 
ings held by the McCarran-Walter committee? 

]Mr. Di Giulio. I believe our organization did appear and we offered 
suggestions and, if I may say so, some of our suggestions w^ere incor- 
porated into the bill but not enough. 

Commissioner Pickett. Does your organization accept the present 
quota system as a just and fair basis on which to accept citizens into 
this country? 

Mr. Di GiuiJO. No; absolutely not. 

Commissioner Pickett. What would be the attitude of your organ- 
ization if the quota system were readjusted so that it didn't favor 
mo7-e northern Europeans in preference to southern Europeans? 

Mr. Di Giulio. We would be inclined to favor it if it were readjusted 
and some provision were made for the use of u.nused quota numbers 
which go to waste under the present law. 

Connnissioner 1'tckeit. What type of quota system woidd your 
oriranization favor? 


Mr. Di GiULio. Well, I believe the best approach to that would be 
to use tlie 1950 census in lieu of the 1920 census. That in itself would 
bring about some sort of readjustment. 

The Chairman. Would you explain again the view of your organi- 
zation on the national origins theory of the quota system ? 

Mr. Di GiULio. We wouldn't favor any such a quota system of that 
sort, because we feel that all human beings are created equally. 

Now, of course, possibly the quota, instead of being based upon 
national origin as it is today, under the census of 1920 or 1950, pos- 
sibly could be based upon the population of these various countries 
involved and a certain percentage of population, based upon their 
nearest census, could be used as a basis of determining how many 
immigrants should come from such a nation. 

The Chairman. Do you think there should be any differentiation 
in the quota between people from Europe and people from other parts 
of the world, such as Asia ? 

Mr. Di Giulio. I presume it would be rather correct for the United 
States to sort of favor those countries which make up a part of perma- 
nent civilization, and it might have to be discriminatory in some 
respects. Of course, if vre are going to have a hostile Asia and other 
parts of the world, we certainly don't want to go out all the way and 
say we will take you in on equal terms. You haA^e to draw the line 
of demarcation somewhere; but I am not in a position to say where. 

The Chairman. What is the position of your organization with 
respect to distinguishing between the nationals of different countries 
of Western Europe or Soutliern Europe or Asia, and any place else 
in the world under the quota ? 

Mr. Di Giulio. We feel people of Europe should be treated alike, 
no matter whether they come from east, south, or north, or anywhere 

The Chairman. Do you think they ought to be given priority over 
the nationals of other countries ? 

Mr. Di Giulio. In a sense, yes; but that question is a hard one to 
deal with. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Di Giulio. 

INIr. Di Giltlio. I would like to submit for the record a prepared 
supplement that examines the law in more detail. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 

(There follows the prepared supplement containing comments on 
Public Law 414, submitted by Mr. Palmer Di Giulio on behalf of the 
immigration and naturalization committee, Supreme Lodge, Order 
Sons of Italy in America :) 

Comments on Public Law 414. Eighty-second Congress 

1. Section 101 (c) (1) : This subsection limits adoptions to those made within 
the United States before the adopted child attains the age of 16 years. I be- 
lieve this subsection should be changed to limit adoption to the maximum age 
fixed by law in the State or Territory where such adoption takes place. 

Also, the subsection should permit children adopted abroad prior to Janu- 
ary 1, 1953, to come to this country regardless of age, where such children were 
adopted in good faith by citizens of the United States. 

Comment. I know of several cases where American citizens were induced to 
adopt close relatives abroad upon being assured that such adopted children 
could emigrate to the Ignited States. No doubt such citizens were misinformed, 
but Congress could certainly help those citizens. Personally, I believe it should 


be done because there are not too many cases and the Janiiarj- 1, 195;>, damper 
wouhl protect the change from being abused. 

2. Section 101 (f) ('2) : This ( lause provides that "one who during such period 
has committed adultery" sliould not be considered as a person of good moral 
character. Without confessing to any such acts on my part, I believe this 
is absurd, for it gives to enforcing officers a chance t(» pry into the gallantries 
of prospective citizens and give vent to the officers' whims and prejudices. In 
an age where public morals are much too loose, this is a catch-all net. 

o. Section 101 (g) : This subsection is much too harsh, because a person 
who is ordered deported and pays his own expenses shall be considered deported 
for the purposes of the act. This subsection works against the interest of the 
linited States, because the alien involved most certainly will insist upon being 
deported at (Jovernment exjjense. I believe aliens who depart voluntarily and 
at their own expense after being ordered deported should not be consulered 
deported, except in those cases which are against the interest and security 
of the United States. 

4. Section 104 (a) : This section gives the Secretary of State authority to 
determine nationality of those not in the United States. In a way this section 
goes too far and lends itself to capriciousness and abuse. The personnel of 
the Foreign Service of the United States is not too much in sympathy with 
certain tyi>es of citizens, particularly those who were naturalized and 
who derive citizenship or nationality from naturalized citizens. This liind of 
a law, because it can be abused, should be frowned upon. 

n. Section 202 (a) (3) : This subsection provides that an alien born in the 
United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which 
he is a citizen or subject, etc. This subsection possibly is unconstitutional. Con- 
ceivably, children born to diplomats while in the United States may be considered 
as foreigners, but the law should be specific as to this and not leave the matter 
in doubt. Under the rules of international law there are many privileges and 
imnuinities granted to certain foreigners, provided they fall within the cate- 
gories specified by such rules. Statutory law, in my opinion, should specifically 
specify which aliens born within the United States are to be considered as 

(>. Section 201 (a) : This subsection should have the year 1950 in lieu of the 
year 1920 as the basis for the quota system. The census of 1920 as the basis for 
the quota system discriminates against eastern and southeastern Europe. More- 
over, according to Congressman Celler, the annual quota based upon the 1920 
census is used only to the extent of 44 percent ; r>G percent of such quota remains 
unused each year. Since no provision is made for the transfer of such unused 
quota to those countries which have exhausted their quota, not enough immi- 
grants reach the ITnited States. As the studies condvicted by Frank W. Note- 
stein, director, office of ixtpulation research. School of Public and International 
Affairs, Princeton University, demonstrate that since our population will soon 
become static and will not reproduce itself, it is necessary to meet this situa- 
tion by permitting more people to come from Europe than heretofore. This is 
necessary l)ecause our population must l<eep abreast witli that of our possible 
enemies and as a measure of self-preservation. Congressman Celler alluded 
to this problem in the legislative liistory accompanying the majorit.v report 
in favor of the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 

7. Section 202 (a) (1): This subsection is not entirely clear as to how 
qualified quota immigrants whose services ai'e determined to be needed urgently, 
etc., are to be selected and by whom they are to be sponsored. Tender the old 
contract labor section (8 U. S. C. A. 1.36) wholesale sponsorships by inducements 
or promises of emi)loyment were done away with. Tlie question which arises 
lip.der the new law is this: How and by whcmi are those immigrants wliose 
services are urgeidly needed to b*^ sjionsored? Must cori)orati(ins do it? It 
would seem that this new part of the law is going to be difficult of application. 
Entirely loo nuicii reliance is jMaced npon the judgment of the Attorney General 
and of the Secretary of State. These two officers usually are not in oflSce long 
enough to have clear ideas as to what to do to replace needed skills. Also, being 
politicians, they are ant to listen to the siren's song of clamorous groups. 

Possibly, a w(>]l-defiiied iK)licy of individual sponsorship should be instituted 
witli regard to the importation of i)articular skills. Also, a S(>nsible system foi 
the dissen)ination of iTiforniation regarding the needed immigrants possessing 
the necessary skill sliould be devised. 

8. Section 207: This section provides that whenever a quota immigrant is 
found not to be a quota inmiigrant. no immigrant visa shall be issued in lieu 


thereof to any other immigrant. Query : Why is our Government so niggard 
in issuing visas under these conditions? Apparently the more visas the Foreign 
Service can liill the better. 

9. Section 212 (a) (14) : This subsection is particularly bad for it befogs the 
classes of skilled or unskilled immigrants who are to be admitted into the 
United States. This subsection can be arbitrarily and capriciously applied and 
it can ])e abused unduly. Apparently the proponents of such a text are playing 
politics with the moods of rabble psychology. There is nothing logical in such 
a provision. What was said of the Attorney General and of the Secretary of 
State in paragraph 6, can be repeated with greater emphasis about this subsec- 
tion. Furthermore, the impact upon the immigrant who is on his way to the 
United States only to find himself excludable at a port (»f entry, is unduly hu- 
miliating. Our experiences with lent and price controls, which have changed 
with the moods of the administrators, demand that greater caution sliould be 
exerci.sed in adopting basic legislation. 

10. Section 212 (a) (17) : This subsection is unduly severe in tliose cases where 
an alien has fallen into distress and has been removed from the United States. 
Many persons fall into distress through disease or misfortune; if in distress one 
year, they may be entirely self-supporting the next. A consular officer when 
application for a visa is made by such a deported person, can handle the situa- 
tion quite well. The consent of the Attorney General for readmission is entirely 

11. Section 212 (a) (2o) : This subsection is harsh in that it requires that 
an immigrant be able to read and write some language or dialect. I don't know 
why our Government should insist on a literacy test as a requisite for admission 
into the United States. Many illiterate but honest people have come to the 
United States and contributed to the progress of this great Nation their useful 
toil. The fallacy of this policy lies in tlie fact that learned people do not like 
to work with a piclv and a shovel or at jobs which require willingness and a 
strong back. Had we depended upon cream puffs to build railroads, we would 
still be traveling by oxcart. 

12. Section 212 (d) (S): This subsection provides that the President, by 
proclamation, may suspend immigration midei" certain conditions. I liave no 
fault to find in such a provision if wisely aplied in appropriate situations. 
But such a power should never be exercised to prevent reunion of families^ unless 
the situation is so serious as to make it mandatory. 

lo. Section 218: This section requires that either a bond be posted or a post 
office account established to guarantee that an alien shall not become a public 
charge. This provision seems a little harsh and the requirements should only 
\>e met when the prospective immigrant is physically unable to earn a livelihood 
because of natural defect or disease. 

14. Section 241 (a) (4) : This subsection provides that an alien may be de- 
ported if at any time he is convicted of two crimes involving m.oral turpitude. 
Since the term "moral turpitude" has no uniform accepted meaning under the 
laws of tbe various States, at times an act may involve moral turpitude in one 
State and not in another. Possibly this would result in making an alien deport- 
able in one State, while in another State an alien may commit identical acts and 
escape deportation. Tliis provision should be clarified and made more intelligible. 
The old law requiring two convictions and two sentences of 1 year or more was 
more logical. 

1"). Section 241 (a) (9) : This subsection is illogical because violation of statu.s 
is predicated uixm frivolous acts and activities which are quite innocent in tbem- 
selves as to be unoblectionable. Recently in one of my cases a $r)00 l)ond was 
forfeited because the nonimmiarant worked a few days while here as a tempo- 
rary visitor. In her case, she just went to work to be with new friends which she 
had made during her visit. What was wrong with her working a bit? To have 
such provisions into the law. lying is encouraged. If a nonimmigrant is going to 
stay in the United States for any length of time, such nonimmigrant cannot 
spend time entirely in idleness or in nonproductive activities. 

16. Section 241 (a) (1(>) and (17) : These two subsections provide penalties 
v/hich are entirely too drastic for the nature of possilde offenses under the Alien 
Registration Act. Some violations under such act are entirely too trivial to 
subject the offending ali(^'n to deportation. 

17. Section 242 (e) : This subsection seems to be quite drastic in that an alien 
who fails to depart following the entry of a deportation order, in certain given, is deemed guilty of a felony and considered a felon. But this provision, 
if used properly, can be made workable without doing too much injustice. 


IS. Section 244 ( :i ) {2) and (3) : These two subsections are an improvement 
over the okl law, bul the hMigth of residence of 5 years is entirely too long. Far 
too many tliinjis can happen within a shorter period than 5 years to make 
suspension of dejiortation not only desirable but necessary. To .some extent 
(such as in noninunigrant cases) the harshness of the foregoing provisions is 
tempered; but tlieie are far too many cases where the requirement of residence 
tor suspension purposes cannot be met. Section 245 favors nonimniigi'ants. The 
privilege of adjustment of status under section 24r» .should inclnde other cases 
als(» where the Attorney (Jeneral is of the opinion that dei)ortation of the alien 
would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his spouse, pnrent, 
oi' child who is a citizen or alien lawfully admitted for i)erm;inent residence. 
The two i)rovisions of section 244 should be revised. 

I!>. S(>ction 244 (b), (c), and (d) : These provisions requii-e that the Attorney 
General make a report to Congress as to cases where suspension is applied for. 
The re(piirenient of a congressional resolution to effect cancellation of deportation 
is entirely too dilatory. Also, the I'equirement suggests lack of confidence in 
the Attorney General on the part of Congress. The anomaly seems to he that 
in .some respects Congress has implicit and absolute confidence in the Attorney 
General and in the Secretary of State and in other respects it has no confidence 
ar all. If the Attorney General were required to keep up-to-date records on all 
suspension cases. Congress or congressional connuittees could at all times 
check upon such cases to see what is happening in deportation cases. To con- 
sume tlie time of more than .")()() Congressmen in a suspension-of-deport^tion 
case, is not only too expensive but absurd as well. 

20. Section 249 (1) : As I suggested before, a record of admission should be 
made after the alien, no matter how he entered, has resided continuously in the 
United States no less than 15 years or possibly no less than 20 years. As the 
provision stands now, July 1, 1!)24, is entirely too remote to make such a record. 
If an alien has resided in the United States for more than 15 or 20 years, he 
already has deep roots in the United States. In a sense, if immigration officers 
are not able to catch up with aliens within 15 or 20 years, then possibly they 
are not on the alert. Again, since such aliens could then apply for suspension, 
the Government would save expensive deportation cases by the simple device 
of recording their admission. 

21. Section 266 (b) : This subsection makes an alien deportable if he fails to 
comply with some of the minor requirements of the alien registration law. Of 
course, there may be cases in which failure to comply with the provisions of the 
alien registration law is done with impunity, but the risk of deportation is 
something too drastic in cases of mere oversight. 

22. Section 301 (a) (7) : This subsection provides that a person born out of 
the geographical limits of the United States of a citizen and an alien parent must 
reside in the United States at least 10 years after the age of 14 and before the age 
of 28 in order to be a citizen and natioiuil of the United States. This require- 
ment is quite new and possibly much too drastic. It reveals a prejudiced and 
hostile feeling towai'd our otherwise nationals and citizens. This provision lays 
the foundations for discrimination between native-born citizens and tliose who 
are born abroad. 

23. Section 301 (b) : This subsection provides that a national or citizen of the 
United States at birth under paragraph of subsection (a) shall lose his nationality 
and citizenship miless he comes to the United States before he attains the age of 
23 and sliall immediately after such coming be continuously present in the United 
States for at least 5 years. This [)rovision is certainly too drastic and unduly 
discrinnnatory. I'redjudice and hostility are too obvious in such a provision. 
Why should the United States shun its citizens so much? Subsections (a) and 
(b) extiri)ate dual citizens and many others. But. why? 

24. Section 309 (a) (b) (c) : This section makes absolutely no provision for 
acknowledgment of a child born out of wedlock. I'.y requiring legitimation, 
there is jibsolutely no possibility for the putative father to acknowledge his own 
child. I know of a case where a child was born from a union between a brother 
and a sister. The brothei" was a ITiiited States citiz'Mi ;ind the sister a Canadian 
by birth. In this case ligitimation was impossible because nnirriage b<>tween 
the two was unlawful and absolutely void. The child was found in the TTnited 
States coiitrai'y to law, but acknowleilgment by the f;itlier under the laws of 
North Dakota prevented its deportation. Certainly the child was not responsible 
for the way he came into the world. 

Possibl.v, section 309 could be humanized so as to re<piire simple acknowledg- 
ment pursuant to law for those cases in which marriage between the mother of 


the child born out of wedlock and the putative father is prohibited by hiw as 
being incestuous or such marriage cannot be legally celebrated. 

25. Section 312 : This section requires that an applicant for naturalization 
be able to read and write and speak words in ordinary usage in the English 
language. This requirement is much too drastic, because many illiterate immi- 
grants do quite well for this country and for themselves. Usually they are 
hard-working people who raise big families and behave much better than tlie 
educated ones. These humble immigrants do a lot of hard and useful work, 
which the educated ones slum and consider below their dignity to do. In my 
long experience among immigrants, I think it is a sad mistake to be too rigid 
with the literacy requirement for prospective citizens. 

26. Section 320: This section limits the age in whicli a child can acquire citi- 
zenship, under the conditions specified therein, only if the alien parent becomes 
naturalized before the child reaches the age of 16 years. Why not make the age 
21 years? 

27. Section 322 : This section provides that a child, under the conditions 
specified therein, may be naturalized before he attains tlie age of 18 years. Why 
not make the age 21 years in this case too? What harm is there? 

28. Section 323 (a) (2) : This subsection requires that the child be adopted 
before he attains the age of 16 years. This should be changed to the attain- 
ment of the age at whicli adoption is permissible under the laws of the State 
or Territory in which it takes place. 

20. Section 328 (a) : This subsection requires that an applicant for natural- 
ization mast have served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States 
for a period or periods aggregating 3 years^. I believe the period should be re- 
duced to 2 years and the time in the Reserves should be counted in computing 
such service. Under present conditions, it is very difficult for an alien to serve 
3 years. I know of cases where persons have been inducted only for short 
periods — 1 year or less each time. 

.30. Section .328 (a) : In this subsection too the period of service should be 
cut to 2 years. 

31. Section 320 (a) : The privilege of becoming natiiralized under this sub- 
section should be extended not only to those who have and are now serving in 
the Korean war, but also to all of those aliens who are now or have heretofore, 
since World War II, served in the Armed Forces abroad. In a true sense. World 
War II has not ceased. It is still going on at least abroad in the Far East and 
in Europe. We cannot be too generous with those wlio risk their lives that 
the rest of xis may live and thrive in peace. 

32. Section .332 (a) : Literacy and ability to read and wi-ite the English lan- 
guage should be deleted from requirements for naturalization. 

33. Section 3;0: The provisions of this section are much too rigorous with 
reference to revocation of naturalization. The effect of this section is most 
terrifying to naturalized citizens. It seems that our legislators and adminis- 
trative officials are quaking with fear and are afflicted with the p.sychosis of 
wanting to arrogate to themselves more and more powers. Tliis section makes 
those poor naturalized citizens of more than a half century ago, when laxity in 
naturalization was the rule and not the exception, apprehensive and restless. 
Although millions of naturalized citizens have given their sweat and blood to 
our country, still they remain branded b.v the stigma of inferiority which seems 
to pervade our immigration and naturalization set-up. 

Possibly, instead of our government being awkward and frantic with our im- 
migration and naturalization laws, it should adopt statutes of limitations where- 
in it declares b.v positive law that naturalization certificates issued say before 
the year 1020 or 102.5 shall be conclusively presumed to be valid and as having 
been lawfully obtained. This would be a step in the right direction. 

34. Section 340 : This section makes loss of citizenship or nationality an matter. The provisions of the law with reference to native-born citizens 
is more liberal with reference to .such class retaining nationality or citizenship. 
As far as naturalized citizens arc concerned, well that's another matter. Again 
the stigma of inferiority brands the naturalized citizen. The section does not 
attempt to protect those naturalized citizens or dual citizens who were involun- 
tarily inducted in the armed forces of foreign states or were compelled to vote 
at foreign elections under duress. Possibly our country is doing a lot of harm 
to itself by adopting these selfish provisions into its laws. 

35. Section 350 : This section deals a death blow to dual citizens, unless such 
citizens take advantage of the provisions which permits them to come to the 
United States before they attain the age of 25 years, after having complied with 
the provisions of the act. Well, another case of shunning. 


Although the dual citizen problem is quite perplexing, I believe it should be 
solved somewhat differently than section ;>r)0 provides. This new law favors 
those in the lower age brackets and neglects those who already have reached 
advanced age. The drastic change which this new law makes is hound to do 
much harm to many of our dual citizens. I have had occasion to assist dual 
citizens of much advanced age and succeeded in having them come over to this 
country. In most instances these dual citizens had to work for years and years 
before'they could establish their claim to United States citizenship. To fore- 
close this class of citizens from coming into the United States and leaving the 
door ajar for much too short a period of time, will undoubtedly cause many 

I know of a native-born citizen who was taken to Italy when 2 years old. 
The man not only had his troubles and tribulations protecting his American 
citizenship from the Italian Government, but he had to struggle for years to 
retrace his birUiplace and obtain documents necessary for his repatriation 
into the United States. By accident he found the address of a deceased person 
here in Joliet and wrote to him. The letter reached the son of the deceased and 
he enlisted my cooperation in solving the case. Although we found his birth 
record, for many months we were unable to find someone here in .loliet that 
could identify him. At last we found a man who knew the family and was able 
to identify our citizen, which identification was necessary for him to obtain 
United States passport so that he could return to his native country. 

The difficulties encountered in the case mentioned were not imaginary but real. 

3(). Section 352 (a) : This subsection makes a naturalized citizen lose his 
citizenship if such citizen takes up continuous residence in a foreign state or 
in his native country. No corresponding provision for loss of citizenship is made 
for native-born citizens. Why the difference? Here again stigma attaches to a 
naturalized citizen. I know of many cases where the return to the United States 
on the part of our naturalized citizens was prevented by reasons beyond their 
control. In my opinion the 3-year limitation is entirely too short and I believe 
a proper perspective demands that our laws be more liberal so far as loss of 
citizenship is concerned. 

37. Section 304 : This section provides that section 3.52 shall not apply to 
those who shall have had residence in the United States subsequent to naturaliza- 
tion for 25 years and have reached the age of 60. The only objection I have 
to this provision is that the time should be much shorter, say 10 years, if at all. 

38. Section 358 : This section possibly goes too far in vesting power to cancel 
certificates of citizenship upon a diplomatic or consular officer to pass upon the 
citizenship of a person who happens to be in a foreign country. This can happen 
when the consular officer has reason to believe that such person has lost his 
nationality or citizenship. The only check there is in that such a diplomatic or 
consular officer shall report to the Secretary of State. This apparently is an 
attempt on the part of our Foreign Service to arrogate to itself the power to 
cancel citizenship certificates without court action as heretofore. 

39. Section 402 (b) : This subsection provides a fine up to $5,000 or imprison- 
ment up to 5 years or both for a person who refuses to testify in a naturalization 
case. This kind of punishment is much too severe for such an offense. 


For the information of our Inmiigration and Naturalization Connnittee I 
should like to say that the new Immigration and Nationality Act has many 
good features and in the foregoing comments I have tried to point out many 
of its defects. The new act can stand a lot of improvement, however, for it 
reflects prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The act should be humanized 
in many respects. 

With reference to section 201 (a), which sets forth the quota .system under 
the new act, the Joint Committee of the House and Senate had this to say : 

"The committee has considered the advisability of sul)stituting the results of 
the 1040 or the 10.50 census in lieu of the 1020 census basis of tlie mathematical 
comutation for the purpose of establisliing (|uotas for the ciuota areas of the 
world. Having extensively explored the practicability of su<'h substitution, the 
committee has decided to abstain from reconuuendiiig it at the present time. 
It has been found that the analysis of the 1040 ;ind the 19.50 census figures has 
as yet not progressed to a point which woiihl make it possible to repeat the 
computation job performed between 1924 and 1929 for the purpose of deternuning 
the size of immigration quotas based on the national origin principle. 


"However, recognizing the fact that a revision of onr immigration quotas 
might be justified in the future, the committee has requested the Bureau of the 
Census to undertake an appropriate analysis of the 1940 and the 1950 census 
figures and to submit the results for the committee's consideration (Congres- 
sional and Administrative News, July 20, 1952, p. 2790)." 

The foregoing quotation shows the thinliing of the Joint Committee on the 
important matter of the quota system. I am quite sure that b.7 stresssing the 
necessity of substituting the 1950 census for that of 1920, favorable results can 
be obtained during the next session of Congress. 

In the additional views submitted by Congressman Celler (Congressional and 
Administrative News, supra, pp. 28.jO-2S51) the following statement appears: 

"The Immigration Act of 1924, establishing the annual quotas for countries 
based on a computation of approximately one-sixth of 1 percent, presumably 
reflects composition of national origin of the inhabitants of the country in the 
year 1920. Due to the rigidity of our quota system, during the 27 years the 
present quota law has been in effect, only 44 percent of the possible quota 
immigrants have actually been admitted. Of the total number of 154,000 annual 
quotas permitted under the law, 65,700 are allotted to Great Britain; 25,900 to 
Germany ; and 17,800 to Ireland. Every other country having a quota is accorded 
a quota allotment of less than 7,000. This startling discrimination against 
central, eastern, and southern Europe points out the gap between what we 
say and what we do. On the one hand we publicly pronounce the equality of 
all peoples, discarding all racialistic theories ; on the other hand, in our immi- 
gration laws, we embrace in practice these very theories we abhor and verbally 
condemn. In the meantime, because Great Britain and Ireland barely iise the 
quota allotment, a large percentage of the 154.000 annual quotas go to waste 
each year. They are nontransferable. The simple, practical solution, which 
it seems to me could easily be adoiited without even going so far as to disturb 
the national origin system which is so deeply entrenched (un.fustiiiably ), would 
be to take the unused quotas and distribute them among countries with less 
than 7.000 quota allotments in the same proportion as they bear to the total 
quota pie. 

"It is important that we do so in terms of our own productivity and growth. 
If we take the long-range view of the position of the United States in the 
world, we must recognize that our rapid rise to world power during our 170- 
year history was based upon our population growth from 4 million to 150 
million, and that this growth was largely the result of immigration. In the 
years ahead our population is headed for a stable plateau which means an aging 
population : that is. fewer young persons and more old persons proportionately 
in the total population. The rate of population growth in the United States is 
slightly below that required to reproduce itself. The American rate between 
193.3 and 19.39 was 0.96. Compare that with the rate of Russia alone, which is 
1.70. The population forecast for the United States in 1970 is 170 million 
people. The population forecast for Russia alone in 1970 is 251 million. The 
implications are clear. * * * 

"It must be noted that immigration is further restricted by the mortgaging 
of future quotas by the Displaced Persons Act." 

So much for Congressman Celler's comments. 

In the veto message of the Immigration and Nationality Act, President Truman 
had this to say : 

"The over-all quota limitation, under the law of 1924, restricted annual immi- 
gration to approximately 150.000. This was about one-seventh of 1 percent 
of our total poi)ulation in 1920. Taking into account the growth in population 
since 1920, the law now allows us but one-tenth of 1 percent of our total po))ula- 
tion. And since the largest national quotas are only partly used, the number 
actually coming in has been in the neighborhood of one-fifteenth of 1 percent. 
This is far less than we must have in the years ahead to keep up with the growing 
needs of our Nation for manpower to maintain the strength and vigor of our 

Further on the President continues : 

"The bill would sharply restrict the present opportunity of citizens and aliens 
to save family members from deportation. Under the procedures of the pre.sent 
law, the Attorney General can exercise his discretion to suspend deportation 
in meritorious cases. In each such case, at the present time, the exercise of 
administrative discretion is subject to the scrutiny and approval of the Congress. 
Nevertheless, the bill would prevent this discretion from being used in many 
cases where it is now available, and would narrow the circle of those who can 
obtain relief from the letter of the law. This is most unfortunate, because the 


bill, in its other provisions, would impose harsher restrictions and greatly 
increase the number of cases dtserving etpiitalile relief. 

"Native-born citizens who are dual nationals would be subjected to loss of 
citizenship on grounds not a|»plicable to other native-born Ameriean citizens. 
This distinetioii is a slap at nu'llions of Americans whose fathers were of alien 

"Children would be subjected to additional risk of loss of citizenship. Nat- 
uralized citizens would be subjected to the risk of denaturalization by any pro- 
cedure that can be found to be i)erniitted under any State law or i)ractice per- 
taining to minor civil lawsuits. .Tudicial review of administrative denials of 
citizenship would be severely linnted and impeded in many eases and completely 
eliminatiMl in others. I believe these provisions raise sei'ious constitutional ques- 
tions. Constitutionality aside, I see no justitication in national policy for their 

Since immigration and naturalization are vital matters, great care should be 
exercised to see that equitable and just laws are enacted. Tlie new Immigration 
and Nationality Act, since it affects so many persons, requires correction that 
it may be made equitable and just. As it stands now, it incoi-porates all the 
hostility and prejudices of our Immigration and Naturalization Service and of 
our Foreign Service. 

The composite malie-up of our country is a good example of how many different 
peoples from all over the world can live happily in one big nation. The loyalty 
and desirability of these various peoples lias been amply demonstrated during 
the last World War. Wliy are we, why is our Foreign Service so much afraid 
of as to want to build an iron wall around the United States? Why do our 
governmental officials desire to arrogate to themselves more and more powers? 

A lot more could be said about the Immigration and Nationality Act, but I am 
not going to say it. In this paper I have attempted to point out those provisions 
in the act which are most obnoxious and need revision. I fervently hope that 
something is done to revise the act during the next session Congress. I am quite 
pleased to learn that President Truman intends to appoint a seven person com- 
mission to study the needed changes in the act. 

President Truman in pointing out the defects of the Immigration and National- 
ity Act deserves the gratitude of the Nation for trying to do what is right. His 
veto message very eloquently speaks the true policy which the United States 
should observe toward the intricate subject which immigration and naturalization 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Daniel D. Carniell here? 


Mr. Carmell. I am Daniel D. Carmell, 318 West Randolph Street, 
Chicago. I am general counsel for and represent the Illinois State 
Federation of Labor and the Chicago Federation of Labor, both of 
which are AFL federations, representing approximately 1,000,000 
members, with about 1,000 local members. We were invited to appear 
before yotir Commission. 

We have a convention beginning this coming Monday. At this 
convention qtiite a few problems of this (commission will be presentedi. 
We feel we can serve this Commission much better by submitting a 
written statement in detail, and giving specific cases in tlie manner in 
which the law works unjustly and make a statement after we have all 
the facts, and, asking ])ermissiou to tile the statement, at this time. 

The Tliat i)ermission is granted. Can you give us an 
idea of when the statement will be ready ^ 

Mr. Carmell. Not later than the 28th of October. 

The Chairman. Will you send it to AVashington? 

Mr. Carmell. Yes. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Prof. Edward A. Shils, you aie next. 



Professor Siiils. I am Edward A. Sliils, professor of social sciences, 
University of Chicago. 

I have just completed editing a special edition of Bulletin of the 
Atomic Science which is devoted to American science and the Ameri- 
can visa policy. I should perhaps give a bit of background to my 
interest in this particular subject. 

I am here as an American citizen, but I did not ask for permission 
to come here because I wanted to introduce the quota provisions or 
any other aspect of the law. I wish to discuss one particular, perhaps, 
quantitatively quite small feature but one which I think has very great 
import for the United States and America's foreign relations. 

As you gentlemen know, European scientists and scholars who have 
sought to come to the United States in recent years have had great 
difficulties in entering. Because of the number of provisions in the 
Internal Security Act, sponsored by Senator McCarran and which 
provisions have been written into the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Act. Several hundred important European scientists, practically 
none of whom are Communists, have encountered several difficulties 
in coming to this countrj^ to attend scientific colleges or to accept ap- 
pointments in universities. Practically none of these cases have been 
applicants for immigration visas. They have sought to come here as 
visitors for certain times for specific pui'poses. I should say in all 
cases to benefit the United States. As teachers, to give results of 
their research and experience and scientific skills to American col- 
leges and in univereities. As participants to scientific conferences, 
they have come here to present results of their research to their Amer- 
ican colleges and to colleges of other countries who also have been in- 
vited So that the loss to the United States resulting from the pro- 
liibition of these distinguished scientists, some of whom are great 
benefactors of humanity and to the United States, I should add, is 
rather serious. 

Marcus Oliphant is one of the main contributors to the develop- 
ment of radar on which our country depends for aerial defense, and 
he lias been prohibited from coming into the United States. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Froui what country? 

Professor Shils. From Australia. 

Dr. E. B. Chain with Professor Fledge, one of the inventors of pen- 
icillin, has been prevented from coming to this country. He couldn't 
obtain a visa. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Where is he located ? 

Professor Shils. Now living in Italy where he works for Inter- 
national Health Research Institute. 

The Chairman. In both instances, for how long a period did they 
desire to come? 

Professor Shils. They simply wanted to attend a scientific con- 
ference, lasting from 3 days to a week and then intended to return. It 
is difficult, of course, to get exact figures, but it is estimated that ap- 
proximately 200 scientists have been prohibited from entering this 
country in the last few years. 


I have been in correspondence with a great number of them in ])re- 
paringf an issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for October 11)52,^ 
a number of copies of which have been furnished for all members of 
your Connnission. I have obtained about 25 detailed statements writ- 
ten by these gentlemen describing their qualifications and describing 
the jniiposes which they intended to come to the TTnited States for, and 
desciibing the eli'orts they made to obtain visas and describing the 
ways they were treated by United States consuls. In many cases 
courteously, and in many cases discourteously, l^at that is not im- 
portant. They were not able to enter the United States. 

I should say that not in all cases was a visa refusecL One of the 
points I want to make is that there were great delays on the treatment 
of visa applications for these men who want to come for ?> days or a 
Aveek or 2 weeks, or to use this telescope in a certain olwervatory which 
has to be reserved for a certain time. They can.not get their ap})lica- 
tions dealt Avith in a certain time. In some cases applications arc 
favorably dealt with but montlis after the men have applied and 
months after the time for which they had the university or laboratory 
appointment, or months after the conference to which they were in- 
vited took place. 

Xow this is not only injurious to American science and injurious 
therefore to American developn:ient and welfare and to American 
intellectual achievement ; it is injurious to the acliievement of the ends 
of foreign policy. Every time a visa is refused to an eminent Euro- 
pean scientist or scholar, and many times when it isn't, it gets into 
the Comnnniist press. Of course, Communists believe what they be- 
lieve, but there are a large number of people in Europe who are not 
Communists, who are pro-American and want to be, and they find it 
difficult to defend the American policy Avhen America behaves in this 

I have a great number of friends in Europe and have spent a lot of 
time there in the last few years, who are also discontented and em- 
barrassed by this particular aspect of American ])olicy. One of the 
leading anti-Communist philosophers of the AVestern World, Prof. I. 
Michael Polanyi, a world-famous chemist and member of the Royal 
Society, has been denied a visa to enter the United States. It is some- 
thing which is beyond the comprehension of those who know- him. 

The CiiAiRMxVN. On what ground ? 

Professor Shils. Yes, that is one of the most difficult things to 
answer. He was Hungarian, born behind the iron curtain, but con- 
siderably before the ii'on curtain was put up. He went to Germany in 
11)11) and he became world famous in Germany. He left (Tcrmany, 
although not Jewish and went to the University of Manchester, where 
he was given the great honor of election to the Koyal Society. He was 
also interested in political subjects. He was very nnich opposed to 
certain Marxist tendencies among British scientists and took the lead 
in opposing Marxism in the United States and in Europe. 

In 1924 1 believe Professor Polanyi was invited by the German 
refugee organization in London, called the Institute for Free Gorman 
Culture, and he spoke on some Soviet science and dealt with the wav 
the Soviet Government had interfered with genetics. It was an anti- 
Soviet lecture. As a result of this lecture, they wrote him a letter 

^Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. VIII, No. 7, October 11*52. 


complaining and censoring him for liaving criticized the Soviet Union. 
The professor wrote them a letter and withdrew his sponsorship from 
the organization which he had momentarily taken when he was invited 
to give a lecture there. That seems to be the only bit of contamination 
that appears on Polanyi's nnsoiled career as an anti-Communist; he 
has been in this country on many occasions and received an honorary 
degree at Princeton, at which time the President spoke of him being in 
the very forefront of fighters of freedom of science, and if he has any 
deficiency or vice, according to his friends, he is a little bit too anti- 
Commimist. He never forgets the Communist menace, and here this 
man has been refused a visa to come to the United States. It is very 
difficult for his friends and admirers to understand it, and it is very 
welcome to his Communist detractors and opponents, that this anti- 
Communist should be denied permission to come to the United States. 
There are many other cases like that. I happened to mention that 
because it is most striking. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Has his application been permanently denied? 

Professor Siiils. Yes, after a year and a half of negotiations, and 
inquiries, and submission of more material, and continuous visits to 
the consulate in Liverpool, and interventions on my part at the con- 
sulate in London, he was finally denied a visa under, I believe, sec- 
tion 212. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Where did he apply for the visa? 

Professor Shils. He applied in Liverpool. That is all set out in the 
issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that I referred to. On 
these matters, I am undertaking to supply further information be- 
cause I have much material which we didn't ]niblisli in this issue. 

Mr. Iv0SE:NriELD. The Connnission would like to have it, if you can 
furnish it. 

Professor Shils. I will be glad to prepare that. So that on both 
counts, both on effect of American science and thereby on American 
defense and xVmerican welfare, we lose, and it really does the very 
greatest damage to our reputation in Europe, and the large amount of 
money which is spent for the Voice of America, and the Mutual Se- 
curity Act, and previously for the fulfillment of the Marshall plan; 
much of that is undone by the illiberal and arbitrary actions which are 
necessitated by our present law, and by the heavy lesponsibility which 
is placed on the consuls. It is a heavy responsibility on which they 
have no alternative because they can get into great difficulties in mak- 
ing a mistake. 

Now, I should, therefore, like to make a few points of specific 
criticism of the hnv. For one thing I believe that the provisions of 
the present law, the Internal Security xict, and those relevant pas- 
sages of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, in dealing with 
the menace of subversion and espionage — which is a very genuine 
menace and which must be guarded against — throws the net far too 
widely; it necessitates the exclusion of anyone who is ever at any 
time a member of a Communist organization, and plenty of people 
are fools when they are young in other countries as well as this coun- 
try. In this country they might eat goldfish; in other countries they 
sometimes join Connnunist organizations. But they are sort of like 
the pimples of youth, they pass away — free people gi-ow up. 

It seems to me as if it is discriminate, and unnecessary, and injurious 
to our country to exclude people simply because they are sowing wild 


oats politically when tlicy are yoiina-, if they settle down later. Ob- 
viously, if a person seems on the basis of his recent affiliations or activ- 
ities, what we know of him from our security services, to be bound 
or intending to commit acts of subversion or espionage when he comes 
to the ITnited States, that's his major interest, if he is coming as an 
agent of the Cominform, or simply is coming at his own initiative 
to facilitate some action with American conspiratory organizations, 
he certainly should be prohibited. But if he is a person who happens 
to liave signed some sort of a silly document, by which the Communists 
hope to lead simple people by the nose, such as the Stockholm Appeal, 
or something like that, I think that is not sufficiently good grounds 
for prohibiting entry for a person who is going to come for some 
very specific reason ; namely, to teach mathematics or to give a lecture, 
or give results of some chemical research which he has done. They 
have no connection with each other. As long as our guards around 
our defense research projects are sufficiently strong and reliable, and 
as long as these people, like our own American citizens and scientists, 
are prohibited from going into the restricted areas, then I think we 
have nothing to fear from them. 

So I think that the net is thrown far too widely, and that the in- 
clusion of former membership at any time in the past is a very irrele- 
vant and even pernicious criteria for exclusion, although, as I say, I 
do believe that much care must be taken to prevent the entry of 
spies and of subverters, just as we have to take care of our own citi- 
zens who might perform acts of espionage and subversion. 

Now this throwing of the net so widely makes it difficult for the 
consuls, who have training and an experience very different from in- 
quiiy into subversion and espionage — they are not security officers, 
they are not specialists in international security, they know very little 
of politics, I can assure you of that because of my own experience with 
many of them ; they know very little of the politics of the countries in 
which they live, and they don't have the facility or the discretion to 
estimate just what is the degree of subversiveness of an organization 
or of any other nonpolitical organization. They are well-meaning 
men ; they are concerned with the well-being of their country, and its 
protection, and also concerned not to get into trouble with their supe- 
riors or with the law. It is, therefore, either a lot safer for them either 
to take no action, or to refuse the visa, because at least Congress won't 
complain, and their superiors won't raise hob with them if they refuse 
a visa, unless in some cases there are such powerful friends at court 
for some of these people that certain action be taken, as in the case 
of certain eminent writers, like Graham Greene who is, obviously, not 
a Communist, and an appeal was made on the part of influential 
friends in this country, and his visa was granted. 

Now, the consuls are put into this very difficult position, and I 
think that one of the greatest difficulties that the Visa Division of the 
State Department has is insufficient personnel for handling tlie greatly 
increased amount of work, v/hich these provisions of the relative 
legislation have placed on them. The high officials of the State 
Department who gave testimony before the Appropriations Commit- 
tee gave some rather striking statistics of the great increase in the 
number of cases which were being referred to Washington for ad- 

25356—52 43 


visory opinions — although the final responsibility rests on the consul, 
Washington had to give advisory opinion. There were far too many 
cases, the number increased at a fantastic rate, but the Visa Division 
of the State Department for dealing with this did not increase 

Now, I think, of course, that too many cases are being referred for 
advisory opinions, but even the consuls who particularly want to play 
safe do so, and there ought to be more people in the State Depart- 
ment and more qualified people, I should stress, not just clerks, but 
some people who are capable of understanding European politics and 
the nuance of European politics, and people who can tell the differ- 
ence between a politically simple-minded scientist, and the sort of a 
trickster who is really lying to commit acts of subversion or espio- 
nage when he comes to this country ; and that takes some knowledge 
of the background of European political life. . 

Now there are such people working in the United States Govern- 
ment in various agencies, and I think that any further development 
of the visa policy, and the development in a more just direction, more 
helpful direction, would require that some of these more skilled ana- 
lysts be brought into consultation on these cases. 

Finally, I should say that some measures must be taken to increase 
the speed with which applications are dealt with. The same type of 
inquiry is made at present for persons who want to come temporarily 
as for those who wish to immigrate permanently into the United 
States. It seems to me that that is not at all necessary and it wouldn't 
require a very great change in the law or in the administrative pro- 
visions under the law to make possible different kinds of requirements, 
somewhat lighter kinds of requirements, and to make it possible to 
grant a decision, positive or negative, soon enough for a man to know 
wliether he should request leave of absence from his university or his 
laboratory, whether he should rent his house. A great deal of incon- 
venience is caused, the most terrible embarrassments are caused to 
people by this dilatory procedure of the consulate and of the State 
Department because of this piling up of the work. 

I should like to make one final comment, and that is I believe that 
the opportunities for America to benefit in the future as much as it 
has in the past from European science are possible. We have gained 
greatly from not only the atomic bomb, which we know to a very large 
extent was the work of foreign refugees and scientists in America, but 
many American scientists have gained very greatly from European 
scientists. The prospects and opportunities of America to continue to 
benefit in the future as well as it has in the past are greatly injured 
by tlie withdrawal of nonquota provision for professors — that was a 
part of our immigration law for a long time, and now the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act has withdrawn that provision, and that adds 
another obstacle to the chances of America to benefit from European 

Commissioner Finucane. Have you any suggestion as to how you 
think past membership in subversive organizations should be treated? 

Professor Shils. I think there should be a specific statute of limita- 
tions, and if the man had not been a member, let us say, for 4 or 5 
years, something like that, and if we also have reason to believe that he 
hasn't just dropped his membership in order to carry on secretive 


membership to do destructive work. I think we ought not to take 
into account at all that 15 years ago many Euro])ean scientists con- 
cerned with the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany were joining 
political organizations and the Communists got control of a number 
of them — that we sliouldn't take that into account at all, it is plenty 

The Chairjman. Thank you. 

Mr. Peter Bukowski, you are next on the schedule. 


Mr. Bukowski. 1 am Peter Bukowski, president of the Cosmopoli- 
tan National Bank of Chicago, 801 North Clark Street, Chicago. I 
am appearing as an individual. I have no prepared statement, Mr. 
Chairman, nor am I a man of letters, so that my contribution of testi- 
mony here might be along profound lines, nor will it grace any maze 
of statistical material for the record ; rather, I would like to discourse 
in more or less narrative form, and give a high-lighted picture and 
an impression that has been created over many years — a picture of 
the evolution of America and of Americans, the picture that is a seg- 
ment of Chicago, but is one that is multiplied many times over the 
United States. 

While my impression is necessarily the stor}^ of many small areas 
of this city I hope the composite picture of the whole, as I have indi- 
cated, all over the United States, will accentuate to the members of 
this (Commission the conviction in their minds that America is great, 
and America is strong spiritually and materially, largt ly because of 
the influx into her economic and social bloodstream throughout the 
years of a continuous flow of healthy, vigorous, virile elements who 
sought and gained admissions to this free land of opportunity, and 
made their contribution thereto. In such a picture that I propose to 
paint for you, I trust that it w^ill show how American political, eco- 
nomic, and spiritual life has been enriched by the attainments and 
cultural progress of our immigrants and the sons and daughters of 
these humble folk who cast away the ties of their native land for politi- 
cal and other reasons and came to our hospitable shores to make a 
ncAv start in life. 

So that the Commission may have a little background of any value 
that may attach to these observations, I should like to give a few 
words of personal history. I hold the office of president of the Cos- 
mopolitan National Bank of Chicago, having assumed this I'esponsi- 
bility about 8 years ago, following 13 years of civil service in Govern- 
ment, and 11 years preceding that of private banking. Prior to that, 
there were 2 years of Army duty as a member of an American military 
commission to Russia in those fateful years of 1917-19. The last 
few months of 1951 I served as Deputy Administi-ator of the Recon- 
struction Finance Corporation in Washington adding my experience, 
and my technical knowledge of banking to that of W. Stuart Syming- 
ton in the reorganization and administration of that agency. 

Most of my adult life has been related to banking or to its activities, 
and ill all these activities there is a need for maintainiuir a close and 


very intimate contact with large numbers of people of prosperity and 
various cultural, economic, and antecedent backgrounds. Our bank 
is not a large bank as banks go, it has approximately 25,000 customers 
of American, Irish, Anglo-Saxon, Gennan, Scandinavian, Japanese, 
Greek, and Yugoslavian antecedents. About 5 percent of our patron- 
age is colored. Much of our business is that of industrial plants, and 
commercial enterprises. But we also have a large savings clientele. 
We are located slightly more than a mile from here on Clark Street 
at Chicago Avenue. Many of Chicago's finest people and descendants 
of our oldest families live nearby. Close at hand in the opposite 
direction is a large community of underprivileged people in the lower- 
income brackets. Within several blocks of our institution are the 
Holy Name Cathedral, the Fourth Presbyterian, St. James Episcopal 
Church, any many other houses of worship, including Hebrew and 
Catholic, and something else you need for Chicago — tv'o Japanese 
Buddhist Temples. The neighborhood is one of Chicago's oldest. It 
was settled by Irish originally, followed by Italian, Scandinavian, and 
Gei-man, and much is taken over by the Gold Coast on one side flanked 
on the other side by an old section ready for redevelopment. As I 
stated a moment ago, many of the Japanese resettled from the west 
coast and made their homes here, but after taking roots in this Midwest 
community they have since spread out to other sections of the city. 
Our most recent settlers are Yugoslav DP's. 

This background is given to emphasize and support my deep-rooted 
conviction that immigration policy has been one of economic expedi- 
ency rather than economic wisdom. I, and many, many other think- 
ing people, deplore the fact that our legislation is very obviously 
developed from political rather than economic advantages to the 
Nation. The present laws, going back to 1924, are, in my opinion, 
not only unfair and un-American in that they are highly discrimina- 
tory, but, more importantly in my eyes, rather restrictive provisions. 
These laws operate to economic disadvantage of our Nation. 

As a student of economic history, I hold that the dynamic evolu- 
tion of our country's greatness is to be attributed and is a result of the 
open-door philosophy extended to decent. God-fearing, and liberty- 
loving people who sought our friendly shores seeking to establish a 
new life here. It is history's recorded fact that even our Pilgrim 
Fathers abandoned wdiat was then the civilized world to strike out 
for a new life in search of freedom. They brought a spirit and a 
will to build a new civilization minus prejudices, intolerances of the 
old. There was a succession of newcomers to our shores thereafter 
that kept revitalizing that spirit and that industry in the early 
arrivals, and it was this succession continuing for many years that 
kept influencing new dynamics into our older living. 

When colonial America was being developed, the need was for men 
and women who could enrich the Colonies and implement its material 
level. The crying need at all times was for additional people to work 
the land, to explore, and exploit, and develop the resources of this 
bountiful land, and so they came progressively from England, from 
Ireland, and other European states, each bringing its traditions, plus 
a spirit of industry that has blossomed and bore fruit in this land 
of ours. 


As the Colonies jsained their independence and as the word of oi)por- 
tunity in this nev.- R.e})viblic spread over the Continent of Europe, more 
and more hopeful eyes were turned in our direction, and thus, njider a 
policy of encouraaenient to freemen, this Nation attracted and became 
the beneficiary of the migratory movements of many thousands from 
England, Ireland, Germany, Scotland, the nations of southern Europe 
contributing that which was so important to the Nation in those days, 
their brawn as well as their brain for the cultivation of our soils, the 
working of our mills, mines, and factories. 

The growth of our population through infusion of immigration 
and the growth of our national wealth moved simultaneously on 
parallel forces, and onh'^ the blind would fail to acknowledge that 
then, as now, it is production that made for national prosperity and 
national wealth, just as production even today works for higher stand- 
ards of living. But production even today has not arrived at the 
push-button stage, and will continue to be a matter of hands and man- 
hours, indispensable hands and man-hours supplied only by living, 
breathing individuals. There are material resources dormant in the 
ground or worthless were it not for the hands to work the soil or 
operate the machinery to bring out nature's riches from under the 
ground. Thus, in my opinion, the greatest wealth of our Nation, 
greater even than the natural resources themselves, lies in tlie numeri- 
cal wealth of our population. 

As a native-born American, I first saw the light of day about 2 miles 
northwest from the site of these hearings, and my name indicates my 
forebearers were Poles who came to this country in the early fifties. 
My earliest recollection of this world I was living in goes back to 
the late nineties when I first began developing an awareness to my 
surroundings. I recall that those early surroundings, the community 
in which I lived then, and as all communities of comparable char- 
acter were, was homogenous, the residents almost exclusively were 
recent arrivals from the three partitioned sections of Poland, and 
upon arrival in Chicago these people gravitated to their churches 
and settled in close proximity thereto. Thus, the language most fre- 
quently heard on the streets and in the corner grocery stores and meat 
markets and shopping centers, as they were in those days, was the 
native tongue. Even English was difficult for them to learn, and 
their lot was not an easy one because of language barriers. Some 
came with families and children: others came without such ties, but, 
eventually, found partners to help in the establishment of a family 
life, and in. the advent of children we see the first step of full sever- 
ance with the ties of the old country. Up to this point the usual think- 
ing of the immigrant had been along the lines of making his or her 
stake and then going back home, but as children arrived on the scene 
this objective was soon to disappear in the roots of family life — the 
beginning of Americanism was started at that particular point. 
When the children attained school age, off to school they went with a 
knowledge of their parent's original language; they became bilingual, 
something that I de])lore to see tlie ]:)iissing of nowadays. Under the 
guidance of their parents to whom education and privileges were de- 
nied, or were not available, these young people were encouraged to 
ac(inire learning, and so we see them availing themselves in the entire 
range of educjitional opportunities, through high school, technical 


schools, colleges, professional schools, and universities; where the 
economic situation did not permit full attendance in colleges or uni- 
versities or professional schools we find these young people employed 
during the day assiduously, with their hunger for education to com- 
plete training or qualify for professional standing. 

In this process of education the children became responsible to the 
American environment, in the assimilation of our American attri- 
butes, principles, and efforts they rapidly became in the fullest sense 
of the word "Americans" with a deep-rooted and unquestioned loyalty 
to America and her instittuions, and so, as world war came upon us, 
the great number of the first generations of American-born immi- 
grants from Poland reached their maturity and responded magnifi- 
cently to the call for duty, and many are the names of Polish and 
other antecedents, alongside of those of purely Anglo-Saxon character, 
tliat dot the casualty lists of Chateau-Thierry and Saint-Malo and 
other battlefields of France. 

Upon their return they resumed their places in society, each con- 
tributing his or her best talents, each practicing the frugality of the 
people whence they came. Through the years the record now be- 
comes fully replete of their attainments in the fields of letters and 
science, in business and commerce, and in industry. We find that as the 
years have passed on that there is no longer this segregation to which 
I refer to, the Poles and the Germans and the Irish and the Norwe- 
gians and the Welshmen now live pretty well together in newer com- 
munities, each with a fine neighborly spirit, and each inspiring the 
other to outdo the other in the keeping up not with the Joneses but 
with the maintenance and care of their homes and their gardens. 
So, through the years to the present day most of the oldsters have now 
gone to rest, as did my father some 20 years ago ; their children now, 
with children and grandchildren of their own, have succeeded them, 
and because it is America, and a process peculiar to America, they 
are no longer Poles or Scandinavians or Irish ; they are in everything 
but the surname they bear Americans in the fullest meaning of the 
word, grateful of the privilege of being Americans by the privilege 
of birth, and proud of the heritage of their forefathers and the attri- 
butes which they brought into American life. 

With the original newcomers was the hewer of wood, and the carrier 
of water, and he labored long and tedious hours in the mills and the 
foundries, or in the tilling of the soil and the laying of tlie roadbed 
tracks ; that began to disband, and his progeny is now to be found in 
the skilled trades. He is the toolmaker, the precision machinist, or 
the doctor, the dentist, or lawyer. You will find them here in this 
building, as elsewhere in the Federal judiciary, as justices of our State 
courts. You will find them, as you will find them in Chicago, as county 
judge, or as the chief justice of the municipal court. You will find this 
progeny in government, trade, progress, and industry. But, whatever 
their calling, you will perceive, above everything else in them, a deep- 
loving American loyalty, and a burning zeal for peaceful life and 
family living. 

As I have tried to review briefly the passing of a half century of fine 
people who, in my observation, have made tremendous progress, I am 
profoundly impressed by this progress, but I know that it only repre- 
sents one facet of American life ; that which I have tried to portray is 


duplicated many, many times, only in Chicago, bnt by other ante- 
cedent groups, groups of other ancestors, but tliroughout this hind 
and every substantial metropolitan community that you can name, and 
it is the collective effort of these people that has made America what 
it is today, and, to me, it would be a sad day to turn our backs upon 
the one thing that has made the great contribution not only along social 
and cultural and other lines, but has made such a substantial contribu- 
tion to our economic growth. 

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

Mr. Samuel Levin? 


Mr. Le\^n. I am Samuel Levin, representing the Amalgamated 
Clothing Workers of America, 5005 Drexel Boulevard, Chicago, of 
which I am a former national vice president. I am a member of the 
Chicago joint board of that organization. I am also a member of the 
executive committee of directors, Combined Jewish Appeal, and presi- 
dent of the Amalgamated Life Insurance Co. 

The Chairman. The Commission would be glad to hear whatever 
comments you desire to make. 

Mr. Levin. I have adopted America as my country. I am a for- 
eigner by origin. Fortunately, I didn't miss the boat. If I had 
missed the boat, and not come when I did in 1905, probably I wouldn't 
be alive today, whether in the country where I come from, or in the 
other countries where such people haven't had a chance. 

The Chairman. Where did you come from ? 

Mr. Levin. Kussia. There was no communism at that time, but 
there was a Czar. 

Within my experience within the labor movement I have worked 
with practically all the elements of foreign extraction; in many in- 
stances the majority of the first generation come here. I have seen 
them develop and contribute to the Nation's welfare — mostly Polish, 
Bohemian, Italians, Jewish, Irish — not very many Greeks. Originally 
there were about 22 nationalities involved ; 90 percent were foreigners 
and what was good in Chicago was practically good in all other cities 
where clothing was produced for the American population by those 
elements. So I consider that they made their contribution. 

I haven't got any statistics or prepared papers, because I haven't 
had time to prepare that. But I was very much impressed with the 
remarks of Senator Paul Douglas in the Senate on this subject. I 
would refer the Commission to this statement by Senator Douglas. 

I am sorry to say that the principle and the basis of our original 
acceptance of immigrants was a very liberal one for the oppressed 
and the suppressed ; whether for economic advantages, or development, 
or allegiance, the doors were opened wide for people to come in. As 
the gentleman before me said — with those elements America became 
great and enriched, and it was all in the half century that I have wit- 
nessed in this country. 

I realize that in the original set-up, and the liberal position of our 
Nation or the forefathers that have made our original laws, there were 
no problems of the kind that there are today. We didn't have com- 


munism, we didn't have fascism, and we didn't have naziism, all ele- 
ments, and maybe allergies, that are foreign to us. We don't like them, 
and we want to avoid them coming into this Nation of ours. But to 
make the kind of restrictions and proportional quotas which makes it 
practically impossible for good people, good-intentioned people that 
find themselves in places where their life isn't worth while, and they 
are looking for refuge, and we begin to deny them refuge, then we are 
deviating from the original purposes on which our country was based. 

Screening people? Of course, to the highest extent — whether our 
present departments are qualified for that, I am not so sure ; whether 
our qualified people that can apply themselves to do the proper screen- 
ing consider those elements that are not welcome here and for good 
reasons should be kept out. But we can't make it that just because 
there are some that have ill intentions, and we classify everybody on 
the same basis, and make it hard and impossible. 

Then, the quotas on the basis of those that came in the earlier clays, 
the quotas are greater, and the great masses that came later, their 
quotas are reduced, and their numbers are greater than those that came 
in the earlier days. There, again, I refer to the statistical advice, 
that I was very much impressed by Senator Douglas' study that he 
has made, and the periods and numbers of people that came from the 
different parts of the world. 

I feel very much embarrassed that just because I was fortunate to 
come at a certain time that other people like me — and I am proud of 
my activities in this country, I don't think I need to apologize to any- 
body as an American, as my contribution to the development and the 
advancement of people, the relationship in the industry that I have 
established — that my kind would not be able to come to America. 

The Chairman. When did you come ? How long ago ? 

Mr. Levin. In 1905. I raised a family. My two sons were in the 
service. I was able to give them an education. My two sons-in-law 
were in the service ; they are very fine people. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a citizen ? 

Mr. Levin. Since 1911. 

Commissioner Pickett. May I ask this question : I remember some- 
one testifying at one of the hearings about the scarcity of tailors — 
can you say anything about the importance of importation of such a 
skill from the point of view of the economics of your industry ? 

Mr. Levin. Our industry is to some extent a peculiar industry, a 
seasonal one. Sometimes we are especially short of people, especially 
qualified tailors; sometimes when a season is over we have enough. 
But there is one industry here, one branch of the industry, that is 
practically dying out, and will eventually die, and that is the very 
fine clothing that the merchant tailors are making, for which it — to 
become a tailor that can make this clothing — takes as long as to become 
a doctor, or a lawyer, or a chemist. They are professionals practically, 
artists, and no American young man will give his 3 to 5 years to make 
a study of how to make clothing, so they are gradually dying out, and 
the industry will probably in time die with them. 

Commissioner Gullixson. In view of your wide experience in the 
labor field, what is your opinion of that provision in section 212 of 
the new immigration law which states visas may not be issued to — 

aliens seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of performing sliilled 
or unskilled labor, if the Secretary of Labor has determined, and certified to 


the Secretary of State, and to tlie Attorney General that (A) sufficient workers 
in the United States who are able, willing, and qualified, are available at tlie 
time * * * and place * * * to ijerl'oriu such skilled and unskilled 
labor. * * * 

Mr. Levin. Some provision during emergencies might be necessary, 
like the period from 1920 to 193-1, when IG million people were unem- 
ployed, and taking themselves to soup kitchens, if such kitchens were 
provided for them. During that period of time to shut it off was 
probably advisable because if we have 16 million unemployed there is 
no need to bring in another half million or so to add to their misery, 
but not when things are normal. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Henry Heineman, you are the next witness ? 


Mr. Heineman. I am Henry Heineman, a lawyer, 135 South LaSalle 
Street, Chicago. I am here to represent the Chicago division of the 
American Civil Liberties Union and the American Jewish Committee. 

I might make mention of the fact that the views which I expect to be 
presented by Mr. Max Swiren in behalf of other Jewish organizations 
are shared by me to the extent that I am familiar with them. I do, 
however, wish to deal with certain aspects of the immigration matters 
that he may not deal with. I find in the immigration laws, as they are 
now constituted under the McCarran-Walter bill, an attitude toward 
the constitutional protection, which I find particularly obnoxious. 
The Supreme Court has, of course, held that many of ithe ordinary 
rules about constitutional protection are not applicable to aliens. 
The Supreme Court has decided that for better or for worse Congress 
may deal with aliens almost at will. In coming to that conclusion, at 
least one Justice, and very recently, felt compelled to say that he found 
the decision very distasteful. Justice Frankfurter says that in recog- 
nizing this power and this responsibility of Congress one dees not in 
the remotest degree aline oneself with fears unworthy of the ximerican 
spirit, or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit. One 
merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation 
touching aliens is the Congress, not the Court. I feel that much of the 
legislation, as Justice Frankfurter indicates, is cruel and unwise. The 
American Civil Liberties Union has prepared a statement here of the 
many respects in which the immigration laws would contradict the 
ordinary rules of constitutional protection, but for the decisions which 
make these inapplicable to aliens. This was prepared prior to the 
passage of the JNIcCarran-Walter bill, but the bill as finally enacted 
into law would make the statement applicable and I think it might 
possibly be of some use to the Commission to get this sort of catalog 
of instances in which you have retroactive legislation ; for instance, 
which, if it were applied to citizens would be clearly unconstitutional, 
or, if deportation were a crime, or had a penal effect; laws involving 
racial discrimination, which, if applicable to citizenship, would make 
them unconstitutional ; provisions with respect to retroactive legisla- 
tion, with respect to limitations of actions. 


The Chairman. The Congress has full authority to legislate in that 
field, and what we are concerned with is not whether it is something 
that would be unconstitutional, if it were unconstitutional, but we are 
concerned with what kind of an immigration policy we should recom- 

Mr. Heineman. Well, I would like to suggest, perhaps, this as a 
statement of principle : I would suggest that the principle of the Bill 
of Rights, and of due process, are themselves forward-looking and 
admirable principles; that they should be applied even to aliens, al- 
though Congress is not constitutionally required to protect them. In 
other words, I am addressing myself here to the policy. I think that 
when the Bill of Rights was enacted back in the early nineteenth 
century or latter nineteenth century it was a great step forward in 
governmental relations, in human relations, and it is still a great step 
forward, and it is a great step forward in its salutary principles, and 
there are a series of salutary principles whether they are applied to 
aliens, or whether they are applied to citizens. But there has become 
an attitude current in the public mind which says that these principles 
of due process, and equal protections are a necessary evil. In some 
instances, we have to make certain concessions to the individual, but 
where we don't have to incorporate these principles in the legislation, 
we won't do it. In other words, the great American principles of 
individual rights become concessions which are grudgingly given 
where necessary, rather than as a matter of course, naturally granted 
to all persons whether aliens or individuals. 

Perhaps I can better illustrate that by taking some provisions of 
the present law, which illustrate this principle : Now one of the most 
notable is the one that Professor Shils at one time referred to, and 
that is the right of the Attorney General under some circumstances 
to exclude aliens without any hearings. That, of course, is a provision 
which if it applied to any other right virtually than entry into the 
United States would be unthinkable. 

I am not suggesting a legal argument here, I am suggesting a policy 
which gives to aliens, in effect, what would be given to citizens. 

I might, perhaps, add this much to what Professor Shils said : that 
in my experience this provision giving the Attorney General the right 
to exclude aliens without a hearing under some circumstances has been 
administered in a fashion which a loyalty board in a Federal loyalty 
hearing would consider entirely out of the question. I have had 
some experience in these security matters, both before these Federal 
loyalty boards and in immigration matters. Now the Federal Loyalty 
System is not one that the American Civil Liberties Union in toto 
approves; very far from it. But, there, a system has grown up; its 
problem is the same, that is, of protecting the anonymity of in- 
formant, and at the same time gives some opportunity for a person 
who is suspected to be heard. The Federal loyalty boards have gotten 
somewhere on that — usually, given a statement as to the gromids for 
believing the person a security risk. It may not be in very definite 
terms, but in some terms. Under the administration of this section, 
there is no reason given. 

The Chairman. Did you have any other observations you wished 
to make to the Commission ? 

Mr. Heineman. I should like to discuss one procedural aspect which 
is, to my mind, basic and very important. 


That is the system of review which now fails to obtain or to respect 
visa exclusions. I think of no administrative officers in the whole 
system of America who has snch power as an American consul abroad 
Vvithout any responsibility — I won't say without any responsibility, 
but without being held to that responsibility without some sort of 
review procedure. 

The Chairman. "Wliat review procedure would you propose ? 

Mr. Heineman. I would like to propose that a review board be set 
up. I would say that if such a review board could be set up I think 
much could be learned from the experience of the Board of Immigra- 
tion Appeals which has confronted some of the difficulties, they have 
often decided cases Avhich have been decided at points of admission, 
at all points of the United States. They have often to deal with ad- 
mission or exclusion deals. There are strong parallels in conducting a 
Board of Inunigration Appeals. I think a board of review of some sort 
from consuhir action coulcl furnish a similar protection. 

I would like to spend a little more time and I should like to spend 
it in writing some fairl;^ concrete suggestions to submit to j^ou. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to receive any written suggestions 
you may wish to submit. 

Mr. Heineman. I don't want to tax the patience of this group, but 
if I may say something on a concrete procedural matter, it is about 
the procedure which the new law has provided for adjustment of 
status and which I had hoped would be a very great improvement over 
the old system of preexamination. The old system of preexamination 
was an administrative absurdity. It provided the duties of useless 
and nonsensible things. I think everyone who has had practical experi- 
ence in these matters welcomed the termination of that experience 
and the substitution of the adjustment of status provisions which is 
in the new law. From what limited experience I have had ^ince the 
new law was enacted and before its effect, and I think it is shared by 
many people in the Immigration Service, the new section doesn't meet 
the hopes that it had, and one of the reasons that it doesn't meet the 
hope is because of the requirement that a person be in status before 
he — in temporary status, that is — before he is entitled or before he can 
ask for adjustment of status from temporary to permanent. 

That requirement was not administratively in the old preexamina- 
tion regulations, and it has been my experience in handling a good 
number of preexamination cases over the years, and in regarding the 
matter or problem as a practical matter, right now in the interim 
period between the passage of the new law and the effect of it. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Is Miss Lea D. Taylor here? 


Miss Taylor. I am Lea D. Taylor, head resident of Chicago Com- 
mons Association, 955 West Grant Avenue, Chicago, which is the 
organization I am representing. I am also past president of the 
National Federation of Settlements. 

1 may repeat things you may have heard in other cities, but after 
all you have come to Chicago, and perhaps repetition isn't bad if it 


represents different things tliat have h.appened in different parts of 
the country, which may in all probability be similar. It at least shows 
the problem. I have tried to limit myself to a very few remarks 
here, largely from personal experience, because I haven't had an op- 
portunity to gather facts. 

I have not studied the law completely. I have read summaries of 
it. I think that the National Federation is later going to be before 
you in another city. But I am representing today the settlement 
houses and community centers and their neighbors throughout the 
country. There are several hundred of them, many of them located 
in areas where new immigrants have settled in new decades. 

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

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Miss Taylor. I am representing today settlement houses and com- 
munity centers and their neighbors throughout the country. There 
are several hundred of them, many of them located in areas where new 
immigrants have settled through past decades and in these current 
times. Because their work reaches all ages of a family, and because of 
the policy of serving all differing groups in a neighborhood, they know 
at first hand on a neighborly basis some of the many problems of fam- 
ily life, and are familiar with the process of the integration of new- 
comers into the life of America. 

It should not be necessary to tell this conunittee of the way in which 
immigrant families have become a part of American life. Such stories 
are well known. Many came from small villages or overpopulated 
areas in Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece, as well as from Scandi- 
navian and western European countries and Great Britain and Ire- 
land. A great many who came and who have formed the backbone 
of many sections of our country came with no high skills, but had 
willing hands, and they have not only helped to build our cities, our 
streets, and our railroads and highways, but have contributed to our 
cultural and intellectual life. Many stories could be told of the hard 
work and sacrifice of parents anxious to give their children the oppor- 
tunity of education and higher standards of living, denied to them in 
their country of birth. 

From an experience of 50 years of residence at Chicago Commons 
social settlement in a neighborhood near the center of the city, where 
many new immigrant groups have settled through the years, I have 
had long acquaintance \x\ih such families of Irish, Scandinavian, Ger- 
man, Italian, Greek, and Mexican families, and can testify that Amer- 
ica can be proud of the great majority of these families, whose chil- 
dren have grown up into useful citizenship. The caliber of the indi- 
vidual or the family is what is important, not the particular skill or 
ability, which might have been seriously conditioned by the circum- 
stances under which sucli a family may have been forced to live in 
their country of birth. The quality of the person is what counts, for 
such a person can take root in American soil, and can learn through 
participation in its democratic procedures. Americans by choice, 
they have been called ; citizens of a land which has offered them the 
opportunity to grow in thought and industry and life, a privilege 
not always appreciated to so great an extent by those who are native- 


I speak for many social centers throughout the country from the 
experience which 1 have personally had— the opportunity to watch the 
transition of a family from the early days of adjustment to new con- 
ditions of living in a new land, through the gradual development of 
a relationship to other groups, and development of citizenship respon- 
sibility. I have lived long in a neighborhood where little colonies of 
people from a similar background have clung to close relationships 
and often to the traditions of old-country living and customs. The 
settlements and social centers through neighborly acquaintances have 
sought to break barriers that divide people because of nationality, race, 
or creed, and to broaden human relations and relate groups to the life 
of the community as a whole. We have watched children from fam- 
ilies who came with very limited experience from a European coun- 
try grow into adult life with skill in industry and business, and in 
cultural life, and have seen many of them take an important place in 
the professions of law, medicine, and education. America has gained 
much from such citizens. 

The ability to develop into responsible citizenship cannot be de- 
termined by any test-tube analysis prior to the granting of permis- 
sion to enter this country. Nor can a person be judged by the educa- 
tion or experience which have been pattern of living in the land of 
his birth, or the circumstances under which he has had to live. 

I would like to comment on a small group of young men who came 
to this country and this city 20 years ago, having given the loyalty 
of their childhood and early adolescence to the Fascist organizations 
so temptingly put before them by Mussolini's Italy. Through experi- 
ences in this country of group life under intelligent leadership, and 
through the sliaring of such experience with other groups, the ideals 
and processes of democratic living have become a part of the life of 
each of these men who today have taken their vrell-carned place in the 
business and professional life of Chicago. 

Such examples could be multiplied many times over by all the social 
centers and many other groups throughout the coiuitry. This puts the 
emphasis on the need of faith in the common man and faith in the 
process of the democratic experience in American life, vrhich over 
many generations has helped to mold our citizenship out of people of 
many different backgrounds and experience in life. 

Artificial and rigid restrictions and requirements for entrance visas 
form barriers which will keep out of this country many who would 
make a real contribution to Arherican life, and who most need what 
America can offer and has offered in the past. 

Numbers probably have to be restricted. But it is hoped that some 
other criteria than country of birth can be found, and some measure 
other than a proportion of the census of 1920 can be used, which will 
fit the situation of the world of today more realistically and more prac- 
tically. For what is happening in other parts of the world, in over- 
populated countries, in countries where there is great strain in living, 
is important to the jjeace of the world. 

I had the opportunity this summer to meet with tlie International 
Federation of Settlements in Amsterdam, which brought together 
people interested in the human relations of neighborhoods in 14 coun- 
tries. We learned for instance, that the population per square mile 
in the Netherlands is greater than any other country in western 
Fairopo — 771 per sf|uaie mile as against 4 for a similar area in Canada. 


The Government of the Netherlands is promoting emigration. Set- 
tlements and other agencies have classes and educational programs to 
acquaint people with the opportunity of life in other countries. Emi- 
gration in 1948 was 13,837, in 1951 it was 37,129 and it is hoped to 
raise it in 1952 to 58,000. The quota for the United States is limited 
to 3,153. Canada will accept 25,000 and Australia 20,000 of these peo- 
ple who could easily be integrated into the industrial and agricultural 
life of this country, and who would make a real contribution to its 

We learned from the head of a German social settlement in Berlin, 
that of the 2,100,000 residents in V\^est Berlin, 1,100,000 are eligible 
for work, but 286,000, or one-quarter of the group, are unemployed 
due to the seriously handicapped industrial situation of that city. 
This number of unemployed is being daily increased by hundreds of 
refugees from the oast sector of the city or the east zone who manage 
to slip across into West Germany and who must be supported until 
work is found. It is said that 550,000 residents of Berlin are in need 
of Government assistance in order to live. Conditions in the refugee 
shelters or camps in Berlin and elsewhere in West Germany can take 
little account of the culture, education, or standard of living of any 
family or individual. I visited in Berlin a shelter for 700 people in 
a four-story windowless old air-raid bunker in which there was one 
small crowded room for each family. A central kitchen furnished 
food but it had to be taken to that room to be eaten. At least a third 
of that group were children, and I saw twin infants 2 weeks old 
living in one of those rooms. What can happen to such families 
from the point of view of health, morale, and morals, as well as propa- 
ganda, can well be imagined. 

In addition to refugees Germany has over 9,000,000 expellees, peo- 
ple of German heritage whose country of birth places them in lands 
behind the iron curtain, whose quota in our immigration policy is 
not only limited but probably mortgaged for years to come. 

I had the opportunity of working for 2 months this past summer 
in training institutes for social workers and teachers of German back- 
ground under the auspices of the Unitarian Service Committee and a 
German welfare organization. Many of those with whom we worked 
were expellees now giving service in social welfare work — case work 
with families, work with youth, or in institutions of the many dis- 
turbed children with which Germany is working today. One of them 
was one of four case workers in a refugee camp in Bavaria where 3,000 
people of all backgrounds — all ages — all educational levels, were 
crowded together simply existing — with no possibility of work oppor- 
tunity, nor of any incentive to break the impenetrable barriers which 
hemmed them in because of lack of housing and work opportunities. 
The future for these people seems dark indeed. 

The fear of continued existence in a police state, and the hope for 
freedom to maintain family life together, to gain educational oppor- 
tunity for their children, brought them to West Germany. There 
they, many of them, hoped to find the freedom of being able to think 
their own thoughts, and become useful citizens. Given the oppor- 
tunity many of them could make good before it is too late. 

America has been a country open to such people through the genera- 
tions. It has dared the great experiment of molding into one nation 


people of clilfering backaroiinds and beliefs. Such differences of cul- 
ture have enriched our Nation. Strength lies in the democratic 
process of education, of learning to live with and work for the four 
freedoms, of the experience of working together toward a higher 
standard of living for all. 

We, as part of a world of nations, have an obligation within reason- 
able limits of numbers, to free our immigration policy from restric- 
tions based on the fear of the common man, on discrimination against 
people of those countries which most need the opportunity to share in 
the life of this country. 

The settlements throuo-h this country urge this Commission to give 
hope to these people, to keep open the door to f reeclom, to safeguard 
our own comitry from police methods and fears which may undermine 
our democracy, and to make possible the educational processes which 
will help our native-born citizens, and our citizens by choice to build 
the America of which we may be j^roud. 

Commissioner Pickett, What do you think of the policy as con- 
tained in the new law respecting the limitation on the number of 
Asiatics that may be admitted? 

Miss Taylor. I certainly don't approve of it. I had acquaintance 
with a good many Asiatics. There are not many in our neighborhood, 
though we do have some of the Japanese people in our neighborhood 

Commissioner Pickett. Do you think they present any difficulty 
of assimilation? 

Miss Taylor. They have presented far less difficulty in Chicago 
than many other gi'oups, I think. They have amalgamated themselves 
into the life of our city in an extraordinary way. We have a very 
large number who came from the west at the time of the war period 
and the break-up of the so-called concentration camps in which we 
put people during the war years. I think they have just as many 
qualifications for becoming American citizens as any other nationality 
has. Any nationality has customs and traditions which they bring 
with them and which perhaps have to modify to fit into American 
life, but I have no fear of that group. 

The Chairman. Do I understand correctly that you would recom- 
mend as a matter of policy, subject to whatever proper restrictions 
ought to be placed on admissions to this country, that each individual 
ought to be admitted on the basis of his own qualification irrespective 
of the place of his birth or his national origin? 

Miss Taylor. Yes, I would, because a person is a person and as such 
may or may not have a contribution to make to this country; and 
whether he happens to have been a German person born in Czecho- 
slovakia and someone else born somewhere else, isn't necessarily a quali- 
fication. It has been an easy way of determining a quota system. 

I also believe in a pooling of the quotas which are unused from coun- 
tries from which we are not today obtaining immigration to the extent 
of the 1920 census. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Charles A. O'Neill. 



Mr. O'Neill. I am Charles A. O'Neill, executive secretary of the 
Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 1924 North Seventh Street, Milwaukee, 
Wis. I am also acting archdiocesan resettlement director of Mil- 

I have a prepared statement I would like to read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. O'Neill. I wish to express my appreciation to this honorable 
body for the privilege of presenting my views on the immigration poli- 
cies of the United States. I shall speak very briefly on the phase of 
this subject about which I am mostly familiar — tlie admission of immi- 
grants to this country in the light of our present and prospective eco- 
nomic and social conditions. I hope that the testimony of people like 
myself, who have had first-hand contacts with immigi'ants, as well as 
the testimony of expert sociologists and economists, will show that it 
is necessary to revise our immigration policies. I hope, that America 
will again assume leadership among the nations of the world in this 
great problem on which may very well be determined the peace for 
which we all seek. 

I shall speak from mj^ more than 20 years experience in the work 
of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. A work which has kept me close 
to the people of every walk of life and particularly close to the work- 
ingman and his social and economic condition. On the basis of this 
experience I now present these views : 

1. Immigrants, including the displaced persons coming to this coun- 
try in recent years, have been quickly assimilated. After they have 
been here about a year it is hardly possible to distinguish them from 
Americans born and reared in this country. 

2. Housing and jobs obtained for immigrants have not deprived 
Americans from housing and jobs. Although we have had a few com- 
plaints on this point they have come for the most part from people with 
deep prejudices and from people who were trying to compensate for 
their own inadequacies by placing blame on others, especially on the 

3. Immigrants have not caused any appreciable social or economic 
problems. In resettling more than 1,600 DP families and individuals 
through the WRS-NCWC in the Milwaukee area over a 4-year period, 
we found that only 20 of these families required assistance in the 
amount of approximately $1,800. This was mostly for household 
furniture furnished shortly after their arrival and most of this will be 
repaid by the people concerned. Only two of the 1,600 families and 
individuals presented problems of marital discord. There was only one 
known case of juvenile delinquency. Only eight cases required serv- 
ice and assistance with health problems. On a percentage basis I 
believe that the immigrants were more self-sufficient, healthier, and 
maintained better family relationship than any other cross section of 
our general population. 

4. There has only been one case of unemployment brought to my 
attention. That of a handicapped person who, we believe, will be 
placed soon. Employers have informed me that DP's have stayed on 


their jobs longer than other employees. That they have made good 
on their jobs is evidenced by the fact that there is no unemployment 

5. DP's have taught many of us lessons in thrift and good manage- 
ment of finances. We can cite numerous cases of people who have 
saved money to make a down jDayment on a home, who have purchased 
new furniture and other products of our great industries Avithin a 
year, after their arrival. The case illustrations used in the DP Story, 
the final report of the Displaced Persons Commission, are typical of 
our area. jNIay I also draw your attention to the Allis-Chalmers 
newspaper of December 12, 1951. The article on pages 2 and 3 
should greatly interest this Commission. 

6. The neAvcomers have by and large been a friendly and cooperative 
people joining readily not only in programs designed for them but 
in the general cultural activities of the community. They have with 
only one exception been anxious to apply as soon as possible for nat- 
uralization. In this one case the person was emotionally disturbed 
and presented a problem. The great majority were definitely anti- 
Communist and are the type of people we are proud to welcome as 

7. Looking ahead, I believe there will be very little unemployment 
in the next year. We get numerous calls for laborers, housekeepers, 
janitors, etc. The papers are full of ads every day seeking skilled and 
nonskilled help. More people are needed in the labor market. Organ- 
ized labor and industry, no doubt, will testify on this point. 

Although Ave entered into the DP program for the most part out of 
charitable consideration, and although I think that our immigration 
policies should b-e revised if for no other reason than a charitable one, 
the fact remains that my experience shoAvs that the immigrants to 
this country have been a decided asset to America and this, I belieA^e, 
should be the deciding factor in determining future policies. 

Commissioner Gullixson. In your wide experience with the DP's 
originally settled in rural areas, has there been any noticeable moA'e- 
ment toward Milwaukee ? 

Mr. O'Neill. That is a very good question. In the beginning we 
had a great number that had been resettled in rural areas and alter 
a short time they came to the cities. We noticed that as the program 
progressed, and I think a better job of matching the Jones' and the 
people Avas done, that the people stayed longer on the job. In fact, I 
understand from the State displaced persons commission of some 
580 families who Avere resettled last spring in Wisconsin after they 
had sent some agricultural agents to Europe to select them first hand, 
that 80 percent of those families are still Avith the sponsors on farms 
in Wisconsin. 

The Chairman. Eighty percent ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes. 

Connnissioner O'Gkady. Hoav many did that involve? 

Mr. O'Neill. 580 families, Monsignor. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Thank you A'ery nuich, Mr. O'Neill. We appreci- 
ate your giving us your A^ews. 

Is Mrs. Alfred T. Abeles here? 

25356—52 44 



Mrs. Abeles. I am Mrs. Alfred T. Abeles, 726 Ninth Street, Wil- 
mette, 111., chairman, Chicago Area Congregational DP Resettlement 

We Congregationalists are great individualists, and a little bit pecu- 
liar, and before we sa}'^ anything we preface it by saying that what we 
usually express are our own opinions and do not necessarily represent 
those of any group or organization to which we may belong. 
I have a statement I should like to read. 
The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Mrs. Abeles. I would like to speak in relation to section 2, para- 
graph (c) — the second part of paragraph (c). I should like to make 
it clear that any opinions I may express are my own personally and 
not necessarily those of any group or organization, I believe that 
emergency legislation is necessary to alleviate the plight of the world's 
uprooted people and to finish the job left undone at the expiration of 
the DP Act. We are already' committed to help those people who 
were processed but for whom visas were not available on December 
31, 1951. And I believe we should resettle our fair share, under 
proper safeguards, of escapees from behind the iron curtain since the 
end of the DP Act on December 31, 1952. This seems to me a partic- 
ularly logical and fitting policy for this country of ours which was 
founded by those who longed for freedom of worship and freedom of 
opportunity. As a church woman I believe we have a moral obliga- 
tion to practice the brotherhood we preach by giving opportunity 
to those in need. As a citizen I believe we should continue the demo- 
cratic tradition with which we began as a nation; furthermore that 
Ave need the skills oi these people and will find them of real value in 
our economy. Many of the great contributions in the fields of arts 
and the sciences in the United States have been made by people who 
came themselves from other countries or whose forbears did — all good 
Americans now. 

My experience best fits me to speak on the grassroots level at which 
I have worked in the local resettlement of DP's. Our local church 
has an active DP committee. We have resettled about 240 DP's 
from 11 countries ranging in age from unborn babies to a great- 
grandmother of 92. I believe that our fair share of these uprooted 
peoples might be 250,000 over a 3-year period — not per year, but total 
number, total period. This figure is conservative when you con- 
sider that under the DP Act, we were able to resettle and assimilate 
approximately 390,000 over a 4-year period. 

I have sat with several groups discussing the possibilities of financ- 
ing transportation. Their views varied from those who felt the 
entire burden should be borne by the refugee on a loan basis to those 
who felt the entire cost should be borne by the Government. I think 
a middle course would be best. To saddle the refugee with the entire 
cost of his ocean and inland transportation would in my opinion con- 
stitute so great a burden as to discourage his initiative. On the other 
hand, if he has to repay a reasonable amount of his transportation ex- 
pense, it will add to his sense of responsibility and give him a feeling 
of standing on his own feet. This amount could be arrived at in 


several ways — his ocean transportation could be paid as under the 
DP Act and his inland transportation could be a loan as it most often 
Avas before. But some people think then that everybody would want 
to settle on the east coast where transportation from port of entry 
would be small instead of spreading also to the western areas where 
there is more space and more new opportunities. Perhaps an arbi- 
trary figure the same for all should be used. One group suggests $100 
per adult and $50 per child between 6 and l(i should be repaid by 
the refugee. I feel that this whole question should be given careful 
consideration in order that a fair balance be reached — a balance where 
the refugee would repay a reasonable but not staggering amount on 
his transportation. The cochairman of our committee disagrees with 
me. She feels that the new immigrant should be asked to repay the 
entire cost of his transportation and, if he is given a long enough 
period, say the 5 years that it takes him to become a citizen, that this 
could be clone without undue hardship. We have no trouble at all in 
collecting the inland transportation which we have forwarded to our 
people in the form of loans plus a reasonable amount for resettlement 
of people after their arrival, which also has been given in the form 
of a loan. So far we have had 100 percent repayments. 

I would like to make one specific suggestion in processing. At 
some point along the way, probably at the point of embarkation 
quarters and on shii)board, a determined effort should be made to give 
the refugees a working knowledge of basic English. This was offered 
but not required before, and our greatest difficulty, both in placing 
our people jobwise and in integrating them into the life of the com- 
munity, was when there was a total absence of English. 

Finally, I would like to tell you in particular about a few of our 
people, as I'm sure it will make vivid for you why I know they will 
make good citizens. One of the first families who came to us was a 
Latvian widow with two sons 6 and 8 and a mother 82. They had 
been flown over because of the age of the grandmother and the fact 
that one of the boys had just recovered from pneumonia. They were 
48 hours out of DP camp when they arrived — and the impact of 
Chicago, a new language, and unknown job and future must have been 
terrific. Mrs. Z met me with a quiet friendly dignity. I had signed 
the assurance with my initials, and she had presumed I would be Mrs. 
Abeles. We had breakfast in the station. As I ordered, I asked Mrs. 
Z how her mother would like the eggs cooked. She replied in Latvian : 
"Eggs, they are heaven. How can one ask how to cook them?" Pres- 
ently one of the boys who had secured pencil and paper from his 
mother was busy drawing. Soon he held up the finished product. It 
was a very recognizable picture of Hopalong Cassidy, complete with 
two guns. The point of my story is that this same youngster was 
given a scholarship at the Art Institute last year. His mother is work- 
ing in my husband's office and has had several raises and earned the 
respect and friendship of all who work with her. She helped organize 
a Sunday school in her neighborhood for Latvian children and sings 
in a choir which gave a concert at Hull House. 

There is a White Russian family of six — mother and father and two 
married sons. Mr. and Mrs. P fled from Russia in 1918 and found 
temporary asylum in Turkey. From there they resettled in Yugo- 
slavia where their sons were born and Mr. P taught engineering at 


the University of Belgrade. They left Yugoslavia in flight from the 
Communists, leaving everything and ended in a DP camp. Wlien 
they had been here 8 months, with the help of an American family, 
they bought a house in Evanston. Father and oldest son, who are 
graduate engineers, have good jobs, and the youngest son ^rorked in 
a Diesel-engine plant and studies engineering at the University of 
Illinois at night. The young wives work in a Skokie candy factory. 
Two months ago Kicky, the young son and 23, was drafted. While 
his mother and wife are sad that he is away, the whole family has 
a fine attitude and feels that as they are enjoying the opportunities 
of the United States they must also assume their resi)on3ibiiities as 
future citizens. They have first papers, of course. Mrs. P. often 
comes to services in our church, and sat next to me at a guild luncheon 

Mr. M, his wife, and small son Peter have made good adjustments 
and have had an interesting job transition. Mr. M., who used to 
teach English in Hungary, now teaches Hungarian in the Berlitz 
School of Languages here. ]Mrs. M. w'orks in the local bank and loves 
it, and Peter is as fluent in American idiom as your son and mine. 

The second family of M is a young White Kussian couple. Soon 
after their arrival, Mrs. M bore a son. When she was ready to leave 
the hospital, the baby had a digestive upset and was kept for a few 
more days. The M's, who did not speak English, didn't understand 
why the hospital kept the baby but thought it was a strange American 
custom. When Mr. M's employer discovered the situation on inquiring 
about the baby, he phoned the hospital to hear that the baby was fine 
and the hospital was desperately trying to find the M.'s to give them 
their son. Wlien Mrs. M was told that her son was an American, just 
because he was born here, she v\'as so happy she burst into tears. 

I've saved the best until the last. Our own Mike is formerly of 
the Ukraine. Mike is 25, speaks five languages. Three years ago he 
spoke no English and this year he was awarded a graduate fellowship 
in math by Northwestern University. Mike is an important part of 
our family. He and our son John, 18, are as brothers, and each has 
gained much from association with the other. Mike has a great sensi- 
tivity to the needs of others and an innate sense of rightness and fair 
play. Best of all, he has a never-failing but gentle sense of humor. 
He has acted as interpreter for most of our newcomers — not only 
languagewise but in helping each of us to understand the point of view 
of the other. He takes an active part in the young adult group of our 
church and is known and liked throughout the community. 

I hope these remarks will make vivid for you why I feel we need 
emergency legislation to resettle our fair share of refugee peoples and 
why I feel that we need them in our economy and culture. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The hearing will now be recessed until 1 : 30 o'clock this afternoon. 

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





twelfth session 

Chicago, III. 

The President's Commission on Innnigration and Naturalization 
met at 1 : 30 p. m., pursuant to recess, in room 237, Federal Build- 
ing, 219 South Clark Street, Chicago, 111., Hon. Philip B. Perlman 
(Chairman) presiding. 

Present: Chairman Philip B. Perlman and the following Commis- 
sioners: Msgr. John O'Grady, Kev. Thaddeus Gullixson, Dr. Clar- 
ence E. Pickett, Mr. Thomas G. Finucane. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will be in order. 

Rev. Alpar Forro will be our first witness this afternoon. 


Reverend Forro. I am Rev. Alpar ForrO, pastor of St. Emeric's 
Church, 1017 North Seventeenth Street, Milwaukee, Wis. 

I have a statement I would like to read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Reverend Forro. Ex-displaced persons : It is my opinion that those 
displaced persons with whom I have dealt have made an excellent effort 
to adapt themselves to the American way of life. Generally speak- 
ing, they have proved to be industrious and anxious to support them- 
selves. The language barrier has forced most of them into unskilled 

The American people are, with few exceptions, kind and sympa- 
thetic toward these immigrants. Immigrant children are usually 
well liked in the schools for their friendliness and eagerness to 

In my estimation, the situation of tlie older ex-DP provides the 
greatest problem. In many cases they must engage in work which 
IS incompatible with their strength and health. This is due to the 
fact that breadwinners in large families do not earn enough to care 
for the older members. 

Another observation is in order concerning the necessity for men 
and women who have done professional and white-collar work all 
their lives to take up manual labor for which they have neither the 
experience, inclination, and, often, the physical fitness. Ex-DP's 



of this type usually speak several foreipi tongues and are, there- 
fore, more readily disposed to master the English language, given 
the proper opportunity. The ordinary courses in English offered to 
immigrants, however, are too elementary and too slow for them. 
With a good grasp of English, they might secure positions more suited 
to their training and capabilities. 

x'liese ex-DP's have a first-hand knowledge of communism. It is 
to the interest of the American people to learn of the experiences 
which were had by people who actually are the victims of Red domina- 
tion. This is particularly true of their own nationality groups. Com- 
munist agencies in the United States and Canada are doing their ut- 
most to discredit the ex-DP and place a wedge between him and the 
American citizen precisely for the purpose of counteracting anticom- 
munistic sentiment. 

Displaced persons in Europe : In some foreign countries where dis- 
placed persons seek refuge, working permits are denied them. In 
other countries — e. g., France and Germany, where they are permitted 
to work — the unions are under Marxist domination and are trying to 
increase hostility toward DP'S. In many factories it becomes impos- 
sible for the DP to remain on the job, because they claim to be anti- 
communistic and antisocialistic. 

It is hard for them at this time to go to Australia or South Amer- 
ica because the rate of unemployment is already high and the plight 
of previous DP's in those places is an unhappy one. 

America is the only alternative for these peoples. If those who 
have already settled here have, for the most part, proved worthy of a 
b aven in our country, then we should do everything possible to afford 
the same opportunity to those who still look to us for help. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Father. 

Is Mr. Horatio Tocco here ? 


Mr. Tocco. I am Horatio Tocco, 77 West Washington Street, Chi- 
cago, 111. I have been a practicing attorney for upward of 30 years. 
I appear in behalf of the American Committee on Italian Migration 
and the Civic League of Italian Americans, which is an organization 
that embraces various organizations of Italian groups here totaling 
close to 15,000 members. 

I have a statement I would, with your permission, read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Tocco. I justify my appearance before this distinguished Com- 
mission by no pretensions other than a modest practice of 20 years 
before the Immigration and Naturalization Department. 

At the outset I should like to remark that, in my opinion, the Com- 
mission need expend no energy in an effort to improve the adminis- 
tration of the immigration laws. As a result of my direct experience 
with the Immigration Department, I can earnestly say that no other 
Government service is better endowed with men of impeccable quali- 
fication and patriotic purpose. 


Katlier, I should like to direct my remarks to what I regard as the 
outstandiiic; deficiencies of the immigration laws — deficiencies that 
have persisted through the years, even to survive the thoroughgoing 
and commendable revision termed the McCarran Act. 

Before the act became law, the Honorable Senator Douglas, forti- 
fied by exhaustive research in this field, addressed the Senate on the 
subject Major Defects in the McCarran Immigration Bill. I cannot 
conceive how it would be possible for anyone to challenge the merit 
of his observations. I choose rather to believe that Congress was im- 
pressed with so much of the act, considering its magnitude and scope, 
that it was not of the proper temperament to receive constructive 

I find most objectionable the provisions dealing with the quota 
system and am certain that incalculable harm will result if a remedy 
is not quickly found. The numerical limitations based upon national 
origin and the refusal to allocate unused quota to nations sorely in 
need of such relief are an inheritance from the past and were in their 
inception predicated upon and tainted with a vicious and arrogant 

I am a proponent of reasonable restrictions on the sum of immigrants 
to be grantee! admission, but I am certain that the enlightening Amer- 
ican mind repudiates as discriminatory and absurd laws which ofTer 
liberal quotas to north European countries which neither require nor 
avail themselves of such quotas and simultaneously allot quotas meager 
to the point of insult to south European countries. The countries 
which need economic relief are the countries we are most apprehensive 
of retaining as allies in our struggle against undemocratic ideologies. 
We recognize this problem by offering them pecuniary aid that is not 
designed to be more than tissue-thin, but we feel that the patronizing 
gesture will accomplish our ends. This approach, while wholesome 
to a limited extent, is of microscopic benefit unless a constructive immi- 
gration policy is inaugurated. It is tlie immigrant who provides the 
only direct and personal touch with the people of his native country. 
Every immigrant in America has scores of friends and relatives abroad 
to whom he communicates his affection for America. For example, it 
was such a phenomenon that accounted for the influence of American 
opinion in Italy during recent Italian elections. Democracy has been 
in such precarious balance in Italy that I am convinced that the affec- 
tion of Italians for America through direct personal contact has been 
the decisive factor. 

I speak of Italy because I move in an environment of Italian-Amer- 
icans and therefore am kept abreast of Italian problems. 

In Italy we witness the phenomenon of 48,000,000 persons endeavor- 
ing to sustain themselves upon a strip of soil worthless except for its 
esthetic features. In consequence, Italy's economic worth is the sum 
of its people's talents in the esthetic spheres. These are obviously 
inadequate, and it is apparent that the only peaceable method of 
relieving the pressures of overpopulation is through emigration. 

America is sorely in need of skilled workers such as tailors, cobblers, 
masons, plasterers, and others, ad infinitum. America needs all the 
allies it can muster in Europe. 

America's immigration policy is obsolete and unworkable. 

I submit that this Commission should recommend substantial 
enlargement of the Italian quota as well as to other low-quota countries. 


Commissioner O'Ge^^dy. What are your views regarding the national 
origins theory ? 

Mr. Tocco. I have this suggestion to offer, Monsignor O'Grady, 
v/ith reference to national origins : If it were at all possible to base 
the formula not on 1920, but bring it up to, say, 1950. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Is Reverend Bosler here ? 


Reverend Bosler. I am Rev. Raymond Bosler, 4615 Sunset Avenue, 
Indianapolis, Ind. I am editor of the Indiana Catholic and Record. 
I am appearing here on behalf of the Indianapolis Community Rela- 
tions Council, 520 K, of P. Building, Indianapolis, Ind. 

This situation, gentlemen, rather reminds me of a certain type of 
preacher that rambles on in prayer for half an hour or so putting 
God right about what is wrong with the world. There is little that 
I can tell you that you don't know better than I. I merely want to 
say that my presence here is an indication of something. I have no 
personal ax to grind nor has the Indianapolis Community Relations 
Council any ax to grind. I came 200 miles here this morning on a 
day when I should be at the home. This is the deadline today for 
my newspaper. That is an indication that I am interested personally. 

I have been requested to appear by this organization I represent, 
which was founded in 1945 for the purpose, primarily, of eliminating 
entirely religious, racial, cultural prejudices in our city and county. 
We are intensely interested in bettering our laws regarding immigra- 

Now, the very fact that I represent this council, I think, is also 
very significant. In the days when I was a very young boy, the Ku 
Klux Klan was rampant in Indianapolis. Pretty much the heart of 
it in the country. At that time it would have been pretty hard for 
a Catholic priest to represent the city. But things have changed. 
The fact that they have asked me to come here is, I think, most sig- 
nificant. It shows that thing;s have changed in this country and there 
I think lies the most objectionable feature to our new legislation, if 
you can call it that: it fails to take into consideration the changes 
that have taken place in this country in the last 30 years and tre- 
mendous changes have taken place. 

I cannot come to you as an authority on the subject. I don't claim 
to be an expert. We don't claim in Indianapolis to be experts. But 
we feel something should be done; that the legislation will become 
our law and it is a disgrace. 

I think, personallj^, it is an infamous law. It is a disgrace to us as 

In answer to a question previously brought up by a member of the 
Commission here, it seems to me that the primary basis must be need, 
the need of the people outside of this country to find a place to live 
because human beings have got a right to live, not only Americans 
but all human beings. 


We can't let everybody in here. We can't possibly do that. We 
must have some sort of quota. We have got to have some elimination, 
but why can't that be determined by a certain number each year? 
Whatever that mimber should be I don't know, but why can't it be 
determined that way and, other than that, not by national origins — 
which is a slap in the face to Asiatics, a slap in the face to the people 
of southern Europe and of eastern Europe — but I'ather by need. 

That is practically the plan we have been following in our DP 
program; it is need. It seems to me that is what we are going to 
have to do ])rimarily. 

I have mentioned things not covered in the prepared statement I 
wish to submit, but that represents the thinking of the Indianapolis 
Community Relations Council. 

Tlie Chairman. Thank you ver}^ much. Your prepared statement 
will be inserted in the record. 

(There follows the prepared statement submitted by Rev. Raymond 
T. Bosler in behalf of the Indianapolis Community Relations Coun- 
cil :) 

October 8, 1952. 

This .statement is .submitted on behalf oi tlie Iiuliantipolis Community Relations 
Council (hereinafter referred to a.s the council) Indianapolis, Ind. This organi- 
zation was established in 1945 to promote the process of true democracy by aiding 
in the elimination of intolerance, racial, religious, and cultural prejudice, and 
discrimination in ail of its forms in the city of Indianapolis and ]Marion County, 
Ind. ; and to continue to maintain and foster within the communities which 
constitute the city of Indianapolis, Marion County, Ind., the higli principles 
embodied in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. It is 
to be further understood that this council was founded ui)on a nonsectarian basis 
working toward the betterment of the general welfare of all our American 
people irrespective of their religious, racial, .social, economic, or national back- 

Tlie council would like to compliment the President's Commission on Inuni- 
gration and Naturalization on the decision to hold hearings in various parts 
of the country. These hearings will help you secure the wishes and the will 
of the people throughout our great Nation. During the bearings and con- 
gressional debates on the JMcCarran-Walter bill, citizen groups and private 
agencies expressed criticism of individual sections of the present law and the 
McCarran-Walter measure which will become effective on December 24 of this 
year, as the immigration and naturalization law of 1952. It is because the last 
Congress failed to consider these criticisms, that citizens, groups, and private 
agencies must again today point to the many inadequacies of our present 
immigration system. 

The council has no special private cause to plead * *■ * no special selfish 
interest in the improvement and liberalization of our immigration laws, except 
that of Americans primarily concerned with the establishment of new laws and 
the safeguarding of basic laws to ensure democratic principles. 

Immigration laws should express a society's basic human values. They 
should deal with our relationship with all people. These laws affirm and estab- 
lish the extent of our acceptance or rejection of the essential quality of all human 
beings. As an organization dedicated to the task of ridding society of all forms 
of prejudice and intolerance, we believe that immigration laws classify our 
prejudice or our freedom from prejudice. 

It is our opinion that the immigration laws have been regarded and admin- 
istered with a design to exclude those who seek admission, a kind of device which 
allows only those to enter who are fortunate enough to emerge from the maze 
of obstacles. It is unfortunate that throughout our immigration law. we find 
thinly disguised hostility, which is codified and made more pronounced in the 
immigration and naturalization law of 1952. 

We believe strongly our obligation to protect ourselves against those indi- 
viduals who seek to enter the United States to perform criminal acts or in order 
to subvert our democratic system of government. We realize that we cannot 
have unlimited immigration into the United States and that, therefore, the prin- 


ciples of selection must be established to choose the limited number of the many 
who seek entry ; however, we should not establish such principles of selection 
on the basis of hostility and racial discrimination. This would be harmful to 
a strong and secure democracy. 

Immigrants on entry should be made to feel welcome, rather than suspected. 
It is our belief that the primary responsibility before the Congress of the United 
States is the recognition that the immigration bill, as recently enacted, needs 
much revision and amendment. It has been demonstrated clearly since the end 
of the war, that our present quota system is inadequate. We were therefore 
compelled to resort to emergency legislation in order to admit displaced persons. 
Allowing such a quota system to I'emain unchanged leaves only the alternative 
of similar emergency legislation in order to admit any substantial portion of the 
refugees from totalitarianism or the victims of overcrowding in Europe. This 
seems analogous to the taking of pills for the cure of cancer. A real diagnosis 
of the immigration law codification should dispel the need for emergency legis- 
lation. If we eliminate the national-origins-quota system from our basic immi- 
gration law, we would be able to cope with the emergency situations which the 
Celler and Henderson bills of the last Congress tried to meet through piecemeal 

The national-origins-quota system was adopted in 1924 and has been used ever 
since. It was adopted in a period of unemployment, when the Ku Klux Klan 
was a powerful and influential force in American life, when a post World War I 
wave of isolationism and xenophobia was sweeping the United States and seems 
ti) us to have been a deliberate legislative maneuver. 

In the year 1952, it seems to us there is little need for pointing out that a 
national origin system based on bigotry and ignorance is not only unfashion- 
able, but is un-American and can serve this Nation a terrible blow in our struggle 
to overcome the sinister Communist aggressions and charges. 

We believe that the concept of deportation, except for fraud or illegal entry, 
as employed in present immigration statutes should be abolished. We do not 
believe in the concept of indiscriminate deportation of any person admitted into 
our great land for permanent residence. We believe that the distinction between 
native-born and naturalized citizens in our immigration laws should be elimi- 
nated as contrary to the spirit of democracy and the Constitution of our land. 
People admitted for permanent residence should be punished like any other 
American citizens. To deport them indiscriminately is inhuman and un- 
American. It punishes their innocent families. We believe that there must 
be a period of limitation after entry following which an alien will not be 

We believe that our immigration laws must always provide for adequate 
judicial I'eview of administrative decisions. Bearing in mind that safeguards to 
protect the national security must be maintained, we caution against the use 
of measures which violate the American concept of justice as do many of the 
provisions of our existing immigration codes. 

Other specific objections against the present McCarran law may be cited as 
follows : 

(1) The continuance of waste of half of the allowable quota numbers each 

(2) Discrimination — 
(a) Against orientals. 

(&) Against would-be immigrants from Jamaica, Trinidad, and colonies of 
the West Indies, most of whom are Negroes. 

(3) The present law perpetuates 1920 as the base year for computing quotas, 
rather than using the year 1950. It seems to us that the 1952 Immigration Act 
fails to recognize the present composition of our i)opulation and ignores the 
many changes in the last 30 years. 

(4) The McCarran Act eliminates the statute of limitations in many deporta- 
tion cases. It also creates numerous grounds for deportation not easily subject 
to judicial review. 

(5) The act eliminates from quota-exempt immigrants such groups as profes- 
sors. It contains restrictive provisions which pose new and difficult literacy re- 
quirements for victims of racial and religious persecution and for the near rela- 
tives of citizens of legally admitted aliens. 

In conclusion, may we point out the significant opportunity of this Commission 
to recommend the shaping of immigration and naturalization laws, so that they 
conform better to American ideals and exi^erience, requiring equal treatment of 
all persons and the fullest guaranty of basic civil liberties. We believe that 


our immigration and naturalization laws must be clear of all taint of racial, 
religious, and ethnic discrimination. 
Respectfully sul)mitted. 

Kev. Raymond T. Boslkr 
(For the Indianapolis Community Relations Council). 

The Cjiaikmax. Is Mr. Nicliolus Pesch here? 


Mr. Pesch, I am Nicholas Pesch, 3500 "West North Avenue, Chicago, 
111. I am representing the American Aid Societies of which I am 

I have a statement I would like to read as president of that or- 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Pesch. The last war left us with, conditions in the world per- 
liaps never experienced before in history. Whole countries were 
shaken out of their economic foundation. People were scattered all 
over the world and could not find a place for work or rest, and 
finally had to be cared for by an international organization. Slowly 
it was recognized by all concerned that this feeding and caring for 
these destitutes was not a permanent solution. 

It developed that permanent living and working places had to be 
found for a good many people, unless we wanted to risk a graver 
situation to develop, such as diseases, or even political or economical 

So the work was started by UNRRA and later continued by the 
DP Commission. This proved to be a good start and a step in the 
right direction. It has been reported that about 500,000 people have 
been resettled by these agencies, and we, the American Aid Societies 
believe, commendable as that may be, we the people of the United 
States of America could afford to do more in that direction. AVe 
believe that now is not the time to look for somebody to blame for 
the terrible conditions that exist at present in the world, but rather 
should we examine the conditions and try to eliminate some of the 
worst features of it. 

We, the people of the United States should try to do our fair share 
of this unavoidable task, in order to induce fair-minded people of 
other countries to do their share tllso. 

May we remind the Commission of the situation as it exists in 
Germany, where even at present many thousands of refugees cross 
the border into Germany every month — also into other countries. 
Germany as well as these other countries have to do everything in 
their power to feed and house these people, which is no small matter. 

Therefore, we of the American Aid Societies wish to suggest to 
the Commission, and through the Commission to the President of 
the United States, and to Congress, that a new emergency legisla- 
tion should be enacted at once, and that such emergency legislation 
should allow several hundred thousand people to enter our country, 
and that all people in Europe, who are not behind the iron curtain, 
should have a fair share in this immigration program, according to 
their need. 


We not only believe that our country will gain materially by this 
move, but also will strengthen the belief of the suppressed people 
in Europe in unselfish devotion to morals and ethics amongst people 
and nations in the world. 

The American Aid Societies accepted the task to care for ethnic 
Germans, but believes that all national and religious groups should 
get equal consideration. 

The Chairman. What are the American Aid Societies ? 

Mr. Pesch. The American Aid Societies was organized in March 
1945, after the war was nearly ended, and we found out what was 
going on in Europe. We made our task that of trying to help ethnic 
German people because the American Aid Societies is mostly Germans. 

The Chairman. How many are in the organization ? 

Mr. Pesch. We have eight chapters in the United States and the 
membership could be around 20 to 25,000. 

The Chairman. Scattered all over the country ? 

Mr. Pesch. Yes, and we have sent packages of food and clothing 
and we assisted all we could in bringing people over here where pos- 
sible in the DP Act. We brought in, I would say, about 8 to 10,000 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Pesch, have the American Aid Societies taken 
any position or given any thought to the long-range immigration law 
as distinguished to the emergency law you have spoken of ? 

Mr. Pesch. No ; we have not. We think if we would start to remake 
the present law it would take too long a time to be of any aid to those 
people who most need it right now. 

We are not altogether satisfied with the present immigration law, 
but we did not come here with the idea to point out the wrongs and 
difficulties with that law. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Mr. Pesch, will you tell the Commission a little bit 
more about what you mean by your statement that you are represent- 
ing the ethnic Germans, what groups that represents in Europe ? 

Mr. Pesch. That is groups born outside of the German borders and 
either were driven out, or more or less forced out of their former 

Mr. Rosenfield. Does that group consist of persons born outside 
Germany who would be charged to quotas other than that of 
Germany ? 

Mr. Pesch. Yes. The German people have a legal government 
which can care for their people better than we could ; but these people 
driven out of southern Europe and eastern Europe have nobody to 
fight for them and we thought they need a little help. 

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

Is Dr. Archie A. Skemp here ? 


Dr. Skemp. I am Dr. Archie A. Skemp, of La Crosse, Wis. I do 
not represent any organization. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you. 

Dr. Skemp. Mr. Chairman, right reverend monsignor, reverend 
fathers, and gentlemen of this committee: I was greatly surprised 
when I had this invitation to appear before you because I have, as far 
as this subject is concerned, probably a relatively poor foundation in 


niiich of the teclinical knowledirG and a lot of tlie oroat issues that aio 
in^'olved. But I a])preciate the opportunity of comin{x here and hope 
that a few ideas that I may present may be of some vahie in the 
elucidation of this problem. 

When I got up at about 5 : 30 this morning I felt really that it was 
one of the great days of my life, because I realized in coming down 
here I would have a terrific change in my routine and have the oppor- 
tunity of meeting aiid talking to people avIio are interested in one of 
the nuijor problems of our time, and also maybe in giving the per- 
spective and idea of a general surgeon I could give you something a 
little bit different than the rank and file will give you. 

Before I came down I went to the hospital in which I work, and 
went to Mass and meditated a little bit, and after I was there about 
10 minutes someone tapped me on the shoulder and said "please come 
up on the second floor as quickly as possible because I think my father 
is dying." I felt then like an immigrant, and I had to go to the sec- 
ond floor and watch Joe die. Joe, too, was an immigrant. He was 
going to the Great Beyond which is generally known as the Real 

The train left promptly at 9 o'clock and it was really a marvelous 
thing to be in this beautiful empire and have the opportunity of going 
down the east bank of the Mississippi and see nature in all its gran- 
deur. The hillside was beautiful and the water calm and placid, and 
it seemed to be a fine opportunity for meditation and orientation for 
the problem that is mine tomorrow. 

I had just settled down when the brakeman came up and recognized 
me and talked to me ; hadn't gone far when we saw a cabin in the hills. 
He said, "That is mine." I said, "That is wonderful." He said, "I 
have 5 acres there and I find it makes me feel like a millionaire." That 
was the only cabin in 20 or 30 miles. I couldn't help but feel that if all 
land utilized in that side of the river was utilized as this brakeman was 
doing, it would probably furnish food and shelter for hundreds of 

As the train went further south we came in from the Mississippi 
bottom and saw thousands of acres of land lying idle ; land of astound- 
ing fertility. There and now a fishing shack or some cabin, but 
nothing was being done with the soil. Again the thought came to me, 
if we could only utilize all the land lying idle here it would take care 
of thousands of those people in Europe and Asia who are not really 
getting enough to eat. 

I walked to the left side of the train and took a peek at the hills as 
we passed them, and on these hills saw thousands and thousands of 
logs rotting and no one attending to them, and you can't help but feel 
that if we could cut them for firewood that we could keep thousands 
of people warm. 

It was about time then to gather a few thoughts on this little paper, 
which I did, and drew up a few notes, and before long a little Italian 
came up to me. He said, "long time no see." I looked at him in 
astonishment and wondered if I had forgotten somebody I had seen. 
He said his name was Pentalli. I said, "Was I supposed to know you ?" 
He said, "I meant now long time no see this country." Then he said, 
"I am just coming back to Seattle, and on my last furlough before 
going to the Orient as aviator." Then I remembered Archbishop 


Kirk's paragraph concerning the injustices being clone and how some 
people like the Italians have received very meager and probably very 
uncharitable attention in this immigration program, and the train was 
on time, and I got here just a few minutes ago, and I have just about 
caught my breath. 

The preparation I made is a map of the Southwest and the terri- 
tories of the Southwest: Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, California, 
Kansas, Utah, et cetera. For instance, Texas with all of its square 
miles and comparable to the area of Germany, represented here in 
square kilometers; New Mexico, with 121,000 square miles, is compa- 
rable to the British Isles and half of Austria ; but the astonishing thing 
about this deal is that in every instance the population is only a frac- 
tion of the population of the countries of comparable size in Europe. 
For instance, the British Isles — England, Scotland, and Ireland — with 
an area of 89,000 square miles has a population of approximately 
45,000,000 ; Wyoming, with 97,000 square miles, has 290,000 people. 

Of course, we are all aware of this thing, but very little is done 
about it. The striking thing about it is a lot could be done about it 
and the whole question here in my mind is the question of trying to 
bring to this territory water, and this is what we are wasting in an 
ungodly fashion. 

Surrounding this territory I have drawn lines that are geographi- 
cally schematic and probably inaccurate, but they give the over-all 
idea. On one side I have the Mississippi River and on the other side 
I have the Colorado River, and below have the Rio Grande, and across 
the top I have the Missouri River. Now, these streams carry millions 
and millions of gallons of water and millions and millions of tons of 
topsoil that we clump into the ocean. And our technical knowledge 
of today is advanced to a point where this water could be saved and 
this topsoil could be saved and we could flow into Wyoming and Colo- 
rado and New Mexico and Arizona and Texas and Oklahoma millions 
of gallons of water that would take care of hundreds of millions of 
people. There is just no question about that. That could be all proved. 

One of the most dramatic things I have read for a long time is the 
story of Holland and their anxiety to get enough to eat and their 
agricultural problems, and they have found it necessary to pump out 
the ocean water so that they may reclaim the bed of the ocean and it 
is a gi^eat honor in Holland to get the bed of the ocean to work for it 
and to create the food for the Hollanders. 

In order to do that, people have to pass an examination in order to 
get some of this land. They have to show that they are adept in agri- 
cultural science and know about soil chemistry and they are looked 
upon as specialists and technical people, and it is an honor to get some 
of the bottom of the sea. 

Half of the 10,000,000 people live below the level of the sea. In a 
temporary fashion, instead of pumping water out of the ocean, we are 
pumping our topsoil and our Avater into the ocean and it certainly 
wouldn't be a far stretch of the imagination if we can take gas and 
oil from Louisiana and Texas and pump it into New York, we prob- 
ably could take pumps into the Missouri River, Mississippi River, 
Colorado River, and the Rio Grande, and all their tributaries, and 
pump that water into the desert where the soil has almost unlimited 
fertility and where really a bread basket could be created to take care 
of literally millions and millions of people. 


One of our big problems, too, is the problem of marketing. At the 
present time our economists are somewhat concerned about the postwar 
jDeriod, figuring that after the war the manufacturers, the great manu- 
facturing industries of our countries like General Motors, General 
Electric, Westinghou^e, and all the others will go into a slump because 
there won't be a market for this stuff and those of us who have lived 
over 50 years can visualize a rehash of the late twenties and thirties 
when the labor market was flooded and people had nothing to do 
because then the General Motors and Westinghouse, et cetera, were 
laying off people. 

If we liad a market in our Southwest we would certainly have prac- 
tically all the market we needed and many of our economic problems 
would be solved because we would have at our own front door a num- 
ber of consiuners who could readily take up a lot of the slack that would 
occur in case of a letdown from lack of war orders and so forth. 

We have also in all the rest of the United States, except probably a 
few of the States in the East, the small States like Rhode Island and 
so forth, comparable situations. In the State of Wisconsin we have a 
mileage comparable to that of England and a population probably 
about 10 percent of that of England, and many of those countries when 
they are really put to the real test of blockade of war and so on can 
get practically enough out of their own soil to keep on living. 

I think the average human being has failed now to recognize the 
progress that has been made in agriculture. A few months ago, writ- 
ing in the Farm Journal, Gruenfield said that the human being can in a 
few years time do as much as nature can do in, oh, 10,000 years, and he 
enlarged on that thought by telling how by proper farming, by the 
planting of legumes, and by practicing sound scientific agricultural 
principles that we know of at the present time, that this soil of ours can 
be brought back into a paradise, and 1 acre now lying idle can produce 
enough to take care of many people. 

About 2 years ago a farmer had his picture in a farm journal and he 
was tlie winner of the Northern Peninsula Potato Growing Tourna- 
ment, and in 1 acre of his he produced something like 850 bushels of 
potatoes. I made a rapid computation of the acreage of that county 
and figured that on that basis it could almost grow enough potatoes to 
take care of the entire United States of America. 

One more mistake we see is tons and carloads of food that we haven't 
got a market for, potatoes and apples and what nots that we cannot 
get to other consumers because of our serious mistakes like in popula- 
tion distribution. Our other sources of life as yet have not been 
tapped. When we consider the Mississippi River that could probably 
furnish enough nitrogen to take care of the nitrogenous needs of the 
Northwest if we could clean out the sludge and take care of those fish 
in there ; when we take care of our destruction of sewage in our canals 
and so on, those things could be kept clean and take care of our fish 
and care for the soil so its productivity could take care of these people. 

I think in considering this problem we want to defend a few prin- 
ciples such as the fact that you can't overproduce. It is inconceivable 
that production can get to a jioint where it will be a danger to a 
country. I don't think either it is possible to overpopulate. It is 
a fascinating thing to walk into a valley where probably a potato or 
cabbage plant hasn't been for generations and plant a potato or plant 


a cabbage plant and find ont that T^itliin a few months or few weeks 
all the destructive bugs will be on those plants in order to keep what 
you might call the battle of nature, because nature will take care of 
that. There won't be too many potatoes or cabbages or too many 
people. There won't be too many of anything. That is all in God's 
scheme of things. There is always something coming up to level 
things off and preserve these things. 

Commissioner O'Grady. How many displaced persons farm families 
have you helped resettle ? 

Dr! Skemp. I haven't kept a record of the families, but I think about 
200 people have passed through the State with us or passed through 
our little program. 

Commissioner Pickett. Have you had any problem of undesirable 
people from the national welfare point of view ? 

Dr. Skemp. No, sir. Every man that I have had was a gentleman, 
some were sick and some were feeble and some wanted to live in big 
cities; they all had the snme weaknesses I have, you know, human 
weakness, and the problem of physical weakness and suspicion. That 
was one of the big things. They thought behind everything you tried 
to do was an ulterior motive. They couldn't conceive of someone 
doing something for them who wasn't trying to get something out 
of it for himself. It just seemed it was impossible. 

I honestly felt the people I had were just as good as myself or like 
the people in the community. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Doctor. 

Mr. Charles V. Falkenberg. 


Mr. Falkenberg. I am Charles V. Falkenberg, 2745 Logan Boule- 
vard, Chicago. 

I am here at the suggestion of the commander of the Cook County 
Council of the American Legion, department of Illinois, in Chicago, 
111., to speak in behalf of a resolution which the Cook Cpunty Council 
adopted at its meeting on Wednesday of last week. 

I will read the resolution, if I may. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

(There follows the resolution read by Mr. Charles V. Falkenberg 
on behalf of the Cook County Council of the American Legion, de- 
partment of Illinois:) 


"Whereas tbe ranks of the unemployed, and in particular in the larger metro- 
politan areas, according to statistical employment figures, are steadily grow- 
ing; and 

"Whereas men and women serving in the Armed Forces of the Nation must 
be protected job-wise upon their return to civilian life ; and 

"Whereas hundreds of American families are reported as having been or 
about to be evicted from their living quarters to make room for peoples, gen- 
erally displaced persons of Europe and Asia imported into this country; and 

"Whereas the American Legion and all its affiliated groups must, if they are 
to justify their existence protect the American standard of living ; and 

"Whereas the sympathy of all goes out to those unfortunate peoples of other 
lands, but we of America must remember that charity begins at home, and until 


sxuh time as our own unemployment and housing i)roblenis are solved for the 
American people, which means and includes jobs and adequate housing for 
GI's now in service, upon their discharge therefrom, we must postpone the 
entrance into this coiuitry, particularly into our metropolitan areas, of several 
million more displaced poisons wlio, it is rejiorted, iire soon to be jjermitted en- 
trance into the United States, and in the end tliat the number of our own unem- 
ployed may be kept to a mininmni and that no Americjin citizen may be evicted 
from his home, be it tenement, residence, or apartment: Now, therefore, be it 

"Rcsolrcd, That the American Legion through its national commander petition 
the President of the United States of America and the Congress to defer the 
contemplated Importation of another 3 million displaced persons until such 
time as the unemployment within this country be decreased to a minimum and 
adequate housing facilities become available to all American-born men, women, 
and all naturalized citizens." 

Unanimously adopted by the first division, department of Illinois, in regular 
meeting assembled in Chicago, 111., October 1, 1952. 

Irving Breakstone, Commander. 

Commissioner O'Grady. "What is the source for the figure of sev- 
eral minion you read in the resohition ? 

Mr. Falkenberg. Very frankly I cannot give you the exact figures, 
but those are the figures which were given to those who attended the 
national convention of the American Legion in New York. 

I don't know where they got them, whether they are authoritative 
or whether they are results of talks made by the federation or others 
at the convention, or whether they are the result of some bills or some- 
thing that some Congressmen or Senators are about to introduce. 
I don't know. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Would you tell how the resolution you 
read was arrived at ? 

Mr. Falkenberg. May I say this: this resolution originated in 
Logan Square Post. A brief study was made by a committee. They 
then presented their results to the post, which has about 400 mem- 

The post then refers it to the district which represents 51 posts. The 
51 posts refer it to their appropriate committee. There may be some 
type of a study. I wasn't on the committee so I can't tell you. They 
then report to the executive conmiittee of the ninth district; the 
ninth district executive committee recommends or rejects. They 
recommended approval of it. 

It then went to the delegates to the 51 posts who endorsed it. It 
then went down to Cook County where the same procedure was fol- 
lowed. The Cook County consists of 400 posts and it is a larger 
county organization than any department in the Legion excepting 
those of five States. If we passed it, as we did, it goes to the depart- 
ment executive committee at the Illinois department at Wilmington ; it 
will then go to the national executive committee of the Legion who 
will then study it. 

They will then refer it to their standing committee. Their stand- 
ing committee will either amend it, qualify it, endorse it, elaborate on it, 
or recommend rejection or approval. When they have done that, the 
final job will be to present it to some legislator or to the President 
of the United States. 

When they get through it may turn out that instead of 3 million it 
might be 100,000 or 8 million. They will assemble all the figures 
which will be authoritative by the time it gets back to the White House 
or to the Congress. 

25356—52 45 


Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Falkenberg, may I suggest that the Logan 
Square Post might take a look — I think there is a typographical error 
there — what they are probably referring to is the President's pro- 
posal of 800,000, rather than 3 million. 

Mr. Falkenberg. It is probable. Somebod}^ told me that soniebody 
liad suggested Senator McCarran had something like three, four or 
five thousand in addition to the President's proposal. 

Tlie Chairman. No, it is Congressman Celler in the House who has 
a bill for 300,000. 

Mr. Falkenberg. It may be that. Our position is that we are not 
against anybody coming in whether he is brown, yellow or white or 
black, if by coming in he doesn't prevent an American-born individual, 
particularly a member who honorably served his country in time of 
the country's need, whether Spanish War veteran or World War I or 
II or a man over in Korea in a police action. We want to make sure 
they are taken care of first. Wlien that is done we don't care what is 
done to somebody else. 

Commissioner Pickett. Do you think that the actual condition of 
the labor market today was considered when your resolution was 
drafted ? 

Mr. Falkenberg. I think you will find out if you will take the 
American Federation of Labor figures on unemployment and compare 
them with National Industrial Conference Board that you v/ill find 
they vary as much as 7 million. If you will take the unemployment, 
one has a maximum number of 11 or 12, and others have an unemploy- 
ment of 16 or 17 million. I don't profess to be an expert on this. I 
think the Legion and other veterans' organizations think — and I be- 
lieve rightly — that nothing should be done to prevent a native-born 
man in having that home and liaving that job, before giving it to other 

I listened to the very interesting gentleman a few minutes ago. 
About 6 months ago a lady born in Poland but who was displaced into 
Germany was referred to my wife to do some housework. She had a 
husband and she had three children and she had a grandchild. The 
grandchild was 5, the children 8, 9, and 14. They lived over on Chi- 
cago Avenue at Ashland Avenue, six of them in a one-and-a-half room 
at $50 a month with one window, one door and five families using the 
toilet. I think that is a disgrace to bring anybody over here and put 
them into that kind of housing. They now live at 143 Ballina Street 
in a basement. All the openings are covered with bricks or metals so 
the rats don't get in. They have two beds for six people. The father 
and boy and wife sleep in one, and three girls in the other. I think it 
is inhuman to bring anybody as a displaced person into a country like 
the United States and say we are giving you adequate housing. This 
isn't tlie only one. There are a great many of them. We don't want 
to go back to standing on a corner. Once our fellows and their chil- 
dren and families have been taken care of, we don't care if you bring in 
140 or 150,000 or 15 million, provided you can get them in some place 
where they should be and not in all the metropolitan centers. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. Do you favor a quota system based on 
national origins? 

Mr. Falkenberg. I don't profess to have any knowledge nor ex- 
perience in that, I have listened to both sides of it. I have listened to 


the Republicans lambast the Democrats and the Democrats lambast 
the Republicans. 

If the Legion had a specific program I would be glad to give it to 
you. I don't know what it is, if they do have one. But 1 think the}^ 
are in favor with the general principle embodied in this resolution. 
"We don't want anybody in if it is going to penalize the native-born 
or if it keeps him out of a job or housing. 

^Ir. RosENFiELD. INIr. Falkenl)erg, Avould you be in a position to 
advise this Commission whether in your judgment the farm commu- 
nities of Illinois or of the uearby States suffer from the same kind of 
employment and housing situations you mentioned? 

Mr. Falkexberg. I don't know authoritatively. I was told this in 
the number of years I have listened as an attorney for the Veterans 
Assistance of Cook County and a member of Cook County Public 
Welfare Advisory Board in the number of years I have listened. We 
need 1.200.000 new housing additions every year. AVe never produced 
more than around 800 to 000,000, so every year we fall behind two, 
three, or four hundred thousand in addition to those we need. That 
is due to the fact there are fires or they are falling apart from old age 
or something. But my offhand impression, without tr3dng to be an 
authority on it, is that that problem is peculiar to the metropolitan 
areas and not to the small communities. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Then, is it possible — I am not asking you for 
obviously you said you are not aware of this specific thing — is it pos- 
sible that other areas in other places in this general region might have 
a different point of view in connection with their labor needs? 

3Ir. Faekenberg. I say not only possible, but very probable; and 
I would say this, too, and I think the Legion organization would agree 
with me : if you could bring in your one hundred and fifty or two or 
three or four hundred thousand persons and keep them out of metro- 
politan areas and put them on farms and rural areas and small com- 
munities you wouldn't find opposition. 

]Mr. RosEXFiELD. A^'ould the Legion find that desirable? 

Mr, Falkexberg. I would say yes. 

]\Ir. RosEXFiELD. Is your point that immigration might be one 
means of serving a national need that comes from too tight manpower, 
provided it is directed specifically to the areas with tight manpower? 

;Mr. Falkexberg. And must stay there. Not 6 months and then 
come into metropolitan areas. 

Mr. RosEX^FiELD. Now, how long do you think they ought to stay 
there ? 

Mr. Falkexberg. Just a wild guess, but I would say 10 years. I 
don't think it would solve the problem if you take a family a mother 
and father and six children from any part of Europe you wanted and 
put them into New Mexico for 3 years and then let them come to 
Chicago or Detroit and do that with 50,000 families or 75,000 families. 

Mr. RosEXFiELD. How would Detroit have uiet the terrific demands 
upon it for labor in the last war if it didn't tempt people out of the 
hills of Kentucky and so forth and so on? Where would they have 
come from? 

Mr. Falkexberg. It would have come from the same place but 
would have dispersed or diversified tlie production. They should have 
put it out in different spots like we have in Melrose Park. 

Commissioner Guli.ixsox. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness 
how, under American liberties, one might be able to set a time limit 


like 10 years during which people must stay out in tlie country away 
from the cities ? 

Mr. Falkenberg. I don't think you can. I don't think legally or 
constitutionally or morally you can; but I think if you make a deal 
with the immigrants such as "we will waive the immigration require- 
ments and permit you to come into the United States on the condition 
that you will do thus and so," then I think it is a binding contract and 
I think if you will take them where they don't want to be and let them 
stay there a definite period, for 10 or 15 or 20 years. 

I have a naturalization and immigration case, and I have cases now 
trying to get people from Shanghai, and can't get them into the United 
States unless we get them into an in-between place. We are trying to 
arrange now to get them in South American countries, telling them 
specifically they have to stay from 10, 20, or maybe 30 years because 
of the number of persons trying to get in is so great. They will get 
visas to South America and ultimately come into the United States. 
They are glad to do it, if they can only get out of China. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Let me pursue that j^oint, if I may. If I under- 
stand your point it is that if we can bring people to rural areas where 
they are necessary that you, and you think the Legion would regard 
that as in the best interests of the United States, providing that these 
people agree to stay there for 10 years or longer, and, of course, with 
an implicit assumption in all this that there is screening against 
subversives and so on. 

Let's assume for argument's sake that those agreements are made. 
I Avant to pursue your ]>oint anyway. Let's assume that is made and 
both abide by it; we will assume you pick any number of people you 
think may be necessary in the United States under this kind of ar- 
rangement ; would you then choose them by national origins or would 
you choose them to meet the purposes that are necessary or would you 
choose them first-come first-served? How would you choose within 
this group the people you would bring to the United States? 

Mr. Falkenberg. I frankly have no idea, and have given it no 
thought; I don't know^ whether it is right to take them because of 
Slavs or whether Teutonic. I yield to the superior people in 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Would it be possible for you to file with the Com- 
mission the material from Logan Square Post which would give the 
background for this ? 

Mr. Fai.kenbp:rg. I should be glad to ask for it. How long before 
3'ou are going to make your re2:)ort? 

Mr. RosENFiELD. The report is due on January 1. 

Mr. Falkenberg. Maybe I can develop something at the next meet - 
ing of the Council and between now and December, which would 
answer some of the questions, and try to put the Legion on record in 
answer to some of the questions you gentlemen propounded. 

The Chairman. We would very much like to have it. 

Mr. Falkenberg. It would be the first Wednesday in December if 
I could get it. 

The Chairman. That is rather late. 

Mr. Falkenberg. We have a meeting on the fifth day of November. 
I don't know whether I can get it or not, of course. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Is Mr. Dimitri Parry here ? 



Mr. Parry. My name is Dimitri Parry, 7200 Oglesby, Chicago. I 
am a representative for the Order of Ahepa — American Hellenic Edu- 
cational Progressive Association. 

I have a prepared statement I Avill submit for the record and would 
like to make a few remarks. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Parry. As you know, the number of Greeks allowed to come 
to this country is 310. That is because at the time of the date that 
was chosen to establish the number of people who have come from 
Europe, we hardly had any Greeks in this country. As a result of it, 
the number of Greeks allowed to come to this country are now limited 
to 310. I think it is a grave injustice to Greek people of this country 
and to the American peo])le, and I think it sliould be corrected. 

Another inequity that has developed as a result of this limitation is 
this : Originally as many Greek people would be permitted to come to 
this country as could have come, and as a result for the first 20 or 30 
years 300,0b0 or 400,000 Greeks have come to this country and most 
of them have not brought their families, and it is because of this 
limitation of this quota system, you have a situation where families 
have been divided and cannot be united or reunited. 

The Chairman. Are you saying you are in favor of emergency legis- 
lation, such as that contained in the Celler bill? 

Mv. Parry. I am in favor only as an emergency measure to take 
care of these 22,500 covered in that bill. Since I mentioned in my 
statement that I like to be practical in this matter and as long as there 
is a bill pending which provides for admission to this country of 
22,500 Greeks I am in favor of that as an emergency measure, and I 
would like also to suggest that we change the law so as to permit a 
larger number of Greeks to come to this country every year. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Parry. We will insert your pre- 
pared statement at this point in the record. 

(There follows the prepared statement submitted by Mr. Dimitri 
Parry on behalf of the Order of Ahepa :) 

I am of Greek parentage but have lived in this country long enough to know 
and observe not only what cultural contributions were made by the Greek immi- 
grant to this country but by other immigrants that have come here from other 

If I dwell more on the Greeks and less on the others it's because I know the 
Greeks better and hence I am on firmer ground. 

In speaking of the civilization we know — the western civilization — I need not 
tell you that it was born in Greece, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ 
in Bethlehem, in Judea. From the genius of the ancient Greeks came our essen- 
tial philosopliy, our understanding of the world of science and our essential 
appreciation of art. The whole world knows that it was in Greece that men first 
conceived the ideal of democracy. I am, however, not unmindful of the fact that 
the German, Italian, and Scandinavian peoples have produced some of the greatest 
musical artists. France has left us a legacy of beautiful nuisic and beautiful 
living. Britain has given us the greatest poetry, great literature, and the common 

All these and many more are a living symbol of the great treasures of art and 
culture and civilization which we have inherited from the Old World. 

These treasures are a part of the American way of life, they are a part of our 


Time does not permit me to go into detail about tlie many contributions to tlie 
world culture by the Greek people. That is a matter of history. 

You as members of this commission have a right to demand of me that I be 
as practical in my approach to this problem and as specific as I can. How else 
can you be a fair judge and how else can you make an honest appraisal. 

I believe the immigration law as it now stands is unfair to the Greek people. 
It limits the number that can come to this country to 310 a year. It is not a 
fair law for the Greeks of Greece, and it is not fair and just for the American 

Permit me to tell you about the Greek people of Chicago. I have known them 
since my arrival to this city about 40 years ago. What I have to say is common 
knowledge. It can be verified. 

To begin with, the Greeks have no forefathers who came over on the Mayflower. 
We have no members of the Daughters of the American Revolution nor Sons of 
the American Revolution. We were not here when California was passing out 
the gold in the gold rush era. I doubt if any of our fathers knew anything about 
the American Civil War and we came here too late to settle when there was an 
American frontier. In fact, all of the country had been settled and all the States 
had been admitted into the Union before we came here. The Greeks of Chicago 
came to this city from Greece, and not from the eastern cities, at the turn of the 
present century. When we are speaking of the Greeks of the city, we must 
remember that we are speaking of the Greeks of the first generation. 

Who were these people that came here from Greece? ^Vere they people from 
the cities or were they from the country? Did they come here for religious free- 
dom or were they mere adventurers? Did they intend to stay or did they come 
here for a purpose and when that was accomplished they were to return? Did 
they have much education or money? These are important questions to answer 
if one is to make a fair appraisal of their contributions. 

The truth of the matter is that they were all, with very few exceptions, from 
the rural parts of Greece. They did not lack anything back home except money. 
They all had homes and most of them had mortgages on them. Most of them 
came here to accumulate money to help their families marry off their daughters 
or sisters. They had to give the girls a dowry, otherv.'ise marrying them off was 
a problem. That problem is not unique with the Greeks. Wherever there is a 
shortage of men that problem presents itself. 

Within the last generation Greece has fought three wars, and you know what 
that means to the male population of the country. 

Manual labor was where he made his start in this country. It is important, 
therefore, to remember that the Greek of America is a recent phenomenon. He 
has, in other words, just arrived here. It is e<iually important to remember that 
when he came here he did not have any money nor any special training. He did 
not know the language of the country nor the customs, or habits of the i>eople. 
He knew nothing of the American way of life. He came into a country that was 
entirely different from his home town. 

Although the Greek people did not bring with them earthly treasures, they did 
bring with them their customs, traditions, and ideals that have been handed down 
to them by their famous forefathers, customs, traditions, and ideals that have 
stood the test of time. They have enriched the culture of this country and city 
to that extent, and it is, indeed, the customs, traditions, and ideals that have been 
brought here from the various countries of the world, by the various inunigrants, 
that has made the American civilization so unique and so awe-inspiring. Where 
else in the world does one find the opportunities for individual advancement, the 
liberty to believe as his conscience dictates, and the spirit of toleration to be so 
universally practiced. The answer is no where else. We like to believe that we 
too have contrilnited our share in making this country what it is. 

The contributions of the Greeks to the city have been more than just cultural 

There are approximately 50,000 Greek people here who. in their own tradi- 
tionally individualistic temper and by constant application of their daily task, 
have demonstrated they are not lacking in qualities which should characterize 
a good citizen, and as a token of their industry you will seldom find them depend- 
ing on relief. 

As firm believers in law and order to be the basis of a well ordered society, 
these immigrants have been responsive to their obligations as law-abiding citizens 
as the records of any law-enforcing agency will reveal. 

As the heads of the family, they are fully cognizant of their responsibility 
and strive to make possible for their children opportunities not available to them- 


selves as the enrollment of Greek-born students or students of Hellenic parentage, 
;it the liigher educatioiuil institutions will prove and the lists of the Ilellonic Club 
of I'rofessional Men and the Greek Women's University Club will show. 

Within a period of less than a g»nieration we have teachers and professors 
on the staff of every educational institution of our city. There are over 125 
lawyers, about 200 doctors, over 50 engineers, and hundreds that have graduated 
from the universities and colleges that are not practicing their professions. 

In a recent art exhibit there were more than 50 artists from this area alone 

Nor are the Greeks wanting in the traits requisite of a public-spirited citizen, 
tliey well remember * * * the exhortation of Pericles to the youth of 
Athens to pass their city on to their successors, not less but greater than they 
fdund it. 

In the field of business the Greek people of this city have made their greatest 
strides. All within a generation. All this by a class of people who came from 
the mountains, with hardly any tools — education, financial assistance, experience. 

These are the people that are limited by the present immigration law to 310 
a year. That must change. In view of a recent study by an international com- 
niissidu which disclosed that Greece is one of the three overpopulated countries 
of Europe the law must change to meet that problem. How else can communism 
be contained in Greece? 

I firmly believe the present quota system must be revised so as to enable more 
Greek immigrants to come to this country. The Celler bill providing for 22.500 
Greeks to come to America for the next 3 years, should be passed immediately 
to reduce the present tension existing in that country now. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Peyovich here? 


Mr. Peyovich. I am Louis M. Peyovich, secretary of the Serbian 
National Defense Council of America, 431 South Dearborn Street, 
Chicago, which is the organization I am representing here. Our 
organization is an operating arm of the National Council of Churches 
of Christ. 

I am a veteran of the First World War in the American Army, and 
I am an American citizen, and I have spent quite some time in study- 
ing the assimilation of certain groups in the United States, especially 
the Slav groups. It is a kind of a hobby with me, as is this problem 
of immigration. 

When our organization decided to bring the Serbian displaced per- 
sons to the United States from Europe, the job was given to me to 
supervise it, and bring those people over here. We did this job with 
the help of the Church World Service, the help of the DP Commis- 
sion, and with the help of the American Treasury, which helped us 
through the loan of money to finance inland transportation and recep- 
tion costs. I think that is the most important thing. This job was 
done with very much hard work day and night. It is a very, very 
hard task to bring foreigners to the United States and help them 
become part of us. 

Having this in view, I have prepared a little statement for my 
organization which I should like to read. 

The Chairman. We will be ])leased to hear it. 

Mr. Pf>yovicii. In my opinion the problem of overpopulation and 
the problem of uprooted peoples of different countries, are two funda- 
mentally distinct questions that nmst be treated separately. No new 
legislation enacted by American Congress can solve both prob- 
lems by treating them as one. 


The problem of overpopulation of certain European countries, e. g., 
Italy, West Germany, and others, is a very old one, and a result of 
particular religious conception and European way of life. The solu- 
tion of this problem must generate in the countries concerned, with a 
carefully planned policy, in cooperation with their res]>ective Gov- 
ernment and religious denominations. The international coopera- 
tion for the solution of this problem is essential ; new and underpopu- 
lated regions of the world should be opened; Canada, Australia, 
South America, Khoclesia, etc., should lead in such an undertaking. 
The United States could eventually receive some of these people to 
populate Texas, Alaska, and some other States. The shifting of the 
great masses of population is a project which would require long and 
extensive planning, as well as a large financial pool of the countries 
interested. The United States may contribute greatly to this project 
but, I repeat, no American legislation alone would be adequate. 

The problem of receiving refugees and escapees from behind the 
iron curtain, should be American concern in the first place. For 
America has been built upon this fundamental principle, namely, to 
serve as an asylum for all those who are persecuted because of their 
political, social, and religious standings. Legislation should be 
enacted iDy the Congress to enable these people to be admitted in our 
country, after being carefully and thoroughly screened. I believe 
that up to 150,000 escapees and refugees could be brought annually 
to the United States, and that this pace could be kept until the iron 
curtain is finally lifted. 

Our present innnigration laws are inadequate, discriminatory, and 
unjust. For instance, our quota allocated for Great Britain is over 
05,000 annually, of which about 5,000 has been used each year for the 
past 5 years. This is very logical since Great Britain exports her 
surplus population primarily to Canada, Australia, South Africa, 
and others of her colonies and possessions. Canada, alone, where so 
many Americans emigrate and settle daily, could easily absorb all the 
surplus population of England and North Ireland. A British quota 
of 10,000 annually would be sufficient for those Britons who prefer 
the United States to her colonies and possessions. Our immigration 
laws should be more liberal toward the countries which are overpopu- 
lated and which have no other immigration outlet, as well as to the 
countries politically and economically backward and whose cultural 
enlightenment would be greatly influenced by their native sons re- 
turning from a cultural America. This has been proved in the past, 
especially in the period prior to the First World War. 

To supplement my assertion that in any future legislation the 
priority should be given to refugees and escapees, I wish to point out 
that there are many DP's who did not have a chance to be included in 
the American DP law, for reasons which were beyond their control. 
Due to the slow democratic process in the enactment of our DP law, 
many displaced persons have been shipped hastily to England, Peru, 
and "other countries, where they are not as yet finally settled after 5 
years of residence. This is especially true of some 5,000 young 
ISerbian displaced persons now in England. These people should be 
given a chance to come in the ITnited States under the new legislation, 
provided they have funds to finance their individual transportation 
and settlement expenses. 

The United States Government thi'ough the Displaced Persons 
Commission, and with the help of voluntary agencies, has success- 


fully bioiijoht to this country more than 350,000 displaced persons. 
In this great job, too much burden for reception and resettlement was 
placed upon voluntary agencies, while the Government became chief 
beneficiary as the recipient of millions of dollars in income taxes. If 
any new legislation is passed, this should not be repeated and the 
Govermnent should take complete responsibilit}^ for reception, hous- 
ing, and placement of these people. Voluntary agencies should l)e 
given main role to reach and guide newcomers, in order to facilitate 
their integration into the American life. For this the agencies should 
be given not loans, but grants, because they are not in position to 
collect money loaned to individuals whereas Government lias the au- 
thority to do that. 

At the end, it should be pointed out that newcomers in the United 
States are nnich more at home tlian at any other place outside their 
countries, because they have here more opportunity to speak their 
languages, read their newspapers, and attend their churches, while, at 
the same time, enjoy all the privileges of American way of life in gen- 
eral. We are in better position, therefore, to assimilate the new- 
comers than any other country in the world. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Father Edward W. O'Rourke. 


Reverend O'Rourke. I am Rev. Edward W. O'Rourke, represent- 
ing the Displaced Persons Resettlement, Diocese of Peoria, 604 East 
Armory, Champaign, 111. I am director of that organization. 

I am also the assistant chaphiin of the University of Illinois. Now, 
in addition to duties at the chapel with the university students, I have 
the task of directing the rural life of our diocese in the resettlement 
j)rogram ; therefore, I think it would be wnse for me in the very short 
length of time at our disposal to submit this prepared statement I 
have and make some remarks. If you gentlemen are interested in it, 
you can read it. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Your prepared statement will be inserted in the 
record and we will be glad to hear what you have to say. 

(The prepared statement submitted by Rev. Edward W. O'Rourke, 
director. Displaced Persons Resettlement, Catholic Diocese of Peoria, 
is as follows:) 

My remarks will be confined to the bearing of public-cliarge features of our 
immigration laws upon displaced person resettlement. I shall take what might 
be called a grass-roots viewpoint on this issue. During the past 4 years the 
displaced person committee of the Peoria diocese has resettled 1,004 DP's 
in small cities, villages, and farms of central Illinois. I shall try to interpret 
the thinking of this committee and of the sponsors of displaced persons in our 
part of this State. 

Not more than a score of the resettlement committee and sponsors in our 
diocese are related to or previously acquainted with the DP's who have come 
to us. Our resettlement program lias been motivated chiefly by humanitarian 
and religious idealism. None of the members of our conunittee receive pay 
for this work. We give our time and often our money to implement what we 
consider a worthy cause. We realize that there are serious disorders in many 
parts of the world and that the dignity and rights, indeed, the very existence 
of millions of ijeople are l)eing jeoiiardized. Although we in the Peoria diocese 


are far removed geographically from the chaos which reigns in parts of Enrope 
and Asia, we cannot in good conscience isolate ourselves from the peoples 
affected by it. 

To be sure, the displaced persons have filled labor needs in some industries 
and added to the intellectual and cultural resources of our communities. Never- 
theless, I firmly contend the reason for our engaging in the resettlement program 
was first and "foremost our willingness to assume our share of the task of re- 
habilitating unfortunate peoples of other lands. 

In the course of resettling 1,004 displaced persons our idealism has l)een 
subjected to some rather severe tests, particularly when the breadwinner of 
some of these families has become ill or handicapped and we have felt the full 
impact of Federal public-charge laws. Let me illustrate : 

A few days ago I received a letter from a farmer who employs a DP as a hired 
hand. The' DP whom we shall call Leonard is married and has four children. 
The letter brought the unpleasatit news that Leonard seems to have cancer of 
the stomach. Although the farmer in question is a good and generous man, 
he is frightened at the prospects of having to care for a sick man and his 
family indefinitely. 

What do our immigration laws say about this case? If Leonard should be- 
CQlme a public charge and we are unable to prove that his cancer developed 
after his arrival in the United States, he is subject to deportation. Leonard 
arrived here only 7 months ago. It is probable that his cancer has been forming 
over a much longer period of time. Deportation would be tragic in this, 
because Leonard and his family came originally from Czechoslovakia. Can we, 
in keeping with our ideals, send a family back behind the iron curtain? 

According to Federal immigration laws the only other alternative is for Leon- 
ard's employer, our diocesan resettlement committee or some other private 
agency to pay indefinitely for Leonard's hospitalization and his family's support. 
Several similar cases now confront our resettlement committee. Hence it is 
that our idealism is being severely tested. 

Let there be no misunderstanding ; we have no intention of abandoning Leonard 
or any other unfortunate displaced person. Neither are we suggesting that re- 
ligious and other private agencies be relieved of the task of resettlement should 
another emergency immigration law be enacted. We might, however, ask whether 
the trying problem with which we are now faced might be alleviated by a change 
in the immigration laws bearing upon public-charge cases. Might we not in- 
quire whether these laws are in Iveeping with the realities of the world's refugee 
problems and our Nation's responsibilities toward them? 

The vehicle through which our Nation as a whole deals with the task of 
resettling refugees is the Immigration and Naturalization Service and related 
governmental agencies and commission. The policies pursued by these govern- 
mental agencies seems to indicate that our Nation as a whole is unwilling to 
assume any risks in behalf of an immigrant, but meanwhile individual citizens 
and private organizations are asked to assume staggering risks. The irony of 
this situation becomes all the more obvious when we remember that govern- 
mental agencies conduct the health examinations to which the prospective immi- 
grants are subjected. Responsibility for any mistakes that have occurred in 
selecting immigrants must belong to these governmental agencies. Nevertheless, 
individual citizens and private agencies must pay the penalty for those mistakes. 
Moreover, it seems exceedingly cruel to threaten with deportation an immigrant 
guilty of no crime, merely afflicted with illness or some other misfortune. We 
assure the peoples of other nations that we believe in human rights and dignity 
and that we are the friends of the oppressed. Yet our immigration policy belies 
all this talk. In my estimation, the harm done by this policy to our standing 
among the peoples of the world is beyond computation. 

There are still millions of refugees in the world today. The very notion of 
human rights and dignity is being seriously challenged. I suggest that we meet 
that challenge with another resettlement program and with the necessary liber- 
alization of those immigration laws referring to public-charge cases. Such leg- 
islation would bring hojie to many despairing peoples and would serve notice to 
dictators and tyrants that not a few United States citizens but our people as a 
whole are prepared to labor for and fight for the welfare of our less fortunate 
fellow men. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Rev. Edward W. O'Roubke, 
Director, Displaced Persons Resettlement, 


Reverend O'Rourke. I should lilce to make some off-the-cuff re- 
marks on what has come to my mind since I listened from 10: 15 this 
morninj^. First of all, the trend of new innni^rants toward lar<re 
cities is obviously a matter of concern to me, as I represent the rural 
interest of our church in our diocese. The Eleventh Commandment, 
so far as displaced persons in our diocese, is, "Thou shalt not go to 
Chicago."' However, like the first 10, this Connnandment has been dis- 
obeyed at times. Of the 1,00-1: ])ersons resettled to date by our com- 
mittee, to(hiy, five of eight remain within the confines of our diocese. 
That does not mean approximately one and a half have gone to Chi- 
cago. I might say in scarcely a single case — not more than five or six 
individuals left, to my knowledge, and at least some form of permis- 
sion Avas obtainable, because it was oftentimes necessary for the support 
of, let us say, an aged person to join a relative or friend. It was often- 
times necessary in order that they might have some approximation of 
a job in keeping with their talents. 

I had a man leave a job in a glove factory in Champaign to go to 
Detroit, Mich. — he was an architect — to receive in 1 week in Detroit 
more than he got in a month in Champaign. It would be fantastic to 
object to such a move, because he is an excellent architect. 

I Avould say, then, that I do not think that the ideal toward which 
we ought to aim would be to keep all of the persons who happen just 
by some fate, and it was rather a fateful thing, to be sent down to the 
north central part of Illinois, to keep them there. First of all, I don't 
believe in that sort of regimentation. Secondly, the dissatisfaction 
that would result in some cases would make them anything but desir- 
able employees in their positions. 

So far as agriculture is concerned, keep in mind that not only im- 
migrants, but native Americans, are leaving farm work in large 
numbers. That is always true during times of full employment, and, 
therefore, let us not be surprised as soon as there is anything in the way 
of a depression that the trend will be reversed. Concomitant with it 
too, is the expansion of the technological development in agricultural 
industry that has made less necessary as many hired hands as once w^ere 
required. In view of the fact that we have expanded our agricultural 
production tremendously in this State over the period in which the 
number of employed hands on the farm have gone down, it seems to 
indiciite that the lessening of numbers of persons has not seriously 
handica})ped the industry itself. 

Now. there are so many implications here that I scarcely know where 
to begin. I would like to answer a question that came up, and which, 
seemingly, has no answer. I will attempt to answer to this extent: 
if the testimony which I have heard today is typical of the thinking 
of all the people of this State, there is a surprising clichotmy between 
what it represents of our Government legislation, and that which the 
people say they want. Now, of course, the answer isn't hard to find. 
Those persons most interested in resettlement of displaced persons 
under the immigration tasks are here today. Those who perhaps don't 
care at all about it, if they are very hostile they would probably be 
here; if they don't care anything at all about it, they would neither 
come here to complain nor to reaffirm. 

Now, the task of the resettlement program, which is certainly the 
task of the people of all the free world, has been unevenly distributed 


among the people of the free world and among the United States. Now 
the way the whole people work upon such a big problem is through 
the duly established commissions and the legislative acts. The legis- 
lative acts are such that the individuals, for example, the individuals 
and the sponsors of my committee that take responsibility for more 
than a thousand persons, sometimes find themselves shouldered with 
staggering responsiljilities precisely because the law says that the 
Government itself shall assume practically no responsibility in the 
case of, let us say, a public charge or such matter. Now the question 
is how is that to i3e solved. It is an educational task. I don't think the 
Congress does misrepresent the will of the people — I think they rep- 
resent it. I wish it were otherwise ; I wish I could convince myself 
that it was Senator McCarran and a few others that represent that 
law. But the fact is that only a small segment of our population is 
{actively interested in this task, and, therefore, we wouldn't expect the 
majority of the people to be vocal in regard to this. 

I think the very conduct of these people is one of the most significant 
educational tasks we have had in a long time. I think that some of 
these statements that go on record will be read and considered and de- 
bated, and then ])erhaps we can raise the number of persons who really 
assume the traditional — and I think I am correct in saying this — the 
once traditional attitude of the American people. Of course, there 
are unfortunate people, and they are the ones which I, as a priest, 
must assert are immensely important insofar as my religious ideals are 
concerned. I am not asking the Commission to do the whole job. I 
am willing to do my part down in my area. I have tried hard, and 
those on my committee have tried hard, for more than 4 years. We 
are going to continue ; we are not going to damn our representatives 
because they pass a particular law. We are going to the people, whom 
I still think are ultimatel.y responsible if the law is inadequate. 

I might add just another little thought: There is no member 
of Our committee that receives a penny of pay. It is an entirely hu- 
manitarian and idealistic attitude that prompts us. All the persons 
who work Avith us, neither the sponsors nor the individuals who have 
employed these, are related to or previously acquainted with these per- 
sons. Therefore, I think the fact that we have been able in our area 
to get pereons in a completely disinterested way, and I think I can 
say that, to go to bat, to stake their time and money and sometimes 
their very health in the task of helping them, shows that idealism isn't 
dead. I think if we present the facts to the American people, at least 
to the people in the north central part of Illinois, someday there will be 
a legislative enactment on the part of our Government that will set a 
pattern for the whole world. 

Those are my thoughts. 

Commissioner Pickett. In view of the testimony given by a repre- 
sentative of the American Legion earlier, would you tell us whether 
you have any evidence of immigrants taking away jobs and housing of 
Americans ? 

Reverend O'Eourke. Not a single case has come to my attention of 
the 1,004 — not a single person, so far as I know, no American citizen, 
has been removed from his housing or displaced. As a matter of 
fact, our committee always asks that before we let an employer accept 
a displaced person. We ask "Is this filling a vacancy ?" and so forth. 


The problem may occur, I ^vi11 admit, but it hasn't occurred to my 
knowledjie in our area. 

Mr. liosENFiELD. Do you mean that of the 1,004 you mentioned, there 
Avere tliat many jobs, or DP's resettled? 

Revei-end O'Rouke. Tliese were individuals. It breaks into about 

jSIr. RosENFiELD. Let's assume that there are 300 jobs. Does that 
mean that there wei-e 300 jobs that couldn't be filled in any other way? 

Reverend O'Rourke. There are a thousand jobs that couldn't be 
filled in that area today. If you could give me the right people, I 
could go and in a week's time find a thousand jobs for them. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. What about the areas around Peoi'ia? 

Reverend O'Rourke. The Peoria diocese includes — let me list some 
of the cities so you get the perspective. They extend from the west 
side clear to as far north as towns like Aetna and Rock Island. So it 
is a semi-industrial area; in some cases, cities like Rock Island and 
East Moline together with Daven])ort in Iowa, and places like the 
south.' There is some industry in Bloomington; Peoria has a sizable 
industry, so we have a rather typical, I think, diversification. Some 
of the best farmland, some of the more prosperous small cities, and 
some of the semi-industrial cities like Rock Island, Moline, and Peoria, 
so we have some latitude there. 

The Chairman. Is it your explanation of the existing legislation 
that not enough people have been interested in the general subject 
matter to make any particular views known to their Congressmen ? 

Reverend O'Rourke. Right. 

The Chairman. How do 3'ou account for the Congress having 
passed this law over the President's veto? 

Reverend 0'R.ourke. I think that they are of the opinion that the 
majority of their constitutents want a restrictive policy, and I am 
not at all convinced that the majority of the constituents, here and 
now, want otherwise. I think that they can be convinced otherwise. 
But in my own area the persons actually engaged in the work wouldn't 
be more than 300 persons ; in the area that it encompasses there are 
lialf a million at least — more than that in that area. So a lot of 
them just hear some vague notion, say: "They are going to take our 
jobs away. They are going to bring in millions. We will be inun- 
dated." It is easy — in other words, it is an educational task — the 
people out in the grass roots don't know the story yet. It is our job 
to give it to them. 

Strangely enough, everyone that is a stranger to us is almost auto- 
matically our enemy. If these persons are all strange, they have 
slant eyes, or something is wrong with them, they are bad — that is 
the ratiier sad sort of judgment that usually comes out from lack of 
information. On the other hand, the fact that we have been able to 
get so many people to not only admit them to come in, but take ter- 
rific risks for them, is, in my estimation, an encouraging factor that 
it can be done, but it will take time. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Is Mrs. Charles R. Curtiss present? 


Statement Submitted by Mrs. Chables R. Curtiss, Illinois State Regent of 
THE Daughters of the American Revolution 

Mr. RosExriELD. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Curtiss is Illinois State Re- 
gent of the Daughters of the American Revolution. She was invited 
to testify, but has not appeared. However, she has submitted a letter 
on behalf of her organization which I request permission to read into 
the record. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

(The letter of Mrs. Curtiss, Illinois State Regent, Daughters of 
the American Revolution, follows :) 

JoLiET, III., Seijtembcr 28, 195.2. 
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sirs : The Daughters of the American Revolution earnestly desire that 
no immigration over and above that provided under the present quota system 
be permitted in the United States either by special legislation, unused quotas, 
or Executive orders. 

The laws of the United States require registration of displaced persons w lien 
entering this country but do not require any further supervision of their move- 
ments or activities. 

We recommend that Congress amend the law requiring displaced persons 
to register every change of residence with the registration office of the original 
port of entry. 


Beatrice K. Curtiss 
(Mrs. C. R. Curtiss), 
State Regent, Illinois. 

The Chairman. Rev. Edgar Witte. 


Reverend Witte. I am Rev. Edgar F. Witte, representing the Lu- 
theran Charities of Chicago, 343 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, 
of which I am executive dii'ector, and the Lutheran Resettlement 
Service of Illinois, of which I am director. 

I have a prepared statement I will read, if you wish. 

The Chairman, You may do so. 

Mr. Witte. My name is Edgar Witte, executive director of Luth- 
eran Charities of Chicago, and director of the Lutheran Resettle- 
ment Service of Illinois. The latter organization is the Illinois agency 
of the Lutheran Resettlement Service of the National Lutheran Coun- 
cil, and is under the general direction of the board of directors of 
Lutheran Charities acting as the Illinois Lutheran Resettlement Com- 
mittee. Our organization also acts as the agent of the Lutheran 
Church-Missouri Synod. Lutheran service to refugees in local Illinois 
matters affecting resettlement of individuals brought to this State by 
this service. 

I would like to confine my testimony to the Lutheran resettlement 
])roblems of Illinois, specifically to the situation we face as the result 
of the "cut-off" of refugees who were stranded in the processing 
pipeline when the 54,744 visas allowed under section 12 of the Dis- 
placed Persons Act as amended were exhausted toward the close of 
April 1952. 


Testimony with respect to the amendment of the Immigration Act 
and with respect to the problem of surpkis popnlations has been and 
will be given by representatives of the national organizations of the 
Lutheran Church. Since the beginning of the displaced persons' 
program 1,432 displaced families iuA^olving 3,237 persons have been 
settled in Illinois by our office. Of these 831 families composed of 
1,734 individuals were resettled in Illinois on assurances secured by 
us in Illinois and 601 families including 1,503 persons came volun- 
tarily to Illinois from other States where they were originally settled 
by Lutheran Resettlement Service or the Church-INIissouri Synod. 

The groups of 601 families coming to Illinois from other States was 
composed partly of families experiencing some form of breakdown 
on the part of the original sponsors or on the part of the families 
themselves, on part of families who believed that there were better 
]ob opportunities or higher wages in Chicago, and in part of families 
who wished to join relatives, friends, and fellow countrymen in 

The nationalistic societies estimate that there are 2,000 Estonians, 
5,000 Latvians, and 8,000 Lithuanians, or a total of 15,000 Baits. 

In addition to these displaced persons our office has settled 191 
ethnic German families in Illinois representing a total of 470 indi- 
viduals. Of these 125 families with 372 persons were processed by 
us and 60 families involving 98 individuals came from other States 
^^here they had been resettled by the Lutheran Resettlement Service. 
In general both the displaced persons and the ethnic German- 
Americans have made good adjustment to American life. About 10 
percent were involved in social breakdowns including such incidents 
as illness, unemployment, marital, and parental difficulties. In 1951 
our office handled 112 such cases, all of them sponsored by Lutheran 
Resettlement or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Lutheran peo- 
ple sponsored by other services are cared for by United Charities 
of Chicago. The incidence of social breakdown among Lutheran dis- 
placed persons and refugees is probably greater, that is, here in Chi- 
cago, than the national average due to the situation alluded to above, 
namely, the concentration of nationalistic groups in Chicago. 

In addition to the 191 refugee families actually resettled 125 fam- 
ilies were sponsored by bona fide individual assurances of jobs and 
housing that is in Illinois, were caught in the pipeline by the cut 
off. All of these families werq in the "dossier" program, that is, 
families who had been interviewed by Lutheran Resettlement and 
Avhose eligibility for immigration, as far as a voluntary agency could 
determine, has been made. We have homes and jobs, sponsored by 
responsible individuals, waiting for them. They could not come 
because the quota set up for the refugees was exhausted before they 
could secure visas. All of them suffer the disappointment and hard- 
ship of hope deferred and at present unrealizable. In not a few cases 
there is the additional hardship of separated families. 

We, therefore, urge that the enactment of some emergency legis- 
lative measures that would provide immediately the required number 
of visas sufficient to allow entry, under the terms of the DP Act, of 
those refugee families with bona fide assurances from American spon- 
sors whose processing had to be abandoned for lack of available visas 
and which would permit the processing of those assurances still on 


file witli tlie DP Commission in Washington. "We believe tins to be 
an honorable way to bring the entire DP Act, including section 12^ 
to a close. 

Furthermore, we urge that provision also be made for the admis- 
sion to the United States, under proper safeguards, of a reasonable 
number of those refugees who remained, including such as escaped 
from behind the iron curtain after January 1, 19^9. We urge this 
not only because these people are in such desperate need, but also 
because America should gain so much in receiving into her life people 
of such proven fortitude and democratic conviction. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Have you encountered any problem on 
public charge in j^our work? 

Reverend Witte. There is a problem. I can't give you any exact 
figures. Here in Illinois the situation is that in case of medical care 
being needed the Cook County Hospital, for example, will receive 
such cases just as they would receive any other dependent person, 
regardless of citizenship. However, they do have a problem there 
of trying to realize payment for care of such persons, and if the 
displaced person, or someone who has an interest in him, can in time 
l^ay the bill, no charge is placed against that person. Appareni:ly, 
there is no time limit on it, so that if the DP himself recovers and 
signifies a willingness to pay that bill and make some attempt to pay 
it, as long as that bill is kept current apparently no action is taken, or 
at least that there is some activity on the bill. 

The Illinois Public Aid Commission has given a ruling that after 
these people obtain residence in Illinois that service can be given by 
the Welfare Department of Illinois, and we have been receiving even 
in advance of the establishment of residence in particular areas, we 
have been receiving service, so that personnel from the public aid 
commission, or, specifically, from the public welfare department have 
clone studies and things of that kind. We are now hopeful that after 
they do establish residence that they might be eligible for public as- 
sistance without jeopardy. I am not too clear. We have a case 
before the public aid commission now, and we are expecting a ruling 
en it, if such aid can be given. At the present time we have a number 
of cases that are being serviced, but we ourselves are putting in the 

Commissioner Finucane. Dr. Witte, have any of those that you 
have aided and resettled here become mental cases requiring treat- 
ment ? 

Reverend Witte. I think, offhand, we have had about three. We 
have had a few terminal cancer cases, and TB. I don't believe more 
than a dozen cases would fall into these three categories. 

Commissioner Gullixon. May I ask as to experience, whether the 
migration of folks originally settled in the country has been rather 
strongly toward Chicago^ 

Reverend Witte. It has been. Well, as you note from the figures 
in my prepared statement, almost as many families have come in from 
other States as we originally processed — 831 came in on our assurances 
obtained in Illinois, and 601 families have come in from other States. 
There has been some drift up from the South, but, mainly, it has been 
from Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and so on. Sometimes people 
settled on farms who actually didn't want to remain on the farms, and 


sometimes it lias just been loneliness. 1 have seen families abandon 
perfectly lovely set-ups as to liousing und jobs and so on because they 
were out there, down State, or in some other State, alone, none of their 
people there, and they would rather come down here to Chicago, and 
move into a slum and one room if they are in the midst of their own 
people, hoping after a while, after they get a foothold, to better them- 
selves, and work out their i)r()blem. 

C'onunissioner Pickett. Is there any reverse migration out of 

Reverend Witte. I am not aware of it. 

Connnissioner (J'Cikauy. Have you had any problem in hnding em- 
ployment for them ? 

Reverend Witte. No, I would say that with very few exceptions 
when they come in here totally without homes, housing, or a job, it 
doesn't take more than a week to get them set up. Once in a while 
Ave have someone who is fussy and who wants a particular kind of a 
job in a particular line, and things of that kind. We can't blame 
them for it. They like to maintain their professional status, or some- 
thing of that kind. But if they are willing to take any kind of a job 
it is just a matter of hours here in Chicago at the present time. 

^Ir. Rosexfield. Do they take jobs and housing away from other 
people i 

Reverend Witte. No; I don't think so. No, I don't believe that 
that is the case. In most cases coming in here, where they are un- 
prepared and have no housing provided, they crowd in with other 
DP's and we finally find some room for them. I don't think we have 
had within the last year too much trouble finding housing. I will 
say it is not good housing, but there seems to be housing available 
in Chicago, if you are not too fussy about what you want, and what 
you can take in undesirable areas, and things of that kind, where our 
own citizens here don't care to live and have abandoned. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Miss Elizabeth N. Wilson, you are the next witness. 


Miss W^iLsoN. I am Elizabeth N. Wilson, 321 West Fifteenth 
Avenue, Gary, Ind., I am representing the International Institute of 
Gary, Ind., of which I am executive secretary. 

The International Institute is one of about 15 innnigrant aid socie- 
ties, nonsectarian, in the United States, located in the large industrial 
centers, and almost all of them community chest agencies. I have a 
prepared statement I will leave with you and would like to make some 
remarks first. 

The Chairman, We will be pleased to hear you. 

Miss Wilson. The people in agencies, such as the International In- 
stitute, give a personal advisory service to innnigrants and citizens. 
They help the alien fill out the necessary forms for the United States 
Government, both Immigration Service, ami counsuls abroad, and 
I think we probably are more aware of the McCarran Act, and what 
we are going to have to do under it, and how we are going to have to 

25356—52 46 


explain its deficiencies to our clients, so I will talk a little bit more 
from that angle. 

There are some veiy good things about the McCarran Act. The 
fact that the laws are all in one place is very welcome because it is a 
very tricky field in which we work. But there are some obvious 
inequities, discriminations, and harsh penalties, and I would like to 
mention a few of those as I go along; First, the national origins idea 
of the quota system is, I think, the basic discrimination that is left 
in the United States today, and, curiously enough, very few })eople 
talk about that as a discrimination because I thiiiic few people under- 
stand the immigration laws. The reason they don't understand the 
immigration laws is because most of them don't know any immigrants, 
and it is interesting to see that when the boys in our Army marry 
immigrant:-, the girls abroad, the parents of those soldiers become 
tremendously concerned with our immigration laws and they moved 
in very fast upon Congress and got them changed very rapidly. So 
that when people do find out about them they become interested, but 
I think they are so divorced from this whole field that is our major 

I speak a lot, and when I tell that a Greek can't even bring his 
mother and father for several years, while an Englishman can bring a 
friend, and that there is a 60-year quota waiting list for a Greek to- 
bring a mother, but an Englishman can bring anybody right away, 
you get a gasp from the audience, and people really do care, but they 
don't know. I mean you have to show how these laws affect people^ 
I think. Well, if we have to have a census, it certainly should be 1050 
instead of 19:20. 

I want to mention something, too, that Mr. Parry said, and that is 
that these laws discriminate not only against prospective immigrants 
but they discriminate against American citizens because they lead to 
the separation of people in this country from relatives abroad and 
many of those relatives they are economically responsible for and are 
supporting in foreign countries. If we have to have a quota, we 
should certainly have pooled numbers which are unused. 

The preferences in the McCarran bill, some of them, I think, are 
wrong. If we should want to bring people of superior education, or 
attainment, or special skills, because they are needed here, that's one 
problem, and I think they should be brought — perhaps they should 
be nonquota if they are needed badly enough. But I don't think they 
should take the quota numbers away from the parents of American 
citizens or wives and children of legally residential aliens, because 
that is just going to lead to a longer separation, and that is what the 
McCarran bill is doing. 

Also, those ancestry quotas which have been introduced in the 
McCarran bill, where an Asiatic born in Jamaica is charged to the 
quota of an Asiatic triangle, that is a new device that someliody 
thought up that I think we don't need. I believe that we should 
bring most of the immigrants in the future from Europe, not because, 
we are discriminating against the rest of the Avorld but because we 
are people settled by European people, and it is most easy to assimi- 
late tliose people. Also, there are a lot of people in this country who 
come from the Near East, and I think those people are easy to assimi- 
late, such as Turkey. There are a lot of Greeks that have come iit 


]u>ie fi'oin Turkey that wero born in Turkey. Those people who are 
from central and southern and near-eastern countries are the immi- 
♦iiants wlio settled in Gary. Gary is a new city, founded in 1906, and 
is one of the few cities in the United States, I think, that has been 
settled in tlie peak of the migration from southern and central Europe, 
and they are the people with which I work. 

I am a Nordic myself, but I can't see that the Nordics are superior 
in any way to the other people. I think that is a myth and it was 
based on a lot of studies, on I. Q.'s, in the early twenties that have 
since been disapproved, and yet Ave go on assuming that. It is very 
hard to explain to your client why he can't bring his relative when 
somebody else that was born in another country can. It really creates 
a lot of basic feeling of injustice in cities like Chicago and Gary 
among the foreign-born people, and I don't think that is very good 
for the unity of the United States, which is so urgently needed today.. 

Also, we have all these commissions and committees and individuals 
and armies and generals in Europe trying to tell Europe that they 
should break down their economic barriers and think of themselves: 
as a continent and arm as a continent. Yet if we continue this quota 
sj'stem, we are playing oft' one European nation against another, and 
we are practically saying to them: "Well, people from one country 
in Europe are O. K., but w^e don't want any more from the rest of 
them." I don't think that contributes to the feeling of unity in Europe 
wliich we need today. 

Now, perhaps the general public is not aware of the deterrents to 
immigration of our system of sponsorships. You know we have non- 
quotas in the whole Western Hemisphere, but we don't get masses of 
innnigrants coming in from the Western Hemisphere, because in order 
to get into the United States you not only have to have the permis- 
sion to leave your country but you have to have an affidavit of sup- 
port signed by a sponsor who says that he will look after you. This. 
is for regular immigration. 

Now we find that it is very hard for the Mexicans to come into this 
country unless they have relatives because people are very hesitant to 
make out an affidavit of support, which is much harder to make than 
insurance for a DP, unless they have some relationship or knoAv the 
people, so that thing in itself is a deterrent to immigration. 

Also, I would like to make a plea for the sponsors, and the areas 
into which these immigrants cojne so easily. I know from reading 
some of the discussion in Washington that has come out in bulletins 
that some people think it is very bad for them to come to cities like 
Gary and they should all go on farms, but I want to make a plea for 
them to come to Gary because they have relatives and friends in Gary, 
they are happiest in cities like Gary, and I don't know what the steel 
mills would do without them because they still need people. They 
keej) saying to me: "Where are all those DP's that were coming in a 
year ago? We don't see any more of them." We had a personnel 
manager, who has a fine job in a new factory, and I said to him : "How 
are you coming along?" He said : "Fine, but T can't get any skills at 
all. I need a big blacksmith, get me that, and you are my friend for 
life." I said: "You might advertise in the Foreign Language Press." 
But how many places are there where there are personnel men not 
knowing where to get the skills that they need. 


Now you ask me what I think about this quota system. Well, I 
don't think we should have unlimited immigration into the United 
States. I think the Western Hemisi)here should continue to be non- 
quota, I think maybe we should have continental quotas. If we could 
start with Europe, instead of having a quota from every little coun- 
try in Euro])e, why couldn't we have a quota from Europe that would 
automatically throw that big British quota over to the others, even 
those Russians and Ukrainians, the people behind the iron curtain who 
are refugees today. If we had the numbers that are today assigned 
to all the European countries, both those behind and this side of the 
iron curtain, pooled in the beginning, instead of an unused pool, I 
think it would solve a lot of problems, and a lot of problems for the 
consnls. Then, maybe you could have a quota for the countries like 
Turkey and Palestine that would help some of the Arab refugees 
because they really need help today, they also are an international 
responsibility, and Ave hear very little about those. 

On top of that, we probably always will need to tliink about crisis^ 
immigration. It is more than temporary, it is crisis immigration. As 
those crises hit the world, I believe the United States, as the leading- 
nation of the world, will have to take the lead in how to solve those 
crises. Those four overpopulated countries of Holland, Italy, Greece,, 
and Germany and I think the Arab refugees should come under the 
name of "crisis." It may be that we will have some Korean refugees 
that may be crisis refugees in the future. I don't think we can ever 
give the Asiatics as many numbers as we give to the Europeans because 
I don't think we can assimilate tliem as rapidly. The Nisei were ver\^ 
easily assimilated in the cities because they were American born. I 
have had very little experience with the native-born Japanese, but T 
think that they would be less easy to assimilate without their children. 
However, we have two Japanese war brides in Gary, and they are- 
creating no great problem — their husbands are not even with them. 
The only thing they wanted was to discover each other, because they 
didn't find anybody in Gai'y who spoke Japanese. Nobody in Gary 
thinks of two American boys married to two JajDanese war brides — 
they don't even know ther are there. 

Now, if I have time I would like to mention several things that 
nobody else has mentioned : One, is that the McCarran law has some 
new penalties which I think are very bad and ought to be removed^, 
because they violate our tradition that punishment should fit th& 
crime. Sections 265 and 266, 1 will read : 

that aliens or parents or guai'dians of minor aliens who do not report the change 
of address within 10 days will be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon con- 
viction be tined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than 80 days or both. 

No mention is made that the failure must be willful. Then it adds 
further : 

irrespective of whether the alien is convicted and punished he shall be taken 
Into custody and deported unless he establishes that such failure was reasonably 
excusable or not willful. 

In order to show you why they are having trouble with the aliens 
not reporting their addresses, I can only mention that they changed 
their regtdation three times within 12 years. If they only would stick 
to the same regulations, and people knew what they were supposed to 
do — but it has only been 2 years since they were told not to reports 


their address eveiy 10 days. I tliiiik people are all used to re«iula- 
tioiis and they all expect to confonu to -whatever we set up, but it is 
Aery haid -when you keep changiuty, because you can't get this informa- 
tion out to these foreign-born peoi)le that rapidly. 

I don't think that we need any severe penalties for not reporting 
changes of address. What we need is publicity, and the Government 
itself shonld publicize what they want the aliens to do continuously in 
the foreign-language press, at places of employment, and in the social 
-agencies, both public and private, and there would be no trouble at all. 

Now there is a new requirement in this law that says every alien, 
both men and women, 18 years old, has to carry his alien registra- 
tion card at all times. I don't think that is necessary. Maybe they 
should carry the number at all times, but I know the problem of women 
changing their pocketbooks, and going shopping, and it is going to be 
a big mess, and they are going to lose these cards, and that's hard be- 
cause people can't get jobs without their cards, and people pick them 
up that shouldn't have them, and I don't think that is a very good idea. 
It seems to the newcomers that the best thing about the United States 
is the freedom with which they could move, and they are not always 
being stopped and asked to show^ their papers, as they were in Europe. 
I don't believe the disloyalty among newcomers is any problem, and 
why should we introduce this type of a police system. 

There is under section 213 excludability sections on health. It says 
that people with "tuberculosis in any form" cannot be admitted even 
under bond, and they can't have any appeal from the diagnosis of the 
medical officer. I believe that is too rigid, and that the law should 
give the consul and the immigration officer discretion to consider the 
individual case because often relatives can support the person, and 
give them proper medical care, and we have had some cases. We have 
■one in Gary today where a displaced person was stopped at New York 
with his wife and child because he had tuberculosis. The wife and 
child came in to people from their native village and she got a job 
and worked, and he was taken into a Jewish sanitarium out West. He 
came in the other day. He is cured, and he has a job in one of the local 
mills, but he would have been completely excludable under the law 
with his wife and child, under this law. 

I won't go into this matter of registry, but I hope you will con- 
sider this matter of registry. There was in the old act a provision that 
if you could prove that you were in the United States before June 29, 
1906, that they would accept that as a record of lawful entry because 
the records in New York were destroyed. 

Now the people from Canada and Mexico were allowed to cross the 
border between 1906 and 192'4, and there were no records of entry 
kept for them, and yet they are expected to provide a record of lawful 
entry just as the steamship company records were kept in New York. 

Well, we have been struggling with this registry — the social work- 
ers — and they are about ready to revolt because we are required to 
help these people collect evidence of residence every year since the 
year 1923, and records are being destroyed, and as the years go by 
it is just going to be impossible to continue to do that. The people 
that are penalized are usually the people that have entered, that were 
permitted to cross the border by the United States Government. 

Now if we have all these new regulations for permitting people 
-who violated our laws and were admitted, came in without a record of 


admission, through the suspension method, why couldn't there be 
some similar method set up for the people that were here before 1924, 
many of whom were here legally, but just can't prove it. In other 
words, w^hy couldn't the Attorney General have the right to consider 
the case of these people, and if they have had so many years of resi- 
dence that they could prove, or affirmation 

Commissioner Finucane. Isn't that continued in the present law 
as it was in the past law ? 

Miss Wilson. Yes; but the years go by. In my prepared state- 
ment I have gone into these penalties in the law in detail. If I may, 
I would like to say a word about naturalization. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Miss Wilson. It is just that I feel that stiff examinations for the 
immigi'ants that were recently enacted are too high. They require 
them to read and write now unless they are 50 years of age, and have 
lived in the United States for 20 years. Yet, there are many illiterates 
besides those peo]:)le who have been admitted in the past, and will be 
admitted in tlie future under the ISIcCarran law, and I think it is 
rather futile to try to teach those people to read and write a few words 
in English if we admitted them as illiterates. We admit certain 
illiterates under sections of the McCarran law — them and the teachers 
too. I think it is a waste of the time of the teacher — she could spend 
it on other people better. I have seen these classes and it is really 
pathetic, you know. Of what value is it to learn two or three words 
if you can't read and write in any language? 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Your prepared statement 
wall be inserted in the record. 

(The prepared statement submitted by Elizabeth N. Wilson, execu- 
tive secretar}^, International Institute of Gary, IncL, follows :) 

Statement by Elizabeth N. Wilson, Executive Secretary International 
Institute op Gary, Ind. 

I first want to express my appreciation for the revision and compilation of our 
immigration, naturalization, and nationality laws. There are many good fea- 
tures in Public Law 414, liut I want to discuss some of the things which are 
v^^rong. There are a number of inequities, discriminations, and harsh penalties 
which should be removed and I shall mention those with which I am most con- 
cerned in my work. 


The American people are showing an increasing interest in the problem of 
discrimination. Congress has removed sex discrimination from our immigration 
laws and certain racial discriminations. I believe it should next attack the 
basic discrimination — the national-origins formula for determining the quota. 

The continuation of the 1920 census as the base for computation of the quotas 
is proof of the discrimination against the central and south European countries 
and the Near East. Tbe great majority of people from these countries have 
entered since 19()0. They have now children and grandchildren, but most of these 
will not be counted if the 1920 census is used for the formula. In no other field 
of legislation does Congress base policy on statistics which are .30 years old when 
up-to-date figures are available. 

The national-origins plan discriminates not only against prospective immi- 
grants from certain small-quota countries, but against their relatives in the 
United States. It leads to long separation of family groups, unnecessary anxiety 
and a feeling of injustice. In contrast. Great Britain is assigned half the entire 
quota and thousands of numbers go unu.sed each year. Unused quota numbers 
may not be pooled. 


Congress recognizes that persons of superior education and attainment may 
"be needed in the United States and Public Law 414 gives them tirst preference, 
but I thinic it is wrong tliat they now will l)lock the immigration of parents of 
American citizens and wives and children of legally resident aliens, leading to 
still longer separation. 

Section 202 (c) provides that an inunigrant born in the colony of a govern- 
ing colony such as Jamacia, if he reiiuires a (piota number and is attributable 
by as much as one-half of his ancestry to the people indigenous to the Asia-Pacific 
triangle, shall be charged to this (piota. The new invention of ancestry quota 
will create ill will among Asiatics both in Asia and in the Western Hemisphere. 

The United States has been settled by Europeans and I believe that immi- 
grants from Europe are the most easily assimilated. Therefore, in the future, 
the bulk of immigration should come from Europe. We may limit the number 
numerically, but I believe, we should give up the idea of quotas from separate 
JGuropean nations and have a European quota instead. 

There are many reasons for this. First, there is a mass of evidence which 
will prove that persons from central and southern Europe have made just as 
important contributions to the development of the United States as those who 
came in an earlier period from northern Europe. They helped to do the job 
whicli we needed to have done, namely the industrialization of our Nation. In- 
dustrialization has given us our high standard of living and made us the No. 
1 Nation in the world. The newer generation of inunigrants have also made 
important contributions to business, science, education, the arts, athletics, in- 
deed to all walks of life. Let us be honest and give up the old myth that they 
are somehow inferior. 

Second, some of the conditions whicli existed at the time that the national- 
origins formula was devised no hjnger exist. In 1920 we had wide-open possibil- 
ities for emigration from all the countries of Europe. Today, it is impossible for 
the people of any country behind the iron curtain to get exit visas. The only 
possible immigrants from these unfortunate countries are tlie people who escape. 

Third, we have a responsibility for the welfare of Europe which is much 
greater than in 1920 when we were isolationist at heart. Today, our leaders, 
committees, and commissions are in Europe trying to persuade countries to unite 
for their economic and political salvation as well as our own. Yet, our immigra- 
tion laws still play one nation against the other. We proclaim to the world that 
we consider the people of one European country more worthy than those of other 
countries. Fantastic mortgages to the year 2000 make the United States look 

Fourth, an important deterrent to immigration is tlie device of sponsorships. 
Many people would come to the United States, but cannot come because they have 
no one to sponsor them. Immigrants who have close ties with people of the 
United States find it easier to come and I personally think this is a good thing. 
We should not undervalue the great contributions of sponsors as they receive the 
newcomers and help them through the first hard days of adjustment. People of 
the European countries are so poor today that most of them need this first 
assistance as well as help with their ocean and inland transportation. 

I believe that the Western Hemisphere should have no quota, but that there 
should be numerical limitations for the other countries of the world. Let us start 
-with the idea of breaking down nationalistic quotas in Europe as we are trying 
to break nationalistic barriers. 


Relief of overpopulation in Europe, which threatens the peace, and the resettle- 
ment of refugees, including Arab refugees, are international problems which 
we as a people cannot avoid. Our Christian tradition and our leadership in the 
world force us to take action. Special legislation must be passed so that we may 
do our part with other nations in any international program as we did with the 
displaced persons. In .spite of all the resistance to bringing the DP's and the 
barrage of propaganda against them, they turned out to be one of the finest groups 
of immigrants who have ever come to the United States. 


Some of the penalties in Public T-aw 414 are too severe and violate our tradition 
that punishment should fit the crime. 

For instance, sections 20.5-2(!G provide that aliens or parents or their guardians 
-who do not report their change of address within 10 days will be guilty of a 


inisdemeanor and shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $200 or be impris- 
oned not more than 30 days or both. No mention is made that failure must be 
willful. Further, irrespective of whether the alien is convicted and punished 
he shall be taken into custody and deported unless he establishes that such failure 
was reasonably excusable or not willful. 

This provision about reporting the change of address each time an alien moves 
is the third change in regulations in 12 years. It amends the Internal Security 
Act of 1950 which required only an annual report of residence in January. The 
International Security Act amended the Alien Registration Act of 1940 which 
required every alien to report change of address within 6 days. Is there any 
wonder there is not 100 percent conformity? 

My experience with aliens has been extensive and I believe that with nominal 
exceptions, they want to conform to Government regulations. They accept with 
grace the necessity to be fingerprinted and liave identification cards. If they 
knew what is expected of them, they conform willingly and promptly. Of course, 
there are in any group forgetful persons. The recently arrived aliens are adjust- 
ing to a new life in a new country and have so many strange things to do and 
think about that it is understandable they forget to report addresses or to register 
in January. Unless there is an immigrant aid society to tell them or to read the 
letters of instruction they receive from the Government, many will not know what 
they are supposed to do. 

We do not need severe penalties to secure conformity to regulations for report- 
ing change of address. We need publicity. There should be extensive and con- 
tinuous publicity in the foreign-language press, at places of employment and in 
social agencies, both public and private. 

I question that it is necessary to require every alien 18 years of age and over 
to carry his alien registration card at all times. Perhaps he might be required 
to carry his alien number with him at all times. Otherwise, many of the 
GoA'ernment cards will be lost or stolen. It will be especially inconvenient for 
women who constantly change purses. They will always be worrying about the 
matter. This new requirement seems to be a reversion to the police system of 
Europe described by our newcomers. They say it is wonderful that the United 
States is not as it is in Europe where one is constantly being stopped and asked 
to show identification papers. 


In the provisions for excludability on the basis of health it is not clear whether 
an arrested or noninfectious case of tuberculosis makes a prospective immigrant 
excludable. The law says that persons with "tuberculosis in any form", may not 
be admitted under bond, nor have any appeal from the diagnosis of the medical 
officer (sec. 213). 

I believe that this is too rigid and that the consul and immigration officer 
should have discretion to consider the individual case, the relationship to the 
sponsor, and his degree of responsibility and ability to support so that the 
immigrant will not become a public charge. 

Certificate of Registry 

Persons who entered the United States legally two years ago, but for whom 
there are no records of lawful entry, seem to be less advantaged than many who 
came illegally more recently and who are subject to deportation. 

There are two groups to which I refer. First, persons who entered prior to 
June 29, 1906. Under the old law they might prove residence before this date 
and then be naturalized. This provision does not appear in Public Law 414 
and we still have cases of persons in this category who need the old provision. 
Such persons must apply for registry. 

Second, are persons who crossed adjacent borders from Canada and Mexico 
after June 29. 190G, and prior to July 1. 1924. Many were allowed to enter 
without paying a head tax and without any record of admission being created. 
They also must apply for registry. 

It is often impossible for aliens in these two categories to prove residence each 
year since 1924. Many of the Mexicans were cotton or beet-field workers or 
gang-track laborers for the railroads. No records were kept of their employment. 

For all applicants for registry, as the years go by, it is more and more diffi- 
cult to prove residence. It is now 2S years since the deportation law of July 1, 
1924, was passed. Public utility companies, employers, hospitals, and schools 
destroy old records. 


I'ersoiis whd arc uimlilo to (lualify for registry because they cannot prove con- 
tinuous residence cannot apply for suspension of deportation l)e(ause tliey are 
not (leportal>le. They have two choices : to leave the country and reenter or 
not be naturalized. 

If they were not born in adjacent countries, they cannot enter those countries 
tn apply" at the American consulates for a visa because preexamination has been 
iiholislii'd. If they go elsewhere they will be under very heavy expense. Also, 
it they do make a voluntary departure and reenter, they lose their long 
residence. The greatest hardship is for those who have grown old or ill or 
destitute or those who are excludable because they are illiterates. They will 
just have to remain aliens. Some are unable to secure sponsors with sufficient 
assets to make the affidavit of support without which they cannot reenter the 
United States. 

It appears that if certain deportable persons are granted relief from deporta- 
tion because of hardship, some relief should be provided for i^ersons who can 
prove residence prior to June 20, 1906, or between that date and July 1, 1924, 
if they affirm continuous residence and the Government has no evidence to the 
contrary. If the Immigration Service has the authority to adjust the status 
of persons admitted temporarily to that of permanent status, surely it should 
be given the authority to adjust the status of applicants for registry if they are 
unable to prove residence. 

I think the fee of $25 for both is high for a certiticate of registry. Many 
entered before visas were required and when the head tax was very low. And, 
as I have stated before, a great many of the applicants for registry were law- 
fully admitted. 


The requirement that applicants for naturalization be able to read and write 
simple English is, in my opinion, too high for many people. 

Persons over 50 and living in the United States 20 years as of June 26, 1952, 
are exempt. I think this cut-off date should be removed. Also, applicants 
of other categories should be exempted, namely any illiterates who have a 
lawful entry into the United States. Many have already been admitted and 
some will come in future years under section 212 (b). Under this section, close 
relatives of American citizens, of legally resident aliens, or even of admissible 
aliens who are illiterate will be admitted. 

I question the value of trying to teach illiterates to read and write unless 
they have a strong urge to learn. Our facilities for teaching the adult born 
(foreign) are limited and in many communities nonexistent. I would far 
rather see the teachers use their energy with literate people. I doubt that 
there is really any value in an illiterate person learning to read and write a 
few words in English, enough to pass the examination. Illiterates should be 
given an oral test. 

The requirement that an applicant for naturalization must read and write 
English will delay the naturalization of many newcomers who are literate. 
They are so very anxious to be citizens after 5 years of residence that I dread 
to think of their disappointment if they fail this test. Some read and write in 
languages which use a different alphabet and it is especially hard for them. 
Many have no opportunity to go to school. 

I "would like to see the law amended so that only oral examinations are 
given as formerly; I believe it is important to the unity and security of the 
United States to "make the alien feel he belongs to us. He gets much valuable 
information about the United States in the foreign-language press. 

I have mentioned only a few points which have occurred to me in reading 
Public Law 414. After the new law becomes effective, the defects and hard- 
snips will become apparent and I hope that the Commission will continue its 
work of analyzing public opinion. 

The Chairman. Mr. Frank Werk. 


;Mr. Werk. I am Frank Werk, P>038 Lincoln Avenne, Cliica<i-o. I am 
representing the National Steuben Society of America, of which I 
am third vice president. I am also on the public-affairs committee of 


the National Council of the Steuben Society. The Steuben Society is 
a national, American, civic, political, educational, patriotic, fraternal 
order, with units throughout the country. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. For the record, would you indicate the member- 
ship ? 

Mr. Week. The Society consists of approximately some 60 units 
throughout the country. I gather the membership might be some- 
where between 100,000 or 200,000 — of German extraction note well. 

The Chairman. Do you have a statesnent you want to read ^ 

Mr. Werk. No ; I will not read the whole statement. I have only 
a few pages here, I made some changes in it, so I won't submit it, as 
it might give the wrong impression. I did not know exactly what 
the procedure was going to be here. However, I have held myself to 
the statement by the President. The President has stated in his 
release of September 4 that our immigration and naturalization poli- 
cies are of major importance to our own security, and to the defense 
of the free world. He states that the free world still faces grave 
and heart-rending problems in the continual stream of refugees and 
escapees from the iron-curtain countries ; that our immigration laws, 
based on conditions and assumptions that have long ceased to exist, 
present serious obstacles in reaching a satisfactory solution; that 
humanitarian considerations as well as the national interest require 
that we reassess our immigration policies in the light of these facts. 
The President also states that the new bill the Eighty-second Congress 
passed was so defective in many important provisions that he had 
to veto it. He now has appointed what he calls a representative com- 
mission of outstanding Americans to make a study of the basic 
assumptions of our immigration policy, the quota system, and all that 
goes into it, the effect of our immigration and naturalization laws, 
and the ways in which they can be brought into line with our national 
ideals and our foreign policy. 

Now^, our immigration and naturalization policies are, of course, 
of major importance to our own security, for we do not want any 
Communist subversives to enter our country under false pretexts, be- 
come citizens with mental reservations, and when in possession of 
citizenship papers — if not sooner — advocate the overthrow of our 
constitutional Government by verbal or written propaganda, or/and 
by force under the protective claim of the free-speech clause in our 
Bill of Rights as defense of the free world. Let us recollect that 
since World War I the whole world has really ceased to be a free world 
for any one of us. The nations of the world have introduced a pass- 
port and visa system, which, as in our country, can deny any citizen 
the exit out of our own country for merely not sharing, or collaborat- 
ing with, the political views of those individuals currently in the 
political control of our Government. 

We recollect that prior to 1914 we could go and leave any country 
in the world without asking, or begging anyone for permission to 
come and go. That was the free world for all of us. With the order 
to close the respective frontier crossings, each nation has become what 
might be considered a cell of contained concentration camps. Is that 
the kind of a free world we must defend? The United Nations Char- 
ter, which treats of fundamental freedoms, without giving a defini- 
tion of the term, under article IX "immunities and privileges" gives 
the right of freedom and free travel throughout the world expressly 


to United Nations directors, employees, and other personnel. The 
rest of us will still liave to be^r permission to go where we please, and 
may receive it if we conform to a policy dictated by a few who do not 
represent the majority opinion. And, as you also know% to conform 
to something you do not believe in is giving up your freedom. 

Therefore, our immigration policies are of no importance to the 
defense of what is called a free world. The free world that faces 
the continuous stream of refugees and escapees from the iron-curtain 
countries refuses to give these unfortunates but very little permission 
to come in, and by their productive skill add to the wealth of the land 
to which they might go. 

We wish to call your attention here to the two terms employed in 
the statement by the President — "refugee" and "escapee." The latter 
designation "escapee" is a new one used in immigration legislation. 
We ask where is the temi "expellee"? We suspect that this is a de- 
liberate omission on the part of the authors of the statement by the 
President. Heretofore, an expellee was defined as a Volksdeutscher; 
that is, a person of German ethnic origin, whatever country he might 
have been born in. We will recollect how much resistance was shown 
in the formation of tlie second DP bill, and to the final compromise 
admission of the 55,000 into that law. 

We also suspect that there might be an intention to define and 
classify refugees and escapees as persons who are still escaping the 
iron-curtain countries, or who have escaped these countries in postwar 
years, and leave the German ex])ellees, who have been expelled during 
the war and innnediately after the war, completely out of considera- 

This we do not want to happen. And we regard it as pure discrimi- 
nation, if that is the case. 

The Chairman. Just to set your suspicions at rest, I am sure nobody 
has any such thoughts as you have expressed here. 

Mr. Werk. I am expressing here 

The Chairman (interposing). A refugee, I suppose, would include 
expellees. Insofar as this Commission is concerned, I don't think there 
is any disposition to draw any fine lines of demarcation. 

Mr. Werk. And since we as individual citizens 

Mr. RosENFiELD. You pass that off. You obviously meant the Com- 
mission to understand that there was an effort by the President to 
discriminate against expellees. Do you mean that? 

Mr. Werk. Because previously in de])ortation legislation we recol- 
lect that a refugee was anybody who flees from some fear or some 
danger to his life ; and we notice that those who are more deserving of 
help in the DP bill were those who by superior- force of their will were 
thrown out of their homes and did not flee voluntarily because of the 
fear of persecution. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. I beg your pardon; they were included in the 
original bill. 

Mr. Werk. They were not in there. The first original bill, as 
amended, if that is what you mean. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. I beg your pardon. The 1048 act provided for 
4f),000 German refugees. 1 am afraid your fficts are wrong. In both, 
what you call the expellees were covered and in the President's special 
message of March 24, 1952, which you seem to im]ily was a discrimina- 
tion of expellees, he provided for 117,000 of them. 


Mr. Werk. The President did not say anythino- in his statement, and 
it was not explicit enough, and if that is the case that has to be cor- 

Commissioner O'Gkady. You are mistaken about that, as expellees 
have been covered in the original and amended DP legislation. And 
they have not been excluded from the subject we have been holding 
hearings on. 

Mr. Werk. I want to bring out this clearly and have it clearly 
understood that this is the opinion of many people on the Germanic 
element in America, In the leadership I noticed with some suspicion 
that the term "expellees" was missing and construed it as excluding 
the Germans all together, or some kind of discrimination. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. May I make that so the record is perfectly clear, 
Mr. Werk, so you might assist those who may be misapprehending the 
act. Under the 1948 unamended act, 10,080 visas were issued to per- 
sons of German ethnic origin, or so-called expellees, and as a matter 
of fact the word "expellee" has been in no statute. It is a word that 
is used for simplicity's sake instead of the longer term "persons of 
German ethnic origin," and the President's special message of ^Slarch 
24 specifically includes them; so that I think perhaps, to avoid mis- 
understanding, you might advise those of that fact. 

Mr. Werk. Yes; I will do that, because I have read the first DP 
bill, and there was no mention of it. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Scctiou 12 of the original DP Act. The word has 
not been used in any statute. It is "persons of German ethnic origin,"" 
the exact words used in the second statute. 

To allay your fears on it, 10,080 were admitted under the original 

Commisioner O'Grady. The difficulties in getting that program roll- 
ing weren't due to anything in this country ; it was due to the problem 
of getting started over there. 

Mr. Werk. Yes ; that is very correct. 

Anyway, we say this : Since we as individuals are collectively Amer- 
ican, and since we without collective protest permitted the expelling- 
of these some twelve million from their ancestral homes which they 
by peaceful means settled, developed, and lived in 3 to 10 times longer 
than we have lived in this country, we have made ourselves collectively 
guilty of a crime against humanity. My fellow Americans, will we 
still have opportunities to make amends in our time? Let us be as 
human as we pretend to be and make these amends. 

As a Nation, let us recognize that with good will we can by this 
method buy more and better friends than with money. We request 
with utter sincerity and with complete dispassion that the term "ex- 
pellee" also be incorporated in any statements, literature, or anything 
else that may be forthcoming out of this Commission, and that "ex- 
pellee'' be defined as a person of German ethnic origin, as you have had 
it before, driven from ancestral homes against their free will by supe- 
rior physical force, as the result of the Potsdam decree. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What of the Italians who were expelled 
from Yugoslavia ? 

Mr. Werk. Yes. We notice that the President's statement s])eaks of 
the overpopulated areas in Western European countries. We can 
assume that with that is meant the countries of Greece, Italy. Ger- 


many, Netherlands, and perhaps some other small ones, but these are 
the principal countries that have a different overpopulation ])roblem. 
Tlie Greeks have it to a laroe extent. Their quota is small. Tlie Ital- 
ians have overpopulation from exi)ellees driven back from African 

Connnissioner O'Grady. And would you include Bulgarians from 
Greece. Yugoslavia, and Rumania? 

Mr. Werk. All those western countries. We, after a discussion, 
believe that at least emergency legislation should be passed to alleviate 
the over})opulation problem in these countries; that effort should be 
made not to settle all of them in these United States but in (jther 
areas of the world where there is sufficient room ; and, as to the quota 
system of reassessing our quota policy, of course, we at times do not or 
are not today as they were in 102-1: when the quota system was set up. 
That cpiota system needs overhauling, and it is our suggestion that 
the quotas as they were might be increased to the extent of taking a 
percentage of the nationalities group living in the United States as 
of 1950. Give them a proportionate quota which would be an increase 
over the 1924 quota. 

The Chairman. Do 3T)u think quotas based on race or national 
origin ought to be retained? 

Mr. AVerk. Yes; it is our opinion throughout, and I haven't found 
anyone who disagrees, unless 1 or 2 percent maximum who would 
disagree with that. Most of them are for the national-origin quota 
and also are for the McCarran bill. Well, the McCarran bill may 
be inadequate, but we consider it a good bill and very adequate for 
the security of our country. 

Commissioner 0"Grady. Do I understand you favor the national- 
origin theory in the immigration law? 

Mr. Werk. I sum up liere v/itli the opinion of the people consulted, 
and they do believe, without any thought of discrimination — without 
any thought whatsoever of discrimination — that our quota system for 
the protection of our population is inadequate. It could be increased, 
but they are not willing to consent to the immigration of Asiatic people. 

It is the opinion of the Germanic group in the United States that 
the quota should be enlarged and the percentage increased, based on 
the jKjpulation factor in tiie United States of 1950 instead of 1920, 
and thus a certain amount more people would be coming in. 

Commissioner Pickett. Has your group discussed the effect of that 
on foreign policy? 

Mr. Werk. Our group as a whole is opposed to, for instance, a world 
ideology as proposed by the United Nations Organization. We are 
against the United Nations Organization and any policies that might 
subordinate the independence of the United States of America to a 
foreign government or to any other government that might be superior 
to our Government. 

The Chairman. What view does your organization take of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization? 

Mr. Werk. Well, the opinion on the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- 
zation is divided, but it is safe to say that 98 percent are against it. 

Commissioner Finucane. Are you speaking of members of your 
'own society ? 

Mr. Werk. Not necessarily. I take an interest in public aflfairs, 
and I try to gather opinion also from others. 


Commissioner Finucane. I mean of this 98 percent. Of what? 
Your organization, those of German extraction, or what? 

Mr. Werk. Yes. I would say, yes, of the Steuben Society. 

The Chairman, Ninety-eight percent is opposed to what? 

Mr. Werk. To our being in the United Nations and, specifically, to 
subordinate the independence of the United States to the United 
Nations Organization. 

The Chairman. Then are they opposed, in your opinion, to 
NATO— the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ? 

Mr. Werk. Yes ; these people have this bias, and I believe you have 
to grant it to them. They know, for instance, that in 1945 our Mili- 
tary High Command was begged before surrender to turn around and 
figlit communism, and we refused that. That is known, and the world 
knows it today. So, you see, that bias exists there and they have the 
right to have that bias. 

Commissioner Gui-X,ixson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remon- 
strate against the concept that the witness speaks for the Gennanic 
element in the United States, which element reaches back beyond the 
Revolutionary War. I think we must hold within bounds as to those 
that are represented. 

The Chairman. He is entitled to say 

Commissioner Gullixson. Personally and as a representative of 
this society. 

The Chairman. He is entitled to say what he represents and speak 
for them. 

Mr. Werk. I am telling you the opinion of the people of Germanic 
extraction of today and not those of the days of the Revolutionary 

Mr. RosENFiELD. For whom are you speaking before the Commis- 
sion this evening? 

]Mr. Werk. I am speaking as a member of the Steuben Society of 
America, as a member of the public-affairs committee. It is a na- 
tional organization. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Is your testimony on behalf of the national or- 
ganization and has it been approved by the national organization for 
testimony here? 

Mr. Werk. I must say in that respect that it has not been approved, 
for it did not get there in time. 

Mr. Rosenfield. The reason I ask is that the national president of 
the Steuben Society of America was asked to testify among the first 
and was unable to, and I wanted to know if you were speaking in his 

Mr. Werk. Not in his behalf at all. I am speaking as a member of 
the national council. I may not speak, as I have said before, for 100 
percent of the opinions, but I am speaking for the national council 
of the society. 

Mr. Rosenfield. May I ask two questions, please? Mr. AVerk, at 
the beginning of your testimony you stated that this was no longer 
a free world because persons couldn't travel without passports and 
visas. Did you mean to recommend to this Commission that it rec- 
ommend the abolition of passports and visas? 

]Mr. Wfjjk. I don't think so. I have also thought of that. It may 
not be feasible ; however, that would be a free world. 


Mr. IJosENFiKi.D. In otliin- words, would tluit be your goal? 
]\rr. "Werk. That would be a free world. 
yiv. KosEXFiKLD. And a desirable jroal in your thinking? 
Mr. Wekk. Yes, and 1 say that of my own experience. In 1950, I 
intended to make a tourist's tour through the South American coun- 
tries and somehow because of my activity, my membership in the Ger- 
man-American organizations in general and public affairs, I w-as con- 
sidered too much pro-German and was suspected by someone. I don't 
know where it came from, but it was suspected I Avas going to South 
America as a liaison man between these and illogically those in Ar- 
_gentina. I had nothing to do with it and w^as refused a passport to all 
those countries. 

The Chairman. What year? 
Mr. Werk. 1950. 

Connnissioner Pickett. Did you say "passport" ? 
Mr. AVerk. The passport I had, but I was refused a visa and w^as 
not given a reason until one consul said "We have received a letter 
from a police department \\ hich says that you are all right and there 
is nothing against you criminally or civilly, but you are suspected of 
being an agent." 

]Mr. Rosenfield. Which countries ? 

Mr. Werk. All of them, all of the Latin-American countries. 
The Chairman. Were you a member of the German-American 

Mr. Werk. Not to my knowledge. 
The Chairman. Where were you during the war ? 
Mr. Werk. In America. My ancestors came here in 1822, when 
Andrew Jackson ran for President. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Did they refuse to visa your passport in 
Argentina and Chile ? 

Mr. Werk. Yes. You see, I felt I was in a concentration camp. 
It is not a free world in that case. 

Commissioner Pickett. You can hardly hold that against the 
United States. 

Mr. Werk. Somewhere though. 

Mr. Rosenfield. May I ask the second question, sir? You said 
that you thought what ought to b-e done with the quota system was to 
retain it but it ought to be overhauled in two ways : (1) by increasing 
the quotas, the numerical size of the quotas, and (2) by using the 1950 
date. I think that is what you said. 

Mr. W^ERK. That would increase it, I suppose ; yes. 
Mr. Rosenfield. Do you have any figure you would like to recom- 
mend to this Commission for increasing this quota ? It is now" 154,000. 
What figure would you like this Commission to think of as a desirable 

Mr. Werk. I believe a desirable one would be the figure that has 
been mentioned before, 250,000, as a regular quota. 

Mr. Rosenfield. And apply the regular quota basis according to the 
1950 census on 250,000. 

Mr. Werk. No, no. I mean 50 percent of our quota laws have been 
set at 3 percent of the quota origin of 1920. 

Commissioner O'Gr/^dy. One-sixth of 1 percent. 
Commissioner Finucane. Are you suggesting a new formula ? 
Mr. Werk. No ; I thought it was 3 percent. 


Mr. RosENFiELD. That is one of the earlier hiws. It lias been 
changed since. Bnt your figure is 250,000, in terms of which the 
formula should be applied? 

Mr. Werk. Correct. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. And 3'ou wouldn't change or would change the 
formula ? 

Mr. Werk. No. If the formula should be changed to some extent, 
the respective quota numbers apportioned to various countries should 
be in that percentage increased. 

Commissioner 0'Gr.vdy. Would you continue to give Britain a large 
quota even though it has only been using a fraction of it? 

Mr. Werk. If the experience of the immigration authorities in the 
past years has shown that the British quota at 65.000 yearly has never 
or hardly ever been used up completely, you would be naturally justi- 
fied in reducing that amount per year. 

The Chairman. Would you distribute that unused amount to the 
•other countries? 

Mr. Werk. I would distribute that to some of the others, but I would 
favor western European countries, and I tell you that frankly. 

The Chairman. Amongst what countries would you distribute 
them ? 

Mr. Werk. From Greece upward to Scandinavia. 

Mr. Roseneield. Would you include southern European countries? 

Mr. Werk. Oh, yes, yes. I meant all the Mediterranean ones as well 
as northern European countries. 

Mv. RosEXFiELD. Would you redistribute them among Europe 
rather than other parts of the world ? 

Mr. Werk. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Is Mr. Saul Alinsky here? 


jVIr. Alinsky. I am Saul Alinsky, 4919 South Woodlawn, Chicago, 
representing the Back of the Yards Council. 

The Back of the Yards Council has a membership of approximately 
215,000 people, including a substantial block of German descent 
American citizens. 

What I have to say is the decision, and certain other areas it is the 
sense — I shall indicate specifically which is a formal decision and 
which is a sense — of the executive board and the officers of the Back 
of the Yards Council. About 60 percent of our people are of Polish 
national extraction. The others vary from Lithuanian, Slovak, Ger- 
man, and generally central European stock. 

It is their unanimous decision — and this is to be formalized as a 
resolution at their annual meeting, and I am s]oeaking as chairman of 
their resolutions committee on this — that the McCarran omnibus im- 
migration bill carries throughout and within it a definite Nazi, Nordic 
philosophy that looks down upon all non-Nordic peoples as being 
inferior. When I say "Nordic" and Avhen they say "Nordic'' they are 
thinking specifically of peoples of Britain, France, Scandinavian 
countries, and Fir/land. By "non-Nordic"' they mean, and I am 
speaking of the continent of Europe, the inhabitants of all central and 


southern European nations. They feel, and again this is still in the 
area of a decision, that this kind of a bill is a deliberate outrage and 
an insult to every American citizen whose ancestors have come from 
the non-Nordic countries. They feel, too, that this bill is very defi- 
nitely anti-Catholic as well as being anti-Semitic. As a matter of 
fact, we believe it is completely anti-American. 

We would like to submit, on the Catholic Church area, that we have 
questioned many of our priests in this area who are Polish, Lithu- 
anian, and Slovakian background, and their parents could never have 
been admitted to the United States under the specific clauses, particu- 
larly those requiring- a skilled trade, and so on, which are a part of 
this particular bill. 

Here I am not giving you a formal decision. It is simply the sense 
of the discussion. We became interested in looking over the hier- 
archy of tlie Catholic Church and it would be of great interest to us to 
see just how many of those individuals would have been born in this 
country if their parents had had to face this kind of an immigration 
policy and whether their parents would have ever been admitted to 
this country. We don't know, but we would be very much interested 
to lind out whether Senator McCarran's parents or grandparents had 
the necessary prerequisites to be admitted to this country. I am re- 
straining myself of a very prejudicial comment at this point. I don't 
know why I should restrain myself because in the light of the record 
I am speaking as an individual here. 

Now, for the sense. For our foreign policy no greater creature 
could have been concocted in the Kremlin than was concocted in the 
McCarran immigration bill. All you have to do is just look at it with- 
out going through any mental gymnastics. We are saying to the 
peoples of central Europe and those who are behind the iron curtain 
that we don't consider them to be as good as others and, as a matter of 
fact, we want as little of you as possible. And all the Communists 
have to do is say to those we have proved to be friends to, "What are 
you talking about the United States? Here.'' We cannot see a more 
pro-Communist piece of legislation than the McCarran bill. We feel 
it is a danger of the first magnitude for our foreign policy. We are 
convinced it is utterly against every tradition of what we believe is 
the American way of life and that every measure should be taken for 
its repeal as quickly as possible. 

That concludes my statement. 

Commissioner Picket. Have you given any consideration to what 
you would propose to take its place? In specific terms, what do you 
think ought to be the basis of immigration into this country? 

Mr. Alinsky. Some, but no more than to make a few comments and 
to — I am not trying to evade — I just don't want to make a general 
statement on which I have no factual basis. I think, gentlemen, such 
as some of you whom I know should be on a Commission to study 
the entire problem to take into consideration some of those security 
factors. I could not help but be impressed by the testimony I have 
heard here; I think we should be completely secure on it. We just 
don't want to let anybody into this country. I think it has to be the 
kind of bill that cannot be in the slightest sense discriminatory. You 
cannot square a discriminatory bill with our presently professed 
foreign policy. By that I mean that we cannot have any line of dis- 

25356—52 47 


crimination, not on a non-Nordic or Nordic basis, but on a world-wide 
basis. We cannot discriminate in the slightest against natives of 
Africa or the Orient. 

It is my personal opinion that our Oriental Exclusion Act, which 
we had for so many years, was certainly a significant factor in our 
difficulties in making any kind of successful headway with making 
ourselves understood in the Orient. I don't think we should make 
that mistake again. I think this business of — what is it — 100 in the 
Orient— is just stupid to the point of being ridiculous. 

Commissioner Gullixson. In your definition of "Nordic" you in- 
clude France, but how far down into Germany would your geographic 
line go ? 

Mr. Alinsky. Well, when I am using the term "Nordic" I suppose 
you have to think of it in the Hitlerian terms. I just don't know how 
much difference there would be with the so-called anthropologic basis 
over Hitler's. You would have the Scandinavian countries and the 
British Isles, and I am not sure that it would include even southern 
France. ^, 

Commissioner Gxjllixson. Do you include Belgium and Holland? 

Mr. Alinsky. Yes ; Belgium and Holland. 

Commissioner Gullixson. And would Germany run into Bavaria? 

Mr. Alinsky. I suppose, and since Hitler established that any- 
one of any kind of teutonic origin was regarded as being Nordic. 

The Chairman. Do you think Hitler's theory was based on real 
ethnic foundation? 

Mr. Alinsky. On that basis I don't have much ground to say really 
one way or the other. There has been so much fraternizing or inter- 

The Chairman. Do I understand you consider it on geographic lines 
rather than any lines based on human concept ? 

Mr. Alinsky. Yes. 

I was a bit confused listening to the previous witness. I came in 
for the last 15 minutes of his testimony and heard a statement of argu- 
ing for preference to the so-called Nordic people and then particularly 
followed up by another statement saying that the gentleman did not 
consider Nordic people to be superior to the non-Nordic people, and I 
couldn't understand it. Was the gentleman arguing on the basis of the 
Nordic people were here first and it is their country and nobody else 
is to be permitted in, or is this what it frankly sounded like to me, a 
position of Nordic superiority, which is what I thought we had gone 
through the last war on. 

Also, for the record, I don't know about this Steuben Society. I 
know Americans of German descent, but most emphatically the mass 
of those people, who are part of our organization through their 
churches and fraternal societies and social groups and recreational 
groups and so forth — that would be the last sentiment in the world that 
would represent their thinking. 

The Chairman. \Vhat group are you talking about? 

Mr. Alinsky. The group of American citizens of German descent 
who live in our community, and there is a sizable group. 

The Chairman. Do they disagi^ee with the views you heard 
expressed i 


Mr. Alinsky. Most emphatically. They think as Americans and 
not along the lines of Nordic, Nazi groups. We do not distinguish 
between Nordic superiority and nazism. . 

The Chairisian. Thank you very much, Mr. Alinsky. 

Is Mr. Leon Yonik here? 


Mr. YoNiK. I am Leon Yonik, 3437 South Emerald, Chicago. I 
represent the Lithuanian Daily Vilnis, 31 IG South Halsted Street, 
Chicago, a national publication, of which I am editor. 

I have a prepared statement I would like to read, stating the policy 
of our paper on the law under discussion. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Yonik. Thanking the Commission for this opportunity I will 
proceed. We think the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 
besides many other shortcomings, divides the citizens of this country 
into two classes — native-born and naturalized immigrants. 

We already have sufficient laws to deal with law-breakers ; now we 
are given a special law for naturalized citizens, which will create many 
prejudices against racial and national minorities, the effects of it will 
soon be seen. 

In industrial or political disputes it will not be hard to accuse a 
naturalized citizen of dislo^^alty, or some other misdeed, and he will be 
subject to the loss of citizenship and perhaps deported, regardless of 
how deep his family roots are implanted in his adopted fatherland. 

The law discriminatorily restricts the naturalized citizen in regard 
to travel, as to his past affiliations, is retroactive. 

Derivative citizenship is lost if a parent of a minor or spouse loses 
his, or her citizenship for whatever cause. 

That, in short, about the citizenship. Now as to the discriminatory 
immigration. We feel and believe, that immigration laws should be 
liberalized instead of putting more restrictions. If we wish to show 
any f avortism to any country or nationality, it should first favor those 
countries that have suffered most from the last war and the economic 
hardships that followed. 

The law in question gives unlimited power to the Secretary of Labor, 
the Secretary of State and our consular services abroad. 

How unfair some parts of the law are, was brought out by a member 
of this Commission at this morning's proceedings. The Secretary of 
Labor will decide whom and how many immigrants to admit to this 
country, regardless of the quota, if there will be no shortage of labor 
in that particular line of work. 

Increase in population, by birth or immigration, never created hard- 
ship in this country before and we believe it will not in the future. 
American ingenuity has always found work and housing for an in- 
creased population. That this contention is true was proven by the 
admittance of hundreds of thousands of new immigrants — the dis- 
placed persons in the past several years. 

Today, there is less shortage of housing than there was 4 years ago. 
And if there is some unemployment, it is not caused because of new 


We wish to go on record, as emphatically opposing any discrimina- 
tion on the basis of race, religious creed, political affiliation, nationality 
or geographic grounds. If we find that new legislation is necessary, 
let us legislate without prejudice. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Yonik. 

Our next witness is Mrs. Lewis. 


Mrs. Lewis. I am Mrs. Helen A. Lewis, 1508 June way Terrace, 
Chicago. I am president of the Chicago Council of Emma Lp.zarus 
Clubs, serviced by the Emma Lazarus Federation of Jewish Women's 
Clubs. I am here to represent my organization and have a j^repared 
statement I will read, if I may. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Mrs. Lewis. I wish to start with the inscription on the Statue of 
Liberty : 

* * * Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your liuddled masses yearning to breathe free 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore ; 
Send these, tlie homeless, tempest tost to me, 

I lift my lamp beside the golden door. 

It is in the spirit of this noble poem, inscribed on the Statue of 
Liberty, which has welcomed millions fleeing from tyranny, or other- 
wise seeking the world renowned blessings of this land of liberty and 
opportunity, that we came here today, together with numerous other 
organizations, to present our view of the McCarran-Walter bill which 
threatens to rob America of its most precious, and distinguishing 
characteristic, democracy. 

Emma Lazarus, not an immigrant hei-self, a daughter of pre- 
Colonial settlers, championed the rights of the foreign-born and wel- 
comed the immigrants. Thus, we American-born women of this com- 
mittee, do speak here today on behalf of the foreign-born, and in par- 
ticular, the noncitizen and the naturalized citizen. We wish to point 
out but a few of the provisions of the McCarran-Walter law which 
subverts the spirit and ideals and constitution of our great country. 

Denaturalization: A person can be denaturalized if within 5 years 
after naturalization he acquires membership or affiliates with an or- 
ganization which the Attorney General deems subversive. This pro- 
vision would reduce millions of naturalized citizens to a second-class 
status whose rights to citizenship would be subject to their conformity 
to the whims of the Attorney General. 

Section 241 (a) (7) provides deportation for anyone who "at any 
time after entry has had the purpose of engaging in activities prej- 
udicial to the welfare and security of the United States." This 
would establish the principle of preventive arrest, which gives un- 
limited power to the Attorney General, The provision is so broad, 
it defies definition, yet it is punishable by denaturalization and de- 

These provisions likewise apply to the citizens who derived their 
citizenship through their parents. Can it be that in America a child 
can be held responsible for the actions and beliefs of his parents? 


The whim or caprice of an unfriendly neighbor can bring about the 
deportation, the denaturalization of the foreign-born. 

Section 101 (a) provides "the term 'advocates' includes * * * 
admits beliefs in." Not only is the noncitizen or naturalized citizen 
forbidden to advocate unpopular doctrines on pain of deportation, but 
in addition, mere belief in them is made equivalent to their advocacy, 
and advocacy is punishable by denaturalization and deportation. 

Bail : The Attorney General may grant or revoke bail "at any time 
in his discretion" (section 242 (a)). Thus bail becomes a punish- 
ment instead of a simple procedure to secure appearance. Even those 
charged with the most serious crimes can, prior to conviction and even 
after^ pending an appeal, secure bail. But this constitutional right 
would be denied noncitizens and naturalized citizens who are neither 
charged with nor convicted of any crime. 

We wish to stress the danger to our American institutions and way 
of life that is inherent in the McCarran-Walter law, with its denat- 
uralization and deportation processes, and to express our abhorence of 
its racist basis for quotas, and its provision for designating ethnic 
origin and religious preference. These provisions are distinctly prej- 
udicial to the Jewish and colored peoples ; Asiatics and Negroes alike. 
Jews still stutTer from effect of antisemitism left over from fascism and 
have a great need to emigrate to United States ; quotas prohibit this, 

I was just reading a case where a woman applied for a visa and 
where she was to put her religion down she put down "Jewish," and 
then she reflected what she had been through. She said so many of 
cur people were killed by Germans, and then she began to recall and 
she was asked "Don't you mean they were killed by the Russians?'^ 
And she was terribly frightened, I don't remember whether she got 
the visa or not. I know that those thinos happen time and time again. 
We feel it isn't a question of a person^ religious preference or race, 
but simply because he is a human being and not, what shall I say, sus- 
picious of committing some terrible crime that would be inimical to 
the United States. 

We recall that the first 23 Jewish families who settled in this land 
were ordered deported by Peter Stuyvesant. 

We know that many people are suffering from the Hitlerian philoso- 
phy and they cannot come into this country quick enough and they arc 
still suffering hardships. We feel that is a special problem and 
should be treated as a special problem because they were singled out 
as a special case. For 3 years they fought for the right to remain and 
to help build this country, and they won. Today, there are 5 million 
Jews in America; a monument not only to these 23 families, but a 
living part of the whole democratic way of life which we have today 
in the United States. 

This McCarran-Walter law hits the Jewish comnumity. We, there- 
fore, appeal to this President's Committee to recommend the repeal 
of this un-American, autocratic law because it is inimical to the oest 
interest of our country and subverts its democratic guarantees under 
the Bill of Rights by creating second-class citizens and providing for 
cruel and unusual punishment without due process of law. 

We feel that the JNIcCarran bill should be repealed in its entirety. 
Whatever immigration laws there were in the past j)erhaps can be 
liberalized rather than restricted, but we feel that this McCarran bill 


is certainly a subversive bill because it takes away and abrogates the 
rights that are guaranteed to all the people under the Constitution 
and under the Bill of Rights, and it was not ever intended, I am sure, 
that there should be first-class and second-class citizens of the United 
States of America. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

We will now take a recess until 9 : 30 tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5:35 p. m., the Commission recessed until 9:30 
a. m., October 9, 1952.) 





thirteenth session 

Chicago, III. 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 9 : 30 a. m., October 9, 1952, pursuant to recess in Room 237, 
Federal Building, 219 South Clark Street, Chicago, 111., Hon. Philip B. 
Perlman, chairman, presiding. 

Present: Chairman Philip B. Perlman, and the following Com- 
missioners : Msgr. John O'Grady, Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson, Dr. 
Clarence E. Pickett, Mr. Thomas *G. Finucane. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. Our first wit- 
ness this morning will be Prof. Samuel K. Allison. 


Professor Allison. I am Samuel K. Allison, professor of physics, 
University of Chicago, and director of the Institute for Nuclear 
Studies, 5816 Blackstone Avenue, Chicago. 

I would like to tell some of the experiences that I have had per- 
sonally in connection with the application of what is commonly known 
as the McCarran Act. 

The experiences that I shall relate have to do mainly with members 
of my own profession, that is, of physics. I would not like to have 
these remarks interpreted in the sense that I am requesting any special 
privilege for this profession. I am simply using these examples be- 
cause they are known to me personally as are many of the persons 

The Chairman. When you say the McCarran Act, are you referring 
to the act of 1950? 

Professor Allison. Tliat is correct. 

In September 1950, I was asked by the Office of Naval Research 
and by the University of Chicago to organize an international confer- 
ence on the subject of nuclear physics and the physics of fundamental 
particles. This conference was to take place and did take place at the 
University of Chicago in September 1951. 

Now in September 1950 there had already been examples of these 
troubles aiid I had great misgivings in undertaking to organize this 
conference because I suspected or feared that I would invite people 


738 coM\nssioN ox nmiGRAxioN and naturalization 

who would have difficulty and embarrassment in getting their visas. 
I edited the list myself, trying to select simply those people who I 
was completely sure of as Ijeing persons who would be loyal to the 
United States"^ and to the western democracies. In order to avoid 
embarrassment as much as I could, I submitted this list to the State 
Department in December 1950, asking for guidance, saying that I 
would like to avoid embarrassment and would they please indicate 
if any of the people on this list might have visa difficulties. 

I received the silent treatment, that is, no communication whatso- 
ever for 4 months and I never did get any communication from the 
State Department regarding this document. 

The Chairmax. Who was it sent to? 

Professor Allisox. The document was taken by hand to the State 
Department and it was submitted by an officer of the OXR and an 
officer of the Atomic Energy' Commission. It was taken to the Visa 
Section of the State Department. 

The Chairman, You don't know who received it there? 

Professor Allison. I do not have the name of the man who re- 
ceived it. 

Now it became necessary to issue invitations at the end of ^larch 
and I asked the officer of the OXR. namely, Dr. T. J. Killian, to make 
a personal visit to the State Department to see what had happened 
and what advice to give me. 

He made this visit and I do not have the name of the man he saw. 
He reported to me that the State Department was unable to make 
any comment on this document in any '^ay, and he advised me to 
proceed and to issue the invitations, which I did. 

Kow, most of the people whom I invited were admitted to the 
United States; some of them, however, were admitted with con- 
siderable difficulty. I wish to point out that there was no question 
of penetration of security areas. The subject matter introduced at 
the conference was of a completely unclassified nature and none of 
these people would have had any opportunity to come into contact 
with the security areas in this country. 

They were all busy men in their own countries. They made a 
round trip of a week or so in the United States and returned. Now 
the ones who were not permitted to come are the following : Dr. Lea 
Kowarski, of the French Atomic Energy Commission ; Dr. S. Devons, 
of the Imperial College of Science and Technology; Professor Oli- 
phant, of the University of Australia ; and Dr. S. T. Butler, of the 
University of Birmingham. 

There were other cases in which people came to the conference not 
because they obtained a visa but because they had arrived by other 
means. Let me be more specific. Dr. Rudolph Peierls, of the Univer- 
sity of Birmingham, England. He came to the conference without 
a visa because he was a delegate sent by the British Government to 
the United States. His visit happened to coincide with the time 
of the conference. He was sent here to discuss security matters. He 
is an authority on atomic energy and he was officially in the coun- 
try and he came to the conference. 

Mr. RosEXFiELD. By that, you mean he obtained a visa for other 
purposes and not for the conference ? 

Professor Allisox. He had a diplomatic visa. 


Dr. Pierre Auger, who is head of Physical Sciences Division of 
UXESCO. He obtained a visa through UyZSCO duties and was 
able to arrive. 

Xow. these instances or incidents, it seems to me. redounded ad- 
versely to the good name of the United States. 

The Chaiesiax. "What instances? Were some of them rejected? 

Professor Aixisox. The fact that some men were excluded from 
the United States, others were well known and are known only to 
have entered because of special channels. 

The CHAiRitAX, Had they been rejected on your application or 
your invitation? 

Professor Aixisox. They applied for visas in their own countries. 

The Chaiexeax. And they were rejected ? 

Professor At.t.tscx. And were rejected. 

Commissioner FrxucAXt. Do you know the basis of the rejection? 

Professor A t.t.tsox. Well, the State Department never discloses the 
rejection except in very special circumstances. If you inquire, as I did, 
you will get a formal form letter, more or less stating that the action 
was taken in the best interests of the United States. I have, however, 
recently talked to a colleague of mine whom I hold in great respect, 
who has seen the charges on which Dr. Peierls was excluded from the 
United States, and he has informed me that these charges are ridicu- 
lous and that many of them are wrong factually: that they are not 
matters of fact. 

I would also like to make some remarks about the exclusion of Dr. 

Commissioner Fenttcaxe. The basis, I assume, had something to 
do with membership in what may be determined broadly a subversive 
organization or something of that nature ? 

Professor Att.t.^jx. Sometimes they do. I believe. Actually Dr. 
Peierls is not a member of any such organization. 

Commissioner Fix~rcAXx. Was the allegation that they had been? 

Professor A t.t.tsox. I have not seen these allegations personally. 

In the case of Dr. Oliphant, I have known him for quite a while, 
and in l^^tO and 1941 he was instrumental in spurring tis onward to 
the realization of atomic weapons in war. I was at the time on a 
committee in Washington. We were aware that the uranium problem 
existed, and we were working at it in a somewhat leisurely fashion. 
We were not yet in war. We were thinking in remote terms of per- 
haps some atomic energy in 10 or 15 years. Dr. Oliphant eame from 
England and made such stirring remarks and such eloqnent reniariis 
that they spurred us on. and it was this impact that reorganizeii us 
and started us on a really intensive program which resulted in the 
developments which you all know about. 

Well. I simply want to point out again that these incidents are in- 
juring the United States among the people in foreign countries, and 
no one is suggesting that people be admitted to the security areas, 
ihat is, to the oj^erations of the Atomic Energy Commission or other 
military areas of security, without complete investigation. I am not 
suggesting that for a moment. But I believe that if we have armed 
guards and barbed wire around these places that it is the converse 
of the situation that there should be free areas in the United States, 
areas which are free for visitors to come and discuss thing s and sav 


what is on their mind, and in particular I think that the McCarran 
Act has been grossly abused when it has applied to people who only 
wish to come to the United States for a visit of a week or few days. 
They can't set foot in the country. 

This happened in Houston, Tex., last fall at a meeting of the Amer- 
ican Physical Society, a delegation from Mexico was to come and pre- 
sent papers one afternoon, papers on technical subjects. At the last 
minute the visas of two of the prospective speakers were refused. The 
entire Mexican delegation refused to arrive in sympathy with the two 
members who were turned down, and a bad international incident 
arose. This was merely a question of flying into Houston, Tex., and 
at noon giving some papers, and fly back to Mexico City that evening. 

I would like to allow my colleague. Dr. Smith, to make some re- 
marks, and I think I shall conclude now, unless you have some 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Professor, 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Professor Allison, would you have preferred some 
formalized arrangement such as the preconference clearance technique 
that you attempted to arrange ? 

Professor Allison. I have considerable sympathy with the State 
Department. They are attempting to administer ; they must admin- 
ister and they must obey the law. They are administering the Mc- 
Carran Act as best they can. But they are completely understaffed 
for the purpose. The questions that must be asked to the people 
under the McCarran Act are so detailed, so diversified and require 
such an investigation that they are completely swamped. I think if 
the McCarran Act is to stand as it is it would be a good thing if the 
State Department could advise and investigate in advance to help 
avoid embarrassment in these matters, but they seem to be so swamped 
that they cannot even do that. 

The Ohairman. Thank you very much. 

Professor Allison. I should like to submit for the record a copy of 
a joint communication from Prof. John U. Neff, professor of eco- 
nomic history and chairman of the committee on social thought. Prof. 
Cyril Stanley Smith, professor of metallurgy and director of the 
Institute for the Study of Metals, and m3^self to Lawrence A. Kimp- 
ton, chancelor of the University of Chicago, concerning the subject 
I have been discussing. 

The Chairman. It may be inserted in the record. 

(The communication follows:) 

December 21, 1951. 
Mr. Lawrence A. Kimpton, 

Chancelor, the University of Chicac/o, 

Chicago SI, III. 
Dear Mr. Kimpton : The undersigned are deeply concerned with the adverse 
effects on the intellectual life of this university and the country resulting from 
certain provisions in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (the Mc- 
Carran Act) and we urge that you make a protest to appropriate United States 
legislative and administrative officers who might be able to encourage and 
effect amendment of the act. Under the provisions of the act visas have fre- 
quently been denied — or at least delayed for extreme lengths of time — to scholars 
and scientists desiring to visit the United States or to emigrate to it. We have 
direct knowledge of many cases in which the enforcement of the act has de- 
prived the United States of the knowledge and experience of prominent scholars, 
and has most seriously damaged the reputation of our country for the mainte- 
nance of intellectual freedom. 


It has becoiup very diffifult for a roputable university in the United States 
to invite foreign schohirs to participate even temporarily in the intellectual 
life of the institution and this at a time at whicli a feelinu; of communion 
among: the universities of the free world is j^reatly to be desired. We are losing 
contact with the scholarship and ideas of tlie world outside us. The whole 
course of bisttn-y has shown the internationality of knowledge and the impor- 
tance of fertilization of ideas developed in different environnu'nts. 

To our amazement we find that our doors are shut in the face of an eminent 
physical scientist invited for a week of scientific meetings, and that cele- 
brated political and social philosopher, who- has accepted a chair at our uni- 
versity, has not been granted a visa 12 months after his initial application. 
These are by no means isolated cases ; on the contrary, they are typical of 
what is happening throughout the scholarly world. 

We are spending vast sums to keep secret those defense activities which must 
])e classified, and these newcomers here, just as any citizen, would be warned 
away from classified areas, and prevented from learning these secrets. The 
very idea of the guards and the restrictions is that there should remain in our 
country areas of freedom in human activities, in which people may freely speak 
their minds, and I'egions in which they may travel, visit, and observe according 
to their intei'ests. Unless such freedoms are left in our country, a very im- 
portant purpose of the guards and the barbed-wire fences has not been realized. 
The legislation of which we complain is bad because it is written as if 
every visa applicant, rather than one in a hundred thousand, should be seriously 
suspected as a ijerson whose presence here would be detrimental to the best 
interests of our country. This suspicion, obviously underlying the incredibly 
involved clearance pro-cedures exasperates and humiliates every visa applicant. 
Furthermore, the act is not written in such a manner that it can be success- 
fully administered. The investigations demanded concerning each visa appli- 
cant are so far reaching and detailed that months and months, even years, are 
required to clear an applicant for a 10-day visit. We know of many cases in 
which the embarrassment and humiliation of an applicant has spread in the 
form of anger through his friends and associates, who know perfectly well that 
he is a person of integrity. We have an example of a case in which the entire 
delegation from a foreign country refused to attend a meeting of a learned society 
in sympathy with the treatment of some of its members. Such cases legiti- 
mately raise the question whether ours is the land that fosters freedom, toler- 
ance, justice, and respect for the individual. 

Our country is strong enough to hear itself criticized, if visitors and immi- 
grants care to criticize us. Our security agents are now alert and able to con- 
ceal those activities which must be kept from unfriendly eyes. We should not 
set a shameful example to the world of panic and hysteria, and it is only in 
such an atmosphere that the legislation we refer to could have been enacted. 
We urge that action be taken to replace the objectionable McCarran Act with 
a set of carefully considered and workable regulations concerning the granting 
of visas. Regulations should not be drafted in an atmosphere which considers 
as the motivation for every visa application a desire to injure the United 
States. It would also seem to us that legislation of this sort should not be 
formulated without the advice of those who will have to administer it and 
those who have had wide experience in the visa problem. 

Very truly yours, 

Samuel K. Allison, 

Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute for Nuclear Studies. 

John U. Neff, 

Professor of Economic History and Chairman of the Committee on 
Social Thought. 

Cyril Stanley Smith, 

Professor of Metallurgy and Director of the Institute for the Study of 

8. T. Butler 

S. T. Butler is an advanced scholar of the department of mathematical 
physics at the University of Birmingham, England. He was invited to partici- 
pate in the international conference at the University of Chicago, September 
17-22, 1951. He was to report on important discoveries which he had made in 
the field of the physics of light nuclei. He also had been awarded a research 
associateship at Cornell University for 1051-52. By September 6, 1951, no visa 
had been granted. He was unable to be present and make his contribution. 


Prof. 8. Devons 

Prof. S. Devons is a member of the faculty of the Imperial College of Science 
:anfl Technology, London. 

On January 3, 1951, Professor Devon's name was presented to the State De- 
partment, along with 35 others, as a person under consideration by the University 
•of Chicago for an invitation to attend its international conference September 
17-22, 1951. No objection being received, the university sent him an invitation 
on March 9, 1951. On September 6, 1951, as he was to board his plane at 
London, he was finally informed that no visa could be granted. 

Dr. Keith Ingold 

The Institute for Nuclear Studies of the University of Chicago offers instructor- 
ships of 2 years tenure to qualified applicants all over the world. After careful 
^consideration of all applicants, an instructorship in chemistry was awarded to 
Dr. Keith Ingold, of Oxford University, in March 1951. Dr. Ingold accepted, and 
applied for a visa. On September 28, 1951, he wrote as follows : 

"I went through the formal procedure of applying for a visa and submitted 
health and other documents last Ai>ril. I was granted an interview with the 
consul on June 18. At this stage I gave up my planned Arctic trip in order 
that the visa would suffer no delay by my not being on hand all the summer * * * 
There has been no answer from Washington. Two weeks ago the consul here 
telegraphed for a reply, but there has been none. In the meantime I have lost my 
booked passage. * * *" 

Dr. Ingold finally despaired of ever obtaining his visa and resigned his ap- 
pointment. We lost the services of a brilliant young man and the chance to 
establish another friend for the United States abroad. 

Dr. Lew Kowarski 

Dr. L. Kowarski is a prominent member of the staff of the Commissariat a 
L'Energie Atomique, Paris, France. His name, among 35 others, was submitted 
to the State Department on January 3, 19.51, as a possible invite to an interna- 
tional conference sponsored by the University of Chicago September 17-22, 
1951. No objection having been raised by the Government by March 9, 1951, an 
invitation was sent to him. He had also been invited by Johns Hopkins Univer- 
sity to serve as visiting professor for the academic year 1951-52. 

Dr. Kowarski is well known to Prof. S. K. Allison and H. C. Urey, of the 
Institute for Nuclear Studies of the University of Chicago, and we see no threat 
to the security of the United States in his presence here. 

Dr. Kowarski has not as yet received a visa. 

Oabriel Marcel 

M. Marcel is a well-known French Catholic philosopher, whose political views 
are generally regarded as well to the right of center. Indeed he is well known 
fls being strongly anti-Communist. He was invited in the summer of 19.51 to de- 
liver a .series of lectures in South America, beginning about the 8th of July. The 
Itinerary which he had arranged called for a stay of some hours in New York 
between planes, but he was not to spend more than 24 hours altogether on 
United States soil. M. Marcel applied for his visa on June 28, 1951. According to 
M. Marcel, he filled up various papers in the American consulate in Paris 
and handed them to an official who told him to come back in August. He says he 
protested that he had to leave by the 7th of July in order to keep his engage- 
ments in South America. He says that nothing was done to accommodate him 
and he was, therefore, obliged to change his passage arrangements and go by 
air directly to South America. 

This case of M. Marcel is mentioned, with the realization that M. Marcel 
should have applied long before he did ; nevertheless eminent men of this type, 
who should be very welcome for their work in the United States, have no means 
of knowing that no special arrangements can be made to facilitate their entry 
into this country. It seems most urgent in the critical state of world affairs, 
that the United States have as many allies as possible among foreign countries, 
and that the opinion in foreign countries which are allied to us be as favorable 
as possible to this country. News of episodes of this kind spreads widely, is 
often magnified far beyond what the facts themselves actually justify, and 
produces an impression that does a great deal of harm to the cause to which 
the United States is dedicated. 


Prof. M. L. E. Oliphant 

Professor Oliphant is the director of the Research Scliool of Physical Sciences, 
the Australian National University, Canberra, A. C. T. The State Department 
was notified by the University of Chicago on January 3, 1951, that the university 
desired to invite Professor Oliphant to deliver a lecture at an international con- 
ference sponsored by the university, to be held on the campus September 17-22, 
1951. This notification was for the purpose of avoiding visa trouble, and Pro- 
fessor Oliphant's name was included in a list of some 35 people submitted "for 
guidance" at the same time. No objections having been received from the 
Government by March 9, 1951, to Professor Oliphant or to any of the 35 names, 
an invitation was sent Professor Oliphant on that date, and he at once applied 
for a visa. I quote from a letter sent by him on October 2, 1951. 

"I had hoped by this to be able to give you some information about the reasons 
why my visa did not come through. However, the position is that I have again 
today been assured by the United States Consul General that my visa has not 
bet>n refused, but that there is some administrative delay.^ 

"The unfortunate thing for me was that the consulate made an appointrnent 
with me to collect the visa and then decided suddenly on our last day here 
that they could not do so. Consequently we were packed and had completed 
all formalities * * *. There was much telephoning and telegraphing 
* * * . Now it has become a political issue, raised by the Leader of the 
Opposition. If no news comes from the United States giving some ground for 
delay or refusal, I shall be forced to make a statement." 

Pi'ofessor Oliphant is an authority on the construction of high energy particle 
accelerators, and his lecture would have given us much useful information. 

Messrs. Juan de Oyarzahal, M. S. Vallarta, Fernando E. Prieto C, and Marcus' 
The above are members of the staff of the University of Mexico, Mexico City,- 
D. F. Professor Vallarta is a world authority on cosmic radiation, and was 
invited to give a special lecture at the Houston meeting of the American Phy- 
sical Society, at Rice Institute, Houston, Tex., November 30 and December 1, 
1951. This delegation from Mexico City was coming as a response to a previous 
meeting of the American Physical Society held in Mexico City in June 1950. 
Two of the Mexican professors could not obtain visas for the 2-day visit to- 
Rice Institute. The entire delegation absented itself in sympathy. 

Prof. Rudolph Peierls 

Professor Peierls holds the chair in mathematical physics at the University 
of Birmingham, England. His name, along with 35 others, was submitted to 
the State Department on January 3, 1951, as a person whom the University 
desired to invite to an international conference on September 17-22, 1951. No 
objection to Professor Peierls' name being received the university sent him 
an invitation on March 9, 1951. Professor Peierls never received a visa through 
the regular channels. Fortunately, he was able to attend because he was ap- 
pointed by the British Government as its official delegate to the Conuuittee on 
Classification of the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus he was able to attend 
using diplomatic channels for his visa, but the damage to the prestige of the 
United States had been done. 

Prof. Michael Polanyi 

Prof. Michael Polanyi is one of the most distinguishe<l living scholars, espe- 
cially by virtue of his achievements in combining major di-scoveries in chem- 
istry with more recent contributions to economics social thought and philosophy. 
He held the distinguished White Visiting Professorship at the University of 
Chicago in the spring of 19.50. He now holds the Gifford lecturesliip in Scottish 
universities, which is perhaps the most famous lectureship in the world outside 
the natural sciences. Mr. Polanyi was born in Hungary and was for some years 
prior to 1933 a member of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. Since that 
time he has been professor at the University of Manchester, first as professor 
of chemistry and then as professor of social studies. He is now a British citi- 
zen. After Professor Polanyi's visit to the University of Chicago in 19.50, he 
was invited to take a permanent chair in this university as part of the com- 
mittee on social thought. He accepted this invitation in December 1950 and' 
api>lied for a visa to the Liverpool American consulate in January 1951. 

* Note that this was 9 months after the original notification, and 6 weeks after th« 
conference was over. 


Having no news of the progress of his application for a visa in June, Mr. 
Polanyi began to malve inquiries at the American consulate in Liverpool. Hb 
was never able to get any information there concerning the progress of his 
application. As his appointment at the University of Chicago was to begin on 
October 1, 1951, the university began making inquiries of the Visa Division Oi. 
the Department of State early in September. Representations were also made 
to Senators Benton and Douglas and to Secretary of State Acheson (in the case 
of Secretary Acheson through Chancellor Kimpton of the University of Chi- 
cago). All these gentlemen were told how important it might be for the good 
will of the English public that Professor Polanyi be enabled to take up his 
duties at the University of Chicago as arranged. It was pointed out that Pro- 
fessor Polanyi's recent trenchant criticism of communism and Communist 
thought in a series of papers and books which he has published during the 
past 10 years, had attracted wide attention, and that difficulties placed in the 
way of his entry into the United States would appear especially malapropos in 
view of Professor Polanyi's expressed desire to contribute to a positive philosophy 
on behalf of a free world. 

In spite of these representations, and the work of the University of Chicago 
in Washington, the case is still unsettled, nearly 12 months after Professor 
Palyani made his application for a visa. In consequence of this Professor 
Polianyi has felt it necessary to return to his old post at the University of Man- 
chester, although it is still hoped that he may be able to come to the United States 
as a visiting professor. 
Jean Sarrailh, rector of the University of Paris 

M. Sarrailh is a distinguished scholar in Spanish literature and civilization, 
and has held successively the posts of rector of the University of Grenoble, 
rector of the University of Montpellier, and rector of the University of Paris. 
The post he now holds is the highest administrative post in the French university 
system, and the University of Paris is, with the only possible exception of 
Oxford, the oldest and most famous university in the world. 

The rector was invited in the summer of 1951 by the University of Mexico 
to come to Mexico on the occasion of the four-hundredth anniversary of the 
founding of the university. He was invited to receive an honorary degree and 
to give the principal speech in connection with a week of festivities, at which 
were to be assembled leading figures in education from all over the world. The 
events were to take place at the end of September, and the French Government 
had reserved passage for the rector on the De Grasse sailing September 11. He 
Mas to have crossed on the De Grasse to New York, to have spent the day in 
that city and then to have flown directly to Mexico, returning by the same route. 
In all he proposed to spend about 24 hours on United States soil. The French 
Foreign Ofllce, which arranged the whole of the rector's itinerary, applied for 
his visa. On the evening prior to tlie departure of the De Grasse, which is to say, 
on September 10, the Foreign Office was informed that the rector's visa could 
not be granted, at least in time for him to make the De Grasse. As a result of 
various representations, the visa was obtained for the rector the following 
day, September 11, but not before the departure of the boat train for Le Havre. 
The Mexican Ambassador who had gone to the train to see the rector off was 
surprised to learn that he was not sailing. Fortunately the rector was persuaded 
to make use of his visa and to take the Queen Mary from Cherbourg, sailing 
September 14. As the Queen Mary is a much faster boat than the De Grasse, 
he was able to reach New York in ample time to get a plane to Mexico, where 
he took part in the festivities as planned, and then returned to France, also as 

^'he rector was very well received in New York by the immigration officials, 
and no overt liarm was done through the incident. But had it not been for a 
i»Gt of fortunate circumstances, the rector might have been unable or unwilling 
M» make the trip, after what he regarded as a major affront to his office. In that 
Mvent the ill will which might have arisen among friends of the United States in 
France would have been very serious. 

The Chairmaist. Is Prof. Cyril Smith here ? 



Professor Smith. I am Cyril Stanley Smith, professor of metal- 
lurgy and director of the Institute for the Study of Metals, University 
of Chicago, 5725 Kenwood Avenue, Chicago. 

I wish to discuss the same subject that Professor Allison spoke 
about. I would like to make it clear that I am talking as an in- 
dividual and not in any way representing the university. I should 
also call attention to tlie fact that I am a naturalized citizen of the 
United States and not by birth. 

Professor Allison has mentioned some personal experiences with 
the way that tlie scientific activities that he has tried to organize 
have been interfered with. My own experience does not include any 
of this kind. The visitors to the Institute for the Study^of Metals 
and also a conference that I organized for the National Research 
Council which included eight visitors from abroad, I encountered no 
difficulty whatever from visas. 

I do think, however, that the general principles involved are quite 
important and I feel very strongly indeed from various contacts 
with other people throughout the country that the intellectual life 
of this country is being seriously impaired by the difficulty of foreign 
contacts. It is extremely important in my mind to maintain security 
at AEC and various military organizations, but it makes no sense 
in my mind to maintain the same security requirements at the borders 
of the country that one applies at a secret installation. In fact, as 
Dr. Allison mentioned, the very fact that security is established at 
secret installations makes it unnecessary to use such extreme criteria 
for the admission into the country. 

I made a trip to Europe in 1951, visiting England, France, Italy, and 
one or two other countries and found very frequently, among scientists 
and metallurgists and others, strong criticism of the United States on 
the basis that it is an extremely restrictive policy with regard to 
immigration, and it was placing the United States in pretty much the 
same categories as the U. S. S. R. I regard this as being terrible. The 
United States seems to act as if it is afraid of criticism. It seems to 
me that the recent action of England regarding the Red Dean of 
Canterbury, so-called, is a far better anti-Communist action than at- 
tempts at suppressing and being afraid to listen to Communists. 

In the intellectual field generally it seems to me hard to under- 
estimate the importance of international contacts. The United States 
is extremely strong intellectually. Yet technical advance does depend 
on scientific advance, and scientific ideas do not develop only in this 
country. They develop also in the minds of foreign scientists and I 
think that the stimulation that comes to American scientists from 
foreign contact is extremely important — an important thing. 

Most of the individuals who have been excluded from the United 
States or have been unable to obtain visas have been people who at 
some stage in their life — usually when young — have had some con- 
tact with curious ideas. It seems to me that we should somehow de- 
velop a tolerance for the inquiring mind. Some people never have any 
ideas. People who have ideas generally will attempt to toy with all 


kinds of ideas, most of which they will abandon very soon and most 
scientists, in fact I think most intellectuals, will pass through a period 
when they enjoy playing with the most impossible ideas, just for the 
fun of seeing what there is in it and it is only by toying with many 
ideas that one can eventually arrive at a reasonable point of view. 

I regard it as very silly to produce a general atmosphere either 
in this country or elsewhere where a roving, inquiring individual, that 
is, mentally roving and inquiring, feels any restraint. 

The scientific profession particularly includes people with all kinds 
of minds. There is relatively little professional uniformity — people 
of diverse ideas and the others wholly following the course that by 
toying with all ideas one can eventually find the truth. One should 
not reject an idea without looking at it. Specifically, it seems to me 
that one should exclude people from the United States where there 
is any reason to believe that they have harmful intent. There should, 
however, be some evidence required, and above all it seems to me there 
should be some form of review which permits even a noncitizen, even 
a foreigner, to have some chance to present his case and know what 
the evidence is against him, and to have it evaluated. 

One last point which Professor Allison also made — that is, the 
classing of temporary visitors with immigrants from a visa standpoint 
strikes me as being particularly absurd. One should not require the 
extensive investigation for a brief visit to this country that is required 
for people who intend to live here indefinitely. 

Thank yon. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Professor. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Professor Smith, for the record, the work that you 
do and the work that Professor Allison does, are they distinct from the 
Argonne Laboratory ? 

Professor Smith. They are completely distinct from the Argonne 
Laboratory. I am a consultant to Argonne Laboratory. But I am 
currently spending little time there, and almost all my work is com- 
pletely unclassified. 

Mr. KosENFiELD. And, are the nuclear studies completely distinct ? 

Professor Allison. It is completely distinct. 

Mr. KosENFiELD. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Ihrig here ? 


Mr. Ihrig. I am H. William Ihrig, 759 North Milwaukee Street, 
Milwaukee, Wis. I am a former president of the Steuben Society in 
Milwaukee, Wis. I am an attorney in general practice for about 25 
years, and a large part of my legal activity relates to immigration 
problems. I am appearing in my individual capacity and want to dis- 
cuss an aspect I believe your Commission might be interested in. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Ihrig. I have no formal statement. I wanted to raise a question 
for the Commission's consideration. I nssume that the Commission 
has read the details included in the President's veto of the immigration 
bill that was passed and has just come in power over the President's 
veto. I wanted to take the facts set forth by the President and con- 
sider them in relation to a suggested program. 


Basically, I find the fact to be that there are hundreds of thousands 
of people who have to fear the new Immigration Act, and I find — 
people that are in the United States now — and I believe there are a 
few people who everyone would agree should receive special treatment 
under the new law on the subject of deportation, and on the question 
of their future admittance to the United States if they depart. 

I am not directing myself to the matter of the Attorney General's 
recent matter of deportation where aliens have a criminal record, but 
that is a part of the subject I want to present to the Commission. 

Basically speaking, my proposal is that this Commission of the 
President recommended to the President that he issue a proclamation 
of general amnesty granting unconditionally and without reservation 
to all and every person involved, a full pardon, and amnesty for 
offenses under the immigration and naturalization laws in effect prior 
to June 27, 1952. 

The President has pointed out wdiy he vetoed the new law and 
basically speaking there were two points ; one was that the new law 
was retrogressive. It was creating a new^ procedure that was going 
to give increased penalties, in effect, those penalties included in the 
new law are the different penalties also for matters that were in effect 
before the effect of the new law. 

As I see it from my practice of individual cases, the cases that we all 
would agree on that should be reserved from this part on. They are 
like a needle in a haystack, but I don't believe you can separate those 
cases, that you can agree on them from the hundreds of thousands of 
cases that might come under the new law. Well, some people might 
say that persons who entered with limited permits and who are over- 
staying their permitted period, I am not referring to that case alone. 
There are many people here in connection with displaced persons pro- 
gram whose records are deficient, and there is an area of our popula- 
tion which I believe totals hundreds of thousands which are going to 
become secondary aliens, not even primary aliens. They are going to 
be unable to shoulder their civic duties because of the necessity to dis- 
close, and for the fear of disclosure and the punishment for this lack 
of proper entry, the lack of some technical violation of some former 
immigration laws. 

The Chairman. What authority would the President have to issue 
a general amnesty of the kind you described, particularly where the 
offense, if you call it an offense, is not a criminal offense? 

What authority would the President have to grant absolution in 
such matters? 

Mr. IiiiiiG. I think the lawyers would differ as to the total or maxi- 
mum effect of such a pardon and general amnesty, but there are a 
number of cases in the United States Supreme Court which grew out 
of his proclamation of the Civil War, freeing the slaves, and also giv- 
ing absolution for all attorneys, for instance, who were in this Con- 
federate part of the Union commission, permitting them to have rights 
after the Civil War terminated, that is, the general amnesty proclama- 
tion of Abraham Lincoln and the Court decision laid the legal basis 
for the proposed amnesty that I recommended and ask the Commis- 
sion to recommend to the President. 

Now, included in entering the country illegally and included in 
being in the country without full compliance with, the technicalities, 

25356—52 48 


there is a practical proposition of the statute of limitations. There 
is a practical proposition that when the Government has left these 
people nnmolested for years, that there is an inference of their status. 
But here under this new act with new procedures reaching back prior 
to this law, new punishments are going to be imposed by virtue of 
new procedures. In other words, the new act is retrogressive in my 
opinion, lacking due process. Anyone who raises that in court can't 
start out with less than $1,000 and expenses involved. There is a 
practical proposition unless a man is relatively wealthy, that he can't 
obtain his constitutional rights under this new law. There is a broad 
area of population who can't shoulder their civic duties. They are 
fearful of registering for the draft. They are fearful of volunteering 
for the military service. They are fearful of paying taxes, and fear- 
ful of maldng reports, who have made reports on alien registration 
some years, and haven't made them all years. There is a multiplicity 
of actual technical violations of the law which under this new law can 
be a terrible club, under this law, and they tend to withdraw into 
themselves. There is a loss if it were to be stated in community better- 
ment, the effects on their children going to school ; it affects matters 
of making any records, and it does appear where Congress has seen fit 
to impose the stringency of a new act, that definitely it ought to ap- 
ply to cases that arise after the new act, where the fact arises after the 
new act. 

The Chairman. Did you present your recommendation to the con- 
gressional committee when it was considering this legislation ? 

Mr. Ihrig. I requested an opportunity to appear before the com- 
mittee and when I saw which of the committee appeared I satisfied my- 
self by contacting individual members of the committee and of Mem- 
bers of Congress in both Houses. 

The Chairman. You made the point that you are making now ? 

Mr. Ihrig. Yes, I made the point. 

I do believe that there is included in article II, section 2, of the 
United States Constitution, under the President's power — the Presi- 
dent of the United States has this broad power which it would sur- 
prise you and the other members of the Commission to know how 
broadly it was interpreted over the years after the Civil War. 

I appreciate that as many lawyers as there are among you, you could 
find varing opinions, but I have read the opinions that support the 
question and I would say that if the Commission were to propose a 
proclamation he could support it with adequate Supreme Court law. 

I wanted to state further, referring to the President's veto message, 
that he indicated in his opinion that there was a field of foreign 
affairs within his jurisdiction which was being invaded by Congress. 
Now, it does appear that to the extent that the President set that 
legal point of a contrary conflict of initial constitutional authority 
between himself and Congress, that the President should be fair 
and honest and act upon his o]:)inion of what that authority is in 
himself as to where immigration matters relate an impairment of 
his handling of foreign affairs. I think that is the approximation 
of his statement, of the conflict between himself and Congress, and 
it does appear that your statement is assuming that it is only the 
power of Congress to act on this. It does appear that the President 
has claimed to himself a part of this field. 


I assumed that it had some bearing, for instance, the analog}^ that 
President Roosevelt indicated wlien the question was asked "was a 
minister abroad liis agent or was it subject to congressional approval"; 
but it does seem to me that the more the Commission will think about 
this, that I don't think they could disagi-ee as (o the extent to which it 
should be reconunended to the Pi-esident. There are people we could 
state here individually. My question is in the matter of the masses, 
it is Inird to pick out a few when the burden is on the many and the 
result is that there is a burden on the many. 

The CiiAiRAiAN. Well, it occurs to me, as you make the suggestion, 
that if such a power does exist, and I am not ready to assume it does, 
it would be asking a President to undertake a tremendous responsi- 
bility if he were to claim general amnesty for violations of the immi- 
gration laws, without being able to know in advance just what was 
being excused, if he had the power to waive the effects of any such 
acts. Also, it would be nullifying an act of Congress, or part of it. 

Mr. Ihrig. I thought it was fair to take that date of the new law 
going into effect to describe cases within and without the new law. 

Or one might consider in coming to that conclusion whether a date 
somewhere back like 2 years or 3 or 4 or 5 years might then avoid any 
conflict between Congress and the President. 

I had many subjects that could be of interest, but this was the only 
major one I wanted to take time up with. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ihrig, if you have any other points you would like the Commis- 
sion to consider, it would be well if you would file a memorandum with 
us in Washington as early as possible. 

Mr. Ihrig. If I may, then, please. 

The Chairman. Is Rev. James E. Doyle present ? 


Reverend Doyle. I am Rev. James E. Doyle, executive director of 
the Catholic resettlement committee of the archdiocese of Chicago, 
which I represent here. 

I have a prepared statement I would like to read. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

( There follows the statement read by Rev. James E. Doyle, executive 
director. Catholic resettlement committee, archdiocese of Chicago:) 

Reverend Doyle. In any analysis of immigration legislation and 
policies, we nuist of necessity consider the national origins formula 
embodied in the Immigration Act of 1924 and applied with greater 
rigidity in the McCarran- Walter Act passed by the last Congress over 
Presidential veto. 

It would be erroneous to assume that the type of selectivity envi- 
sioned and enacted by the national origins program meet with unani- 
mous approval by the people of this country. The Congressional 
Record will indicate that Members of both Houses of Congress voiced 
their disapproval as did both lay and religious leaders of our country. 

I have with me excerpts from the statements of the general board of 
Catholic bishops, the administrative board of bishops of the National 


Catholic Welfare Conference, as well as the Immigration Bureau and 
the Legal Department of NCWC. These statements cover a period 
of time from 1920 to the present. Time does not permit the reading 
of them, but I do ask that they be accepted as part of my statement and 
incorporated in the findings and records of this committee. These 
records will show that the general body of Catholic bishops have op- 
posed publicly, unitedly, and continuously the national origins for- 
mula since it was first introduced. 

The incorporation of the national origins formula in the McCarran- 
Walter Act continued a formula of selection that is unrealistic and 

It is unrealistic because at a time when the world is looking to us 
for leadership against the inroads of communism we are disanecting 
the very people we are trying to win, by our undemocratic and un- 
christian policies in immigration. We can no longer live in a vacuum. 
We must realize that our internal policies do affect other peoples 
of the world. In the 1920's we became virtually isolationists. We 
were not concerned with the attitudes of other peoples. 

No longer can we assume the same attitudes because these people 
are our friends in a common struggle against communism. We knew 
that Soviet Russia and its satellites are constantly using our immigra- 
tion legislation and administration in a way to stir up prejudices of 
the people against us. 

It is erroneous because the mathematical formula used to determine 
the quota of each national group is based upon the number of people 
of that nation in our country as of 1920. It is quite evident that this 
is a slick device to give preference to the people of northern and 
western Europe against the peoples of southern and eastern Europe, 
and thereby perpetuating the error that these people are an inferior 

We are concerned today about stabilizing the economies of other peo- 
ples so that they may be better prepared to resist the inroads of 
communism. Now we cannot separate our policies in immigration 
legislation without reckoning with its relation to the various countries 
about whose economies we are concerned. We must, therefore, be 
ready to join with other countries in dealing with peoples who are 
suffering hardships in their own country by reason of the lack of 
proper employment opportunities. We must join with other countries 
in continuing with the program to find a haven for persecutees and 
refugees. We must engage with other countries in planning for over- 
populated areas. 

I believe that many people throughout the country are beginning 
at last to understand the discriminations and prejudices involved in 
our recent immigration legislation. They are aware of the new princi- 
ple of selectivity which means that 50 percent of all immigrants for 
the future must be brought into this country on the basis of special- 
ized skills tliat are needed in American industry. This is a new form 
of immigration legislation which calls for the type of administration 
with which we have had little experience. Government in this coun- 
try has never really selected skilled people for our industries. Indus- 
try makes its own selections. Labor organizations frequently select 
skilled persons for work at certain trades. We know that on the 
whole, countries do not export their skilled workers. Usually, the 


countries having large numbers of skilled workers are highly indus- 
trial and hardly have a surplus. This is true today. The labor sur- 
plus of other countries are surpluses of unskilled laborers. 

Most of the immigrants who have come to the United States through 
the years have been unskilled workers. They have been people with 
strong minds and bodies who have helped to develop the industrial 
greatness of the United States. They were the type of workers that 
America needed. Many of them developed skills needed in American 
industry' after they came here. 

In selecting the remaining 50 prcent of all immigrants for our coun- 
try in the future, preference will be given to the families of skilled 
workers brought in at the same time and to the members of families 
and relatives of workers who are already here. 

Our innnigration policy in the future must be a flexible one. It must 
reckon with them conditions as we find them, conditions that threaten 
the people of the world. They must be such as can be used by the 
United States as an instrument of foreign policy. They must be so 
flexible as to permit our Government to accept a considerable number 
of workers from a country in which a crisis exists as a result of surplus 
population. Our immigration policy must be flexible enough to ac- 
cept a fair share of refugees, expellees and hardship cases each year. 
The Congress might decide on the total number of immigrants to be 
admitted in a year but this over-all total selection of immigrants 
should be made on a selective basis in order to take care of refugees, 
expellees, displaced persons, hardship cases, and a certain number to 
relieve the strain in other countries and at the same time meet the 
needs of American industry. 

We need to study very carefully our whole program for the admin- 
istration of immigration legislation. Some plan should be devised 
for bringing together the work of an implemented consular service in 
the granting of visas and the work of the Bureau of Immigration and 
Naturalization in the admission of aliens into one division of Govern- 
ment which should deal with over-all policy in immigration and 
naturalization. Such an organization would, of course, have to be 
concerned about the security of the United States, but within the 
broad progi^am of national security it should be able to extend a wel- 
coming hand to a very considerable number of people for whom a place 
can be found in our economy each year. We should give the people 
of other countries an example of fairness, of kindness, and of consid- 
eration in our immigration legislation. This will be a real test of our 
attitudes toward other people. We are talking more and more each 
day of opening up the channels of communicating with other peoples 
and of bringing the leaders of other peoples to our country in order 
to study our institutions. The chances are that in the long run people 
will be more influenced by the treatment that their people receive in 
the United States than by anyhing else we may do for them. 

Since any change in our basic immigration laws will be a long and 
tedious task, I am of the opinion that there is need of special legisla- 
tion to meet the emergency of refugees, persecutees, expellees, and the 
people of overpopulated areas — their number and kind to be deter- 
mined by our economic needs and their need and worth. 

The passage of special legislation to bring some of these people to 
our country will not only solve many problems of human suffering but 


will serve as an incentive to other nations who can receive them to do 
their share. 

We cannot solve these problems alone. Only the joint effort of all 
the freedom-loving nations of the world can effect a permanent solu- 
tion. We must provide the moral leadership by doing our share. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Reverend Doyle. I should also like to submit for the record the 
statement of the bishops of the United States and of the NCWC with 
regard to restrictive legislation in the past. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 

(The statement follows :) 

Statement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States and of the NCWO 
With Regard to Restrictive Legislation in the Past 

The minutes of the general meetings of the Catholic Bishops of the United 
States during the period in the 1920's when the national-origins formula which 
is now in effect was under discussion show that both the administrative com- 
mittee, NCWC, and the general body of bishops deplored it and repeatedly and 
by every democratic means at their command attempted to express the wish of 
their people. 

At that time Arc hbishop Hanna was chairman of the administrative committee 
and Bishop Gibbons, of Albany, was Episcopal chairman of the NCWC, depart- 
ment of laws and legislation, as it was then known. Their names and those of 
many other bishops — for example, Archbishop Hayes, Archbishop Glennen, Arch- 
bishop Curley, Archbishop Byrne, Bishop Howard, Bishop Gallagher, and Bishop 
Muldoon, to mention only a few — are recorded especially in the minutes of both 
the general meetings of the bishops and of the administrative board and elsewhere 
as vigorously opposing the discriminatory new immigration legislation. 

The minutes of the general meeting in 192(3 record the passage of a resolu- 
tion offered by Archbishop Glennon whereby the general body of the bishops 
instructed the legal department to "endeavor to have a change made in such 
provisions of the law." 

Under date of February 24, 1927, Bishop Gibbons wrote His Eminence Cardinal 
Hayes and all the bishops as follows : 

"Special request was made at the last general meeting of the bishops that we 
take steps to plead for a change in the proposed new quotas in immigration 
founded upon what is known as national origins. 

"I wish to report that this matter has been receiving our constant attention 
and follow-up. 

"On February 2d the United States Senate passed a resolution postponing the 
establishment of the immigration quotas on the so-called national origins for the 
period of 1 year. This must yet be confirmed by the House, but there is reason 
to believe that it will be so confirmed. 

"A delay of another year is given to us to present further arguments that the 
basis of the so-called national origins should never be accepted. It is probable 
that if the House concurs in the Senate resolution the House will also pass a 
resolution authorizing the Committee on Immigration to sit after the adjourn- 
ment of Congress. We will, therefore, have to continue our interest, and work 
in the matter." 

In the minutes of the April 26, 1927, meeting of the administrative committee, 
NCWC, there appears the following : 

"The subject of the national-orgins policy again received the attention of the 

In February 1924 Father John J. Burke, the general secretary of the NCWC, 
filed a formal protest against H. R. 101 with the House of Representatives' Com- 
mittee on Immigration and Naturalization in the name of the NCWC. The docu- 
ment has such passages as the following : 

"We protest against the principle and purpose underlying this bill which 
excludes immigrants from certain countries and favors admission of immigrants 
from other countries. Such a policy is a distinctive and deplorable departure 
from our enduring traditions as a nation." 

The same brief was submitted to the Senate committee discussing the com- 
panion bill (S. 35). 


The Congress disregarded the basic recommendations. Dr. Constantiue Ma- 
guire, the eminent sociohigist and ec(momist, in his piece syndicated for the 
Catholic press by the NCWC (September 1924) outlines some of the reasons, 
still largely valid in the opinion of the NCWC. But tlie campaign of the NCWC 
went on ceaselessly over a long period as the documentation that follows attests. 

Mr. Mohler, writing for the NCWC Bulletin (the official publication of the 
NCWC) in Marcii 192i, said: 

"The original restriction act of 1921 soon proved itself a cruel and inhumane 
instrument. * * * Let us not indulge in discriminatory measures which 
are unscientific in principle and direct affronts and insults to different peoples 
among us * * *" 

Mr. William F. Montavon, then director of the legal department, appeared on 
April 2, 192(), before the House Immigration Comujittee, on behalf of the NCWC, 
to protest against the Holaday bill, and criticizing the growing "Spirit of hos- 
tility and of antagonism to the alien ' * * *" 

Incidentally, the whole record of the NCWC legal department's interest and 
activities in this field is voluminous and can be examined in part in its annual 
reports (e. g. 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 19:^,0, 19.31, 1949). In 1927, it specifically 
asked Members of the Congress to liberalize the immigration laws su as to admit 
more immigrants, and repeatedly pleaded for the revision of inhumane policies 
and procedures. 

On February 24, 1927, Mr. Mohler, on liehalf of the NCWC, sent to every 
member of the House Committee on Immigration, a further protest against pro- 
visions of the iniquitous Immigration Act of 1924. 

On IMarch 29, 1928, Mr. Mohler again appeared personally before the same 
committee for the same purpose. 

On the same date, the executive secretaries of NCCM (Mr. Charles Dolle) and 
of the NCCW (Miss Agnes Regan) personally told the House committee that 
the councils had gone on record in the same sense. 

On the same day, a letter from the chairman of the administrative committee, 
NCWC, Archbishop Hanna, was introduced in the testimony before the House 
Committee on Immigration, pointing out grave situations created by the 1924 
act and saying in part : 

"The Bishops of the Catholic Church, meeting in Washington every year, 
have the same account to give — how their experience is more and more revealing 
a grave situation which cries out for relief. 

"We wish once again * * * to ask, respectfully and earnestly, that this 
situation, so intimately connected with the social, moral, and religious life of 
our country, be relieved * * *" 

President Hoover made repeal or suspension of the formula a campaign 
promise. Further on in this documentation is reproduced an article by Mr. 
Montavon in the May 1929, issue of the NCWC Bulletin, outlining the contro- 
versy of that year and analyzing the causes behind the failure of the Congress 
to abandon "the weird philosophy back of the national origins clause." 

Again on February 1. 1932, the administrative committee, NCWC, went on 
record on the same general subject before the House committee, at which time 
Dr. Jerome Davis of Yale University, appearing before the same committee, 
named the Catholic Church first among the groups of churches favoring the 
amendment of the naturalization law. ^ 

In 19.34, Mr. Thomas Mulholland, port director at New York for the NCWC 
bureau of immigration, appeared before a Department of Labor Committee 
studying the immigration problem and read into the record from an official 
statement of the administrative committee, NCWC, the following: 

"The National Catholic Welfare Conference has waited witli anxiety for 
some action by Congress which would effect a solution of the grave problem 
that has existed since the immigration restriction laws became effective — the 
forced separation of alien families." 

On March 4, 1935, Miss Sarah Weadick, assistant to the director of the bureau 
of immigration, stated at a hearing on H. R. 6795 before the House Committee 
on Immigration that "changes in the immigration and deportation laws * * * 
have for many years been considered by the bureau as desirable and in the best 
interests of our country." 

On March 2, 1936, Monsignor Ready, as general secretary of the NCWC, 
addressed the Senate Committee on Immigration at a public hearing saying in 

"The National Catholic Welfare Conference, the organization of the Catholic 
bi.shops of the United States, endorses bill S. 2969 because it proposes certain 


needed changes in our immigration laws. A member of our staff appeared at the 
hearing before the House Immigration Committee last April in favor of the 
companion bill endorsed by Mr. Kerr (H. R. 8163) * * *" 

The Catholic Association for International Peace, an affiliate of the Social 
Action Department, NCWC, issued in 1934, with approval of the Episcopal chair- 
man of the department, a member of the administrative board of the NCWC, a 
report of its committee on ethics and economic relations on the subject Inter- 
national Economic Life, in which it said : 

"The policy of partial but pretty comprehensive exclusion carried out against 
other peoples is neither charitable nor necessary nor wise * * * yet this 
problem cannot be settled on a world basis without joint world action. * * * 
Opening the floodgates of rights of entrance and of rights thereafter would not 
be a solution ; it would not result in the good of all and each. Yet the densities 
of population in proportion to developed and used resources vary so widely that 
some sort of intergovernmental agreements on migration is needed." 

The files of the press department are full of material, news and feature stories 
that leave no possible room for doubt that the position of the bishops and their 
or-^anization with regard to restrictive immigration was unequivocal and widely 
known. That position was summarized by Fr. John Burke in a memorandum 
to Mr. Mohler (February 21, 1928) which said in part : 

"In reference to the question of the attitude of the bishops of the United States, 
and particularly the administrative committee, on the national origins plan, with 
regard to immigration to the United States : 

"This brief (filed on behalf of the NCWC), as you will see from a perusal of it, 
is decidedly against selective immigration, which is the same as the national 
origins. * * * 

"That the administrative committee is definitely against the national origins 
plan in its present form is very evident from the letter of February 24, 1927, 
sent out by Bishop Gibbons to every ordinary in the United States. This letter 
specifically records that the general meeting of the bishops, of September 26, 
1926, requested that the administrative committee take steps to effect a change 
in the new quotas in the immigration law founded upon what is known as 
national origins. 

"From these items it is evident that the administrative committee is opposed 
to the present bill founded upon the national origins clause. 

"The administrative committee is, therefore, definitely against the national 
origins clause as it now stands." 

Meanwhile it should not be forgotten that the bishops had 30 years ago set 
up the bureau of immigration, with offices in Washington, New York, El Paso 
(and at one time, Philadelphia), which over those years has, directly or in- 
directly, cared for the problems of approximately a million immigrants to the 
United States, with a degree of efficiency not surpassed by any other agency in 
the United States. 

Reverend Doyle. I also have an article I would like to have inserted 
in the record which appeared in the NCWC Bulletin for May 1929, 
written by William F. Montavon. 

The Chairman. It will be received in the record. 

(The article follows:) 

Immigration — Shall the National Origins Law Be Enforced? 

In bis first message to the Seventy-First Congress, President Hoover asks the 
legislators to suspend their deliberations on the pressing problems of agriculture 
and tariff protection long enough to conclude "certain matters of emergency 
legislation that were partially completed in the last session." Among this 
"emergency legislation" the President placed "the suspension of the national 
origins clause of the Immigration Act of 1924." The national origins clause 
was to become effective July 1, 1927. By act of Congress the effective date has 
been twice postponed. Nothing but congressional action can prevent its going 
into effect July 1, 1929. 

Discussion in both Houses of Congress, the platforms of political parties, 
resolutions adopted by national associations including the United States Chamber 
of Commerce and other bodies of wide influence, editorial comment in the daily 
press, elaborate articles prepared by experts for the periodical press, the cam- 
paign speeches of President Hoover and his political supporters, all seem to 



justify the belief that this national origins clause is one of the least popular 
of laws. It is by no means certain, however, that the Seventy-First Congress 
will concede the wish of President Hoover and enable him to make good an 
important campaign promise by furtlier suspendinu' or repealing the law. 

The House of Representatives has gone on record as favoring the repeal 
of the national-origins clause ; the Senate has stubbornly refused to concur. It 
is an interesting fight, not precisely between the two Houses of Congress, not 
even between the Committees on Immigration of the two Houses. It is a fight 
between individual members of those committees. 

Legislative authorship of the Immigration Act of 1924 is claimed by Albert 
Johnson, chairman of the House Committee on Immigration. As passed by the 
House of Representatives, the Johnson bill was purely a measure for the further 
restriction of immigration. It was in the Senate that its nature was changed, 
and Senator Reed, of Pennsylvania, claims credit for the legislative authorship 
of the national-origins clause by which a new philosophy and a new purpose 
are injected into the Johnson bill. 

Representative Johnson and his House Committee on Immigration have been 
always willing to restore the law to the pristine purity of an immigration restric- 
tion law which they hold it had when it originally left their hands. Senator 
Reed, backed by certain "patriotic" and other organized groups, is an influen- 
tial member of the Senate Committee on Immigration. Senator Hiram Johnson, 
the chairman of that committee, is believed to be opposed to the national-origins 
clause ; Senator Nye, a member of the committee, is the author of a bill sus- 
pending the national-origins clause. So influential, however, is Senator Reed 
that the Nye bill all but died in committee and at the last minute came before 
the closing session of the Seventieth Congress to be dealt a death blow by Sen- 
ator Joseph T. Robinson, who deemed it unbecoming for the United States Sen- 
ate to discuss and act on this momentous proposal on Sunday. 

The controversy over this national-origins clause of the Immigration act is 
more than a fight between two congressional committees for the credit of author- 
ship. This controversy has to do with a problem the right solution of which 
is of supreme interest to the Nation. The action taken by Congress as a result 
of this controversy is bound to react on the life of the Nation for good or for ill. 

A subsequent subdivision of the act places upon the Secretaries of State, 
Commerce, and Labor, jointly, the duty of distributing the inhabitants of conti- 
nental United States into groups based on national origins. This was at once 
discovered to be no simple imdertaking. The census reports covering the early 
decades of population growth in the United States supply no data on national 
origins of the aliens who inhabit the United States, much less of those who, 
having been such inhabitants for generations, have destroyed every trace of 
their national origins by intermarriage or have preserved no record of their 
ancestors, many of whom reached America fleeing the conditions of turmoil 
and unrest which accompanied the period of renaissance in Europe, a i)eriod 
when there was an unprecedented migration and intermingling of peoples. The 
problem which the committee of three was asked to solve is an impossible 
problem. As Secretary of Commerce, President Hoover had immediate control 
of the Bureau of the Census with its corps of statisticians and population 
experts. The committee had authority to employ other experts. An earnest 
effort over 3 years was made to solye the riddle of national origins. In his 
speech accepting the nomination as presidential candidate of the Republican 
Party, President Hoover summed up the results in the following statement : 

"As a member of the commission whose duty it is to determine the quota basis 
under the national-origins law, I have found it impossible to do so accurately 
and without hardship." 

That he holds the whole controversy to be little more than a tempest in a 
teapot, the perennial fight between tweedledum and tweedledee, is evident from 
the following words with which President Hoover concluded the above statement : 

"The basis now in effect carries out the essential principles of the law, and 
I favor the repeal of that part of the act calling for a new basis of quotas." 

The arrogance of those wlio oppose Mr. Hoover and insist that the national- 
origins clause be enforced is probably most clearly expressed in America, Nation 
or Confusion, by Edward R. Lewis. 

"The old-stock American, in short," says Mr. Lewis, "saw himself being 
crowded out of the country which his ancestors had founded, which they had 
fought for in war after war, which as pioneers they had built up in the great 
middle and far West. * * * The main force back of the quota laws was 
not economic pressure, was not the outcry of American labor, but was a deep, 


pervading, half-articulate instinct animating the old stock, that it must act 
to keep itself from being pushed to extinction. * * * It is not for the 
newer comers * * * to criticize the native^ stock for trying to prevent 
the practical extinction of its own blood." 

The same author in another part of his treatise states with greater frankness 
and perhaps more accurately the true purpose of the national-origins clause. 
The law was "primarily intended to reduce numbers, and particularly numbers 
from Southern and Eastern Europe." 

Certainly the Congress of the United States has the power and the authority 
to determine the number and the qualifications of immigrants that are to be 
admitted. If, by a majority vote, the Congress decided that none shall be ad- 
mitted but the individuals born and reared under a democratic government by 
which the unalienable rights of men are respected in the same way and degree 
as they are in our country, there could be no question of its authority to enforce 
its will. If Congress, as it does in the act of 1924. decides that approximately 
250,000 is to be the maximum population increase from immigration sources 
during any year, and even if Congress arbitrarily fixed the qualifications to be 
possessed by immigrants in such a manner as to exclude immigrants from East- 
ern and Southern Europe, no foreign government could effectively question the 
validity of its act except by referring to a treaty agreement. 

International rights are not precisely stated in any commonly accepted code. 
Centuries of intercourse between nations, treaties of amity and commerce long 
respected, acts of conciliation based on the mutual recognition of funda- 
mental principles of morality and justice, tradition, are the sources from which 
flow the rights of nations in their intercourse with one another. A well-founded 
tradition, a doctrine proclaimed by patriotic citizens, even by authorized spokes- 
men of the United States throughout a century and a half, fostered in those 
countries from which immigrants come, the belief that an upright man who 
would apply for admission among us would not be discriminated against on 
grounds of race or creed. 

In enacting the national origins law the Congress of the United States repu- 
diated the tradition thus established. It is not entirely correct to say that 
tradition had been repudiated by an earlier Congress which excluded by law all 
immigrants from China, nor by the so-called gentlemen's agi'eement with Japan. 
The American traditions of the open door had not been allowed to take deep 
root with regard to orientals as it had with regard to the white races of Europe. 
The earlier legislation did, however, serve notice that American legislation 
afi'ecting immigrants has its foundation in the basic doctrine that immigration 
and the acquisition of citizenshp are matters of purely domestc consent to be 
regulated by laws in the enactment of which consideration is given to no in- 
terest other than the general welfare of the American people. 

The Johnson bill and section II (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924 seek to 
protect the national interest by restricting immigration. The author of the 
bill accepts the status quo of 1890 and allots immigration quotas on the basis 
of conditions revealed by the census of that yeai'. In doing this, the author of 
the bill was probably motivated more by political considerations of a practical 
nature, than by any profound conviction. He sought to eliminate immigration 
from eastern and southern Europe by perpetuating a condition which was 
definitely known to have existed at a time when the Nation was at peace and 
prosperous. This plan has its defects. Immigration does not flow in a steady 
stream. The migration of peoples are the results of abnormal conditions, 
famine, political tyranny, serious industrial depression ; these are the forces 
back of the great migrations. The open-door policy applied to immigration 
would expose us to the effects of political, social and economic distress over 
which we could have no control. The census of 1890 was selected not with any 
view to these facts, but arbitrarily because it was believed that in this manner 
immigration from eastern and southern Europe could be reduced without offend- 
ing large blocs of American voters. 

The authors of the national origins theory as a basis for immigration quotas 
are equally arbitrary. They seek to cloak their arbitrariness in fine robes of a 
philosophy. They proclaim the patriotic purpose of preserving the racial charac- 
ter of the American Nation. To this end they demand that immigration quotas 
be allotted to alien nationalities in the proportion in which those nationalities 
inhabited continental United States in 1920. Their purpose like that of those 
who advocate quotas based on the census of 1890 is to establish and perpetuate 
a status quo. As a theory it i.s not within attractiveness. As a practical ad- 
ministrative proposition it leads men like President Hoover, after years of de- 
bate and deliberation, to denounce it as not practical. 


The statistical table which accomijuuies (his article is evidence first that 
experts have found it impossible to reach any firm or precise estimate as to the 
quota numbers. These estimates vary enormously from year to year ; in not one 
instance does the estimate made one year agree with that made the next. There 
is no assurance that other experts may not discover other data and change even 
further the estimate submitted. A comparison between the numbers admitted 
under the law as now enforced and the final figures of the experts shows in the 
second place that President Hoover was not altogether justified when, in his 
acceptance speech, he drew the attention of the voters to the fact that after all 
no essential or important practical difference will result from the adoption of 
one or the other of these bases. 

The controversy is not, as Mr. Hoover seems to believe, as simple and super- 
ficial as the fight between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The advocates of the 
national-origins law, as is revealed in the words I have quoted from Mr. Lewis, 
look upon the American Nation as made up of two opposing, irreconcilable fac- 
tors- — a leg'nidary "old stock" and the "newcomers." They seek to establish 
and perpetuate a line of cleavage running back through our national life to 
Bunker Hill and beyond. For a century and a half our Nation has grown 
strong and has prospered in peace and in war under the motto "E Pluribus 
Unum." Applied to immigration and to the population growth of the Nation 
that motto visions a condition utterly unlike that of the "hundred percenters" 
who advocate the national-origins law. In that vision there is no line of cleav- 
age, tiiere is no snobbish division of the Nation into "old stock" and "new- 
comers." In that vision there stands a happy people united, homogeneous, 
patriotic, prosperous, all sharing the same responsibilities and enjoying the 
same rights. They are happy in the thought that others may be admitted to 
share with them the blessings and duties of citizenship. They have learned to 
be jealous of their treasure, they are willing to make sacrifices in its defense, 
above all they are not willing that any alien invasion wrest the treasure of 
national happiness out of their hands. The enforcement of the national-origins 
clause destroys that vision driving an artificial line of cleavage through the life 
of the Nation. 

Postwar hysteria was a factor in the enactment of the Immigration Acts of 
1921 and 1924. Hysteria is short-lived in a nation of practical men. It should 
not be the basis of permanent national policies. The Congress has the undis- 
puted right and the duty to protect the national welfare by regulating immi- 
gration. P'uture Congresses will have that right and that duty. They can be 
trusted with its exercise. The exising law with quotas based on the 1890 census 
has been an effective protection. No practical reason is advanced for abandon- 
ing it now for the weird philosophy back of the national-origins clause. 

The Chairman. Father, are you siiggestino; that two functions be 
combined that are now separate? That part wliich is handled by the 
State Department, and the work that is done in the Immigration 
Department — that they be combined into one agency ? 

Reverend Doyle. Not necessarily one agency, but a distinctive 
agency that could handle the over-all problems. I might point this 
out, and I have had some experience : One of the difficulties we found 
out in respect to the displaced-persons program was that our consular 
offices did not have sufficient personnel. We found that our consular 
offices are almost autonomous in some respects. In other words, we 
come back to the old problem of Government where we have inde- 
pendent agencies — who is going to act as the liaison, because their 
problems intermingle, and there must be someone who can solve these 

Sroblems, otherwise, we will find one agency working against the other, 
ot necessarily working against each other, but not giving each other 
mutual support. 

The Chairman. What is your suggestion? 

Reverend Doyle. I would suggest closer liaison between the Bureau 
of Immigration and Naturalization and our consular offices. Now 
we think this could be better eflfected if there was some over-all com- 
mittee, aud the problems of both agencies, or all agencies involved in 


this question of immigration, could sit down and work out many of 
their problems, because our experience has been in the displaced- 
persons program that because the different agencies had different 
policies, and there was no over-all policy, we found ourselves in diffi- 
culties and unable to do an efficient and an effective job. 

The Chairman. AVhen you say an "over-all committee," do you mean 
somebody that is authorized by law to make a final decision? 

Reverend Doyle. Right. 

The Chairman. Then do you have in mind setting up by law another 
agency or one that had authority over both of these functions? 

Reverend Doyle. Yes; in general. Of course, I am against creating 
more departments and more agencies, but when it is indicated that 
such a creation would give us a more effective job in coordinating 
the whole program of immigration, I feel that it would be justified. 

Commissioner Gullixon. May I ask what has been the experience 
here in Chicago with relation to displaced persons already set- 
tled in the rural areas? Do they arrive in Chicago in considerable 
proportion ? 

Reverend Doyle. I suppose the over-all figure is about 50 percent 
of the displaced persons that came to the rural areas. Now that would 
include not only farm opportunities, but small towns. About 50 
percent of them stayed. I am talking about figures from our own 
local organization and from my own experience. About 50 percent 
of them stayed on the farms. To me, that is a good percentage. We 
must remember that the 1948 law gave a 30 percent priority to farmers. 

Now the background of these people who are not primarily or 
currently farmers was not farming, and if they could pass a screening 
test on their knowledge of farming, these people felt: "This is an 
opportunity to get in earlier than the others, and I will try the farm." 
Now the fault lies partly on the DP; partly on the farmer. In my 
office when these people drift in off the fanns we go to the trouble, 
in their own language — an interpreter takes down their complete 
story — of creating a case history on them. We take the facts from 
them, we contact the diocesan director, and we contact the farmer and 
ask him to pi'ove these facts. Actually, we have proven, I have the 
records in my office to show it, that many of them were being 
exploited. I mean, let's not assume the problem was always with the 
DP — it was a question of some of our American farmers ex])loiting, 
and we can prove it on the basis of what the normal wage would be for 
a farm hand, and what the individual was paid, even taking into 
consideration the food, and the house, and so forth, and so on. 

I would say on the basis of those facts — we give it 30 percent priority, 
and, secondly because of exploitation — that may be the reasons why 
they drift into the city. Let's be honest about it. If I landed in 
Holland and there was an American colony I would go to it until I 
overcame my initial psychological approval. It is their children who 
will intermingle and intermarry with the rest of our people, and, after 
all, that is Americanism. 

Commissioner Gullixson. If all reference to national origins were 
to be eliminated, what suggestion would you have for dealing with 
the people of Indonesia and the orientals generally, where so many 
of the exceedingly difficult international problems, and so much of 
the misery are collected now ? 


Reverend Doyle. Yes. I want to go on record as saying this: 
Tluit I am not in favor of uncontrolled immigration into our coun- 
try. It stands to reason that we can only absorb a certain number 
of these people, and I don't want to go on record as stating that ir- 
respective of ourselves we should accept uncontrolled immigration. 
Why? Because in our effort to help these people we can't lower our 
standards, because then that would make us ineffective in regard to 
oriental peoples. I do feel, as far as orientals are concerned, I think 
their quota is very low. Now, remember, it isn't a question of the 
United States solving all the problems of the world in regard to popu- 
lation—we can't do it. Italy has an overpopulation of 2 million 
people. We are pouring dollars in there which is no solution unless 
you crack the basic economic problem, which is overemployment and 
underemployment. We do feel we must give moral leadership. 
We can't go to Canada and South America and the rest of these coun- 
tries and say to them : "You take them and we will give you the dol- 
lars." Moral leadership is required. 

I am of the opinion — although I didn't state it — I feel within the 
next 3 years we can take 100,000 of these people, over and above our 
national immigration quotas, and be able to absorb them. 

Did I answer your question, Doctor? It is a difficult one. But, 
at the same time, we can't expect America to do a complete job it- 

The Chairman. In the statement you read, you stated that the na- 
tional-origins formula in the McCarran- Walter Act contained a for- 
mula of selection that is "unrealistic" and "erroneous." What system 
would you recommend ? 

Reverend Doyle. Of course, I don't know anyone who has that an- 
swer. All we can do is lay out a general principle that Congress will 
determine how many immigrants we are going to accept. My con- 
tention is this; and it is the only Christian stand you can take: ir- 
respective of race, or creed, you have to determine who they are going 
to be. Congress will take care of the number. Perhaps we can 
have something to say about the kind, based upon their need and 

In other words, instead of categorizing all of the types of people 
I would permit to come under this immigration program, I just said 
those who are in need and basically who are they — they are the es- 
capees, the DP's, the refugees. 

Here is what has happened to us: We have families right here 
in Chicago where the mother came over with the children ; the father 
was held back for some sort of a physical check-up; the visas have 
expired, and now we have disunited families, which is certainly un- 
democratic and un-Christian. Certainly, a relief should come to the 
people on the basis of needs. 

There is no question that we say the National Origins Act gives us 
a vicious form of racism. As far as our democratic and humanitarian 
Christian principles are concerned, we can't make distinctions be- 
tween peoples — they are people, and that is the basis on which we are 
going to deal with them. 

Commissioner O 'Grady. Would you apply that not only to Euro- 
peans ? 


Eeverend Doyle, Yes; not only to Europeans. What I want to 
say is that we must do our share. I feel we can take more orientals in. 
How many ? That depends upon our economic aid, and, as I stated 
before, we cannot control immigration because we will be defeating 
our own purposes. Certainly, I want to go on record as saying that 
as a Catholic priest and as a citizen of America we make no distinc- 
tion between race and peoples. We handle them on their needs and 
their worth — I mean their human worth. 

Commissioner Finucane. We have heard testimony to the effect 
that relieving some of the excess population through emigration would 
materially help overpopulated countries in Europe, whereas in coun- 
tries with far greater overpopulation such as the Far East, Pakistan^ 
and India, it would be relatively ineffective. Do you think that is a 
justifiable reason for applying the excess-population remedy to Euro- 
pean countries and not to the Far East? 

■ Eeverend Doyle, I would like to say this: I, at least, refuse to 
accept the responsibility for overpopulation throughout the entire 
world. As I indicated, this has to be a long-term program by the free- 
dom-loving nations of the world. We cannot assume the responsibility 
all ourselves, but we can do our part, even to the point of bringing in 
some of these Indians, and at least do the pilot work, so that other 
nations can solve it. There is no question about it. There may be 
certain sections of the world overpopulated, but the world itself is 
not overpopulated. So it is a question of adjusting peoples to the 
underpopulated area. We even have an internal problem here of 
adjusting some of our own people from one section of the country to 
another. Well, if we can do it on a national basis, and we are making 
an attempt at it, that should be done internationally. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Father, 

Mr, Max Swiren, you are next on the schedule. 


Mr, SwiREN. I am Max Swiren, 135 South La Salle Street, Chicago. 

I am appearing, Mr, Chairman, on behalf of the principal Jewish 

organizations of Chicago, I think a reference to their names would 

indicate the scope of their activities and interests, and, hence, their 

concern with the problems that the Commission confronts : 

Chicago Rabbinical Association 

Chicago Rabbinical Council 

Rabbinical Assembly 

American Jewish Congress 

Anti -Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society 

Jewish Labor Committee 

Jewish War Veterans 

Decalogue Society of Lawyers 

Farband Labor Zionist Order 

Federation of Jewish Trade Unions 


Hapoel Hamizrachi 

Hebrew Theological College 


Labor Zionist Organization 


Mizi-achi Women's Organization 

National Council of Jewish Women 

Pioneer Women 

Union of American Hebre^Y Congregations 

United Sj'nagogue 

Worlanen's Circle 

Zionist Organization 
I have a prepared statement to submit in behalf of these organiza- 
tions whom I represent here, and then I should like to make some 

The CriAiRMAX. Your prepared statement Avill be inserted in the 
record and you may proceed with your remarks. 

(There follows the prepared statement submitted by Mr. Max^ 
Swiren in behalf of the principal Jewish organizations of Chicago :) 

This statement is presented on behalf of the principal Jewish organizations of 
Chicago, listed above, with membership aggregating in excess of 150,000 

We commend President Truman for his humane and sensitive concern with 
naturalization and refugee problems. We acclaim the President's veto of the 
McCarran Act, cast as that law is in a mold foreign to the humane and democratic 
traditions of this Nation. We take hope from the establishment of this Presi- 
dential Commission and the caliber of its membership. 

The problems that confront this Commission must be examined in the light of 
the monumental upheaval, social and political, that engulfs two-thirds or more 
of the globe. The world is witnessing a gigantic battle of ideas witli conse- 
quences that touch the very existence of our civilization. We have the oppor- 
tunity and, indeed the duty, to contribute strength, vision, and courage in that 
struggle. To make that contribution we must glorify, with every fiber of our 
daily life, the imperishable ideals of human freedom, individual liberty and 
brotherhood of man. No such lofty undertaking can have an intellectually honest 
and, hence, an effectively sound foundation, without full and hospitable recog- 
nition of the basic principles with vphich we here concern ourselves. 

Chicago is a city of immigrants in a nation of immigrants. Our population 
includes a half million foreign-born and 21/2 times that many native Americans 
of foreign parentage. The Jewish population totals 350,000, more than the popu- 
lation of any city in Israel. The population of our city includes more than 
400,000 Poles, a quarter million Germans, 200,000 Italians, and about as many 
Scandinavians. We have foreign-born and first-generation Americans whose 
heritage reaches into every corner of tlie world. Cosmopolitan Chicago exempli- 
fies tlie contribution of the immigrant in every sphere of life — economic, social, 
cultural, religious, political — contributions that are permanently engrafted upon 
the free institutions that we call America. We cannot, in good conscience or 
self-interest, nor, indeed under our cohstitutional standards, relegate the natu- 
ralized citizen to a secondary position, whose exercise of the freedoms guaranteed 
by the Constitution would jeopardize liis precious citizenship. 

The ideals that made us great and the experience of building a great free 
people move us to welcome to our shores the weary and the oppressed. We must 
do so with the vision and the confidence in the equality of man that moved our 
forefathers to welcome as many as a million immigrants a year. We must cast 
away false racist philosophies and have faith in our ideals. Immigrants should 
be received in a spirit of brotherhood that they may build lives of tranquillity and 
service, that they may enrich our farms and our factories, our arts and our 
sciences, our religious and our political institutions. 

The McCarran Act is deliberately designed to stem the flow of immigration 
to a mere trickle by pyramiding restrictio!i upon restriction and limitation upon 
limitation. The theoretical maximum of 154,000 immigrants is but one-tenth of 
1 i)ercent of our population, compared witli totals of well over a million for many 
of the early years of the century and an annual average of 750,000 from 1900 to 
1920. Without rational basis, the IMcCarran Act retains the national origin 
quotas as a transparent means of reducing immigi-ation from east and south 


Europe. That area, where the need is great, is assigned less than 20 percent of 
the quotas. By this infamous device an English immigrant is legislated to be 
13 times as desirable as an Italian and 12 times as desirable as a Pole. We 
repudiate such comparisons and such quotas as unworthy and unwarranted. 

Small as are the critical quotas, they are mortgaged to the extent of 50 percent 
until displaced persons admitted under special legislation of Congress shall have 
been fully charged off. Unused quotas in one area may not be transferred to 
another. Our experience with this device during the last 5 5'ears has been to 
cut the maximum in half because only a small portion of the quotas assigned to 
countries in west or north Europe are being used. Another snare is the require- 
ment that the place of birth rather than the domicile or citizenship of the immi- 
grant determines the quota to which he is assigned. This means that hundreds 
of thousands of innocent persons transported across Europe by the Nazis must 
wait hopelessly for a quota number for the country of origin while thousands of 
such numbers are available and unused for the country of domicile. 

How spurious is the ray of hope held out by the McCarran Act may be seen 
by reference to the Polish quota. About 138,000 Poles in Europe are seeking 
admission to this country. We are particularly concerned with that problem 
because, taking into account natives of foreign parentage. Chicago is the second 
largest Polish city in the world. Poland has a quota of 6,488, but even this figure 
is cut in half because the admission of displaced persons lias mortgaged this 
quota into the next century. Contrast this with the quota of 65.361 for Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland, immigration from which during the last 5 years 
averaged little more than 20,000 a year. Even when a precious visa has been 
granted which cannot be used for health or financial reasons, it is not restored 
to the quota but is canceled. 

Another restriction in the pyramid is the iron-clad preference of 50 percent of 
each quota to those the Attorney General may find to be needed in this countr.y 
by reason of special education, technical skill, or experience. When there are 
added the priorities for relatives and other cut-off provisions, it is difficult indeed 
to see how any appreciable number of immigrants can actually squeeze through 
the McCarran traps. 

Our national immigration policy must be predicated upon three fundamental 
principles : 

First. Immigration is healthy for our culture and our economy. The intro- 
duction of new threads into our national fabric adds strength and resilience. 

Second. The admission of immigrants must i-eflect a wholesome spirit of inter- 
national good will, understanding, and cooperation consonant with our foreign 

Third. Immigrants admitted to our country must be permitted to rebuild their 
lives in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity made secure by democratic 
principles and processes. 

You have the right to ask what kind of legislative scheme can implement these 
fundamental principles. The answer as we see it lies along these lines: 

1. Related to the need abroad and our tremendous absorptive capacity at home, 
these principles demand that the permissive total of immigrants be at least double 
the 154.000 provided in the McCarran Act. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable 
to set the outer limits at one-half of 1 percent of our population. The limitation 
should be flexible so that an unfilled quota of 1 year may be utilized in the follow- 
ing year, to the end that investigation under the security provisions of the act 
Involving delays of as much as 6 months may not defeat the immigration 

2. The selection of immigrants should be entrusted to a special board charged 
with formulating and carrying out a national immigration policy resting upon 
the fundamental principles above outlined. The urgency of the situation rather 
than any artificial regard for national origin should be of primary concern. The 
board should have flexible power to set percentages, within statutory limits, in 
the following categories for which priority would be accorded in granting immi- 
gration visas : 

(a) Immigrants seeking to join their families in this country. The principle 
of reuniting families must apply with equal force to both citizen and alien 

(b) Persons seeking asylum. Refugees from racial, religious, or political 

(c) Persons having special skills, training, and qualifications, and, in this con- 
nection, there should be at least as much interest in university professors and 
scientists as in sheepherders. 


(rf) Finally, room should bo reserved for nevv-seod iinmisration. This does 
not involve relaxation of the stringent mininiuni qualilieations for entry into the 

Within the groups, we know no better basis for administration than first 
come, first served, subject to a reasonable discretion in the board to meet hard- 
ship cases. The purpose of leaving the percentage allocations to these various 
categories flexible is to enable the board to meet changing conditions and emer- 
gency conditions. It would obviate the need for special refugee legislation, 
particularly as related to specific problems and specific countries. 

3. Immigration proceedings should conform to the requirements of the Admin- 
istrative Procedures Act. The denial of a visa by an American consul should, 
upon application of an American citizen concerned with the matter, be subject 
to review by a board of appeals, and thereafter subject to judicial review. In 
every area of the immigration service there should be an opportunity for fair 
hearing, uniformity of treatment, and the right of judicial review. 

4. Deportation should be a matter of judicial rather than administrative juris- 
diction. The McCarran Act departs from basic constitutional requirements of 
fair play in entrusting unlimited authority to the Attorney General. Concern- 
ing aiipropriate standards in deportation proceedings, the Supreme Court had 
occasion to say : 

"When the Constitution requires a hearing, it requires a fair one, one before 
a tribunal which meets at least currently prevailing standards of impartiality. 
A deportation hearing involves issues basic to human liberty and happiness and, 
in the present upheavals in lands to which aliens may be returned, perhaps to 
life itself. It might be difficult to justify as measuring up to constitutional 
standards of impartiality a hearing tribunal for deportation proceedings the like 
of which has been condemned by Congress as unfair even where less vital matters 
of rrorerty rights are at stake." Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath (339 U. S. 33, 50-1 

Un the substantive question of deportation, it has been proposed by respon- 
sible students of the problem that all deportation be eliminated as punishment 
of medieval character — that our criminal laws be relied upon to deal with Infrac- 
tions by alien and citizen alike. Certainly that proposal deserves serious con- 
sideration. In any event, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude com- 
mitted within 5 years after entry and carrying a substantial jail sentence is 
the only ground upon which deportation should be authorized. The threat of 
deportation ought never to be used as a means of thought control. If the alien 
is guilty of illegal subversive activities, let him be tried and convicted by legal 
process, and then there is time for the immigration authorities to step in. 

In short, this Nation of immigration must treat the new immigrants as we 
ourselves would be treated. 

In the realm of naturalization, as in immigration, we bespeak an attitude 
of understanding, encouragement, and hospitality, in contradistinction to the 
atmos' h ^re of hostility in which the McCarran Act was conceived. In a united 
voice, all of the organizations for which I speak repudiate the McCarran concept 
of second-class citizenshp for the naturalized immigrant. We insist that all 
citizens shall have the same burdens and I'esponsibilities and enjoy the same 
rights and privileges. Naturalized citizens and native-born citizens alike must 
enjoy the constitutional freedoms without fear that an unpopular expression may 
jeopardize precious citizenship. The Nation in whose bloodstream flow the 
principals of the Declaration of Independence dares not offend the principle of 
equality. No more shameful challenge to that principle can be conceived than 
apiienrs in the provisions of the McCarrnn Act for revocation of naturalization. 
Without limit of time, revocation is authorized by judicial proceeding upon a 
showing of either "willful misrepresentation" or "concealment of a material fact." 
Having in mind the atmosphere of hysteria that obtains in many quarters, it is 
easy to imagine that matters to which no one would have given a second thought 
10 years ago may now be regarded as a "material fact." Where there is con- 
cealment and where there is simply an omission to incjuire is left wide open. 
Wh!tt an invitation to the "know-nothing" and the "Ku Klux Klan" mind! 

Moreover, the citizen whose naturalization would be taken from him can be 
served by publication if he cannot readily be found in person. This is a pro- 
cedural trick without parallel in the American judicial process. 

The Criminal Code provides substantial penalties for persons guilty of con- 
ten pt of Congress for declining to testify. WMiere such refusal concerns sub- 
versive activities, the McCarran Act imposes an additional penalty upon the nat- 
25356—52 49 


uralized citizen by automatically depriving him of his citizenship and subjecting 
him to deportation if the act occurred within 10 years of naturalization. In utter 
disregard of the seriousness of denaturalization and banishment, of the life and 
death character of the determination, the act provides that membership in or 
aflBliation with a subversive organization within 5 years after naturalization 
raises a prima facie presumption that the citizen was not well disposed to the 
good order and happiness of this country at the time of naturalization. A third 
area of discrimination against the naturalized citizen appears in the provisions 
for expatriation. How does all this square with the decisions of the Supreme 

By a divided Court and with considerable limitation, the Supreme Court sus- 
tained the right of denaturalization but held that in such proceedings that would 
deprive one of the precious right of citizenship, "the facts and the law should 
be considered as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen." In ex- 
planation, the Court said : 

"In its consequence [denaturalization] it is more serious than a taking of 
one's property, or the imposition of a tine or other penalty. For it is safe to 
assert that nowhere in the world today is the right of citizenship of greater 
worth to an individual than it is in this country." kichneiderman v. United States 
(320 U. S. 118, 122). 

The late Mr. Justice Rutledge described the danger of free denaturalization 
proceedings in these words : 

"No citizen with such a threat hanging over his head could be free. If he 
belonged to 'ofC-color' organizations or held too radical or, perhaps, too reac- 
tionary views, for some segment of the judicial palate, when his admission took 
place, he could not open his mouth without fear his words would be held against 
him. For whatever he might say or whatever any such organization might ad- 
vocate could be hauled forth at any time to show 'continuity' of belief from the 
day of his admission, or 'concealment' at that time. Such a citizen would not 
be admitted to liberty. His best course would be silence or hypocrisy. This is 
not citizenship. Nor is it adjudication." Schneiderman v." United States (320 
U. S. 118, 167). 

As Mr. Justice Murphy put it, the naturalized citizen "is not required to im- 
prison himself in an intellectual or spiritual strait-jacket ; nor is he obliged to 
retain a static mental attitude." Baumgartncr v. United States, (322 U. S. 665, 

The Supreme Court has held that to set aside naturalization, the Government 
has the burden of proving by "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, which 
does not leave the issue in doubt, that the citizen who is sought to be restored to 
tJie status of an alien obtained his naturalization certificate illegally." Knauer v. 
United States (328 U. S. 654, 657-8). 

The same constitutional standards established by the Supreme Court for the 
protection of naturalized citizens are scrapped by the McCarran Act. Under 
that law, presumptions of fraud are raised against the naturalized citizen from 
conduct long after the naturalization process has been completed and the bur- 
den is cast upon him, the individual citizen, to prove his innocence. This is an 
approach to human rights that an American cannot embrace. 

The concept of second-class citizenship collides with the principle of equality 
before the law and should be rejected. Citizenship, whether acquired by nat- 
uralization or birth, should be irrevoca>)le. The sole exception that can be tol- 
erated by a free people is revocation of citizenship acquired through deliberate 
fraud — not the indefinite concealment of what may subsequently l)e deemed ma- 
terial. The required evidence must be of such probative force as to leave no 
doubt on the ultimate issue, and the procedure must be designed to assure to the 
naturalized citizen the full measure of protection in contesting with so powerful 
an adversary as his Government. 

We approach the problems of immigration and naturalization with pride in 
the achievements and the contributions of our foreign born citizens. We have 
tlie telephone, the microphone and the i)honograpli disk thanks to foreigners Bell 
and Berliner. Our gigantic electric industry sprang from the genius of Stein- 
metz, Tesla, and Pupin. Our linotype machines were the brain child of IMergen- 
thaler. For the inception of our iivm business, we are indebted to immigrant 
David Thomas, and our cotton manufacturing to another immigrant, Samuel 
Slater. In the field of aviation, the names of Sikorsky, DeSeversky and Bellanca 
are known to every school child. The Texas oil fields awaited the arrival of a 
Swedish geologist, Udden, for their exploitation. And finally, in our atomic 
energy field, we owe much to the foreign born Einstein, Fermi, Bohr, and Meitner. 


From the Jewish coiiimuuity of Chicago cauie such diverse but significant per- 
sonalities as foreign born Sidney liilliuan and Julius Rosenwald, son of an 

Among our latest refugees are such geniuses of literature as Maeterlinck, 
Tiiomas Maun, and Sigred Undset. Tiie Ilitlerist repression sent to our shores 
no less than iH Nobel prize winners and hundreds of scientists, writers, and 
artists of the highest rank. ())ir own University of Illinois, University of Chi- 
cago, and Roosevelt College have been notable beneficiaries of such immigra- 
tion. If we would know what is America, I ask you to read the day-by-day 
casualty lists. As these lines are penned, the latest casualty list of 21 includes 
such names as Zucaro, Soltys, I'econe, Bcrrin, Brodigan, Depeano, Rnsslin, 
Dunkle, Hrj hor, Koester. 

Call the roll of the AU-American football team and see how many of the 
names are reiinniscent of soutli and east Europe. Walk onto the floor of the 
Carnegie-Illinois steel mills. Look around at the immigrants and sons of im- 
migrants and you will see America as it is and the people that make it great. 

In this great city, we appreciate the strength we derive from our melting-pot 
popuhition. We have seen in my generation how, the multitude of peoples gath- 
ered together from all parts of the globe can live and build together. We saw 
in World War I, in World War II, and in the Korean conflict now that when 
our country is attacked, all these people respond in one voice, and when the 
supreme sacrifice is made, it is witliout discrimination, without national origin 

I wish the Senator from Nevada had been with me when I visited an American 
military cemetery in Lorraine shortly after the close of the war. He would have 
been interested in the names that I read on the crosses and the stars of David 
that lined aisle after aisle. He would then have understood what it means to 
say that the United States is a nation of immigrants. 

Mr. SwiREN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk somewhat freely 
and discuss, if I may, these matters : First, the general conditions that 
we regard as pertinent in the formulation of an immigration and 
naturalization policy ; and, secondly, the principles that must underlie 
that policy; and, thirdly, the specific program of legislation, which 
we think ought to be recommended by the Commission. In connection 
with the latter, of course, we must consider the existing legislation, its 
strength, and its weakness and the point of view which must be altered. 
I mention that outline because I noticed in my brief attendance at the 
hearings yesterday and today that the Commission is very properly 
concerned with an answer to the question : What do we do about the 
defects upon which so many people agree ? 

Let me say at the outset that it seems to me that in this world up- 
heaval in which we find ourselves, in the battle of ideas, there is one 
approach upon which we cannot yield on any matter of national policy, 
and that is an adherence to tlie principles of human freedom, and indi- 
vidual liberty, and brotherhood of man, and in no area of our concern 
are those principles more significant than in naturalization. 

Chicago is a city of immigrants. Some 40 percent of our population 
consists of foreign-born or first-generation Americans; 250,000 of our 
population are JeAvs; we have a quarter of a million Germans; 
400,000 Poles — it is the largest Polish city in the world outside of 
Warsaw. We have had a demonstration in Chicago of what can hap- 
pen when the American melting pot goes to work — not only in the 
factory, but in the cultural, the religious, the political institutions of 
America. We have demonstrated in this great city, it seems to me, 
beyond any question that the policy of making America the haven of 
the weary and oppressed is a sound policy, both nationally and inter- 
nationally. We are convinced that in approaching immigration we 
must cast away false philosophies of race, or race preference, and 


adhere strictly to the ideals upon which our system of government and 
society are predicated. In that connection, it seems pertinent to see 
just what we are doing now in the McCarran Act. That statute is 
dehberately designed to limit to a mere trickle immigration from out- 
side this hemisphere. Theoretically, 154,000 may be admitted, but 
when you examine the layer upon layer of restrictions and limitations 
in that statutory pyramid you begin to see that it is utterly impossible 
for any flow of immigration actually to pass the traps and snares and 
spikes that are imbedded in the McCarran Act. 

Of course, in the first place, there is the infamous national origins 
formula with which too many witnesses have already dealt before 
the Commission, and I shan't go into it in detail. Let me say, how- 
ever, that the senior Senator from Illinois, Paul Douglas, made a 
monumental contribution in his scholarly formulation of that philos- 
ophy, the falsity of the prejudice upon which it was predicated, and 
the irresponsibility of the figures used in reaching the statistics. 

We think it is contrary to the basic principles ot our way of life to 
say, by legislation, that a British immigrant is 13 times as desirable 
as an Italian or 12 times as desirable as a Pole. We take the quotas 
then as we find them and go further. Fifty percent, as you know, 
are mortgaged in many areas to make up for people who have come in 
as displaced persons, or under other special legislation; unused quotas 
can't be transferred. Our experience has been that, actually, more 
than 50 percent of the quotas assigned to north and west Europe are 
not exercised. I think the average over the last 5 years for the 
United Kingdom has been 20,000 and the quotas exceed 65,000. Going 
further: The most minute device is not overlooked to restrict the 
quotas. If a number is assigned and cannot be used for health or 
financial reasons, it is canceled, it doesn't go back into the quota. 
Perhaps, I can demonstrate the lack of hope that can spring from 
that kind of legislation when I call attention to the fact that there 
are 138,000 Poles qualified, awaiting, asking for immigration to the 
United States. Their quota is about 6,400, and that's cut by the various 
devices down to about 2,000, slightly under 2,000. The mortgage on 
the quota runs until the year 2,000, so you see what opportunity there 
is actually to meet any material problem. Add to that, on the pyramid 
of restraints, the 50 percent provision with respect to skills, and spe- 
cial training — an iron-clad 50 percent, if you please — and then there 
are the priorities for relatives, and the cut-off provision that was re- 
ferred to here yesterday, which entitles the Secretary of Labor, with 
little showing, if any, to determine that particular areas of immigra- 
tion must be closed off. 

It is with that statutory problem, and with the backgi'ound that I 
have indicated, that we urge upon the Commission three fundamental 
principles upon which to predicate an immigration and naturaliza- 
tion policy. The first is that immigration is healthy for our culture 
and our economy. The introduction of new threads into our national 
fabric add strength and resilience. Second, the admission of immi- 
grants must reflect a wholesome spirit of international good will and 
understanding consonant with our foreign policy. And, third, immi- 
grants one admitted to the country must be permitted to rebuild their 
lives in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity, secure in their posi- 
tion, and protected by fair judicious process. 


How to implement these principles if, of course, the primary prob- 
lem that confronts this Commission, and I would like to suggest five 
major items in that connection : First, with respect to over-ail limita- 
tion of inunigration from without this hemisphere, we urge that as a 
mininunn the present maximum figure of 154,000 be doubled. We say- 
that a reasonable figure that ought to be considered by the Commis- 
sion is one-half of 1 percent of the total population. It is consider- 
ably less than the million and a quarter a year that we admitted 
early in this century. It is less than the 750,000 average admissions 
of tile first 20 years of the century, and, I might say, in that connec- 
tion that the timid souls who feel that we have passed the frontier 
days, and don't have a great absorptive capacity have little faith in our 
economy and our genius. 

I took the trouble to see how far we have moved in the last decade. 
Since 1940 our production of goods and services, the gross national 
product, has increased almost 70 percent in consonant dollars at a 
time when our population had increased less than 13 percent. And, 
that, gentlemen, is before we reached the opportunities of the atomic 

Now, the second problem, and the most troublesome one, is the 
selection of immigrants. How do we classify them, how do we scrap 
them, when we scrap the national origins formula as we must? We 
propose the establishment of a special board or commission that is 
entrusted with the formulation of the ]3olicy on the basis of the prin- 
ciples we have indicated. The board should have flexible power 
within statutory limits for each category to establish percentages from 
the granting of visas in these separate categories : First, immigrants 
seeking to join their families. We believe the principle of reuniting 
families must apply to citizens and noncitizens alike. Second, there 
should be a category for persons seeking asylum — refugees from racial, 
religious, or political persecution. Third, there should be a category 
for persons having special skills, training, and qualification. I think 
in this connection that we must assume that college professors and 
scientists are at least as necessary as the sheepherders with wdiom Sen- 
ator McCarran was so concerned. And, finally, and equally impor- 
tant, we ought to reserve a category for new seeds, immigration of the 
character that originally built this country. 

Within the groups, we know no better way of dealing fairly than 
on the principle of first come, first served, reserving only a limited 
portion to be used in the discretion of the supervising board to meet 
special situations. I might say that that formula would eliminate 
the necessity for emergency legislation. It would eliminate thci 
necessity for special dealing with special problems in particular coun- 
tries. We ought to allow quotas in the total of permissive immigra- 
tion to be carried over from one year to another because today with 
the investigation required for security purposes as many as 6 months 
may be taken up in merely investigation dela3\ 

Our third proposal, with respect to legislation, is that all immigra- 
tion proceedings conform to the requirements of the Administrative 
Procedures Act. We think that the denial of a visa by a consul 
shovdd be subject to a review by an appeals board M'ithin the Innni- 
gration Service — it ouglit to be a single agency — upon api^lication of 
any American citizen concerned with the problem. 


I point to that particularly because, Mr. Chairman, you asked the 
question, quite properh'^, of two or three witnesses: What kind o{ 
review do we have, and who may initiate it? It seems to me that in 
everj^ area of the Immio;ration Service the principles of a fair hearinj^ 
before an impartial tribunal, uniformity of treatment, and the right 
of judicious review should obtain. 

The fourth problem is that of deportation. We urge upon the 
Commission a recommendation that all deportation proceedings be a 
matter of judicial rather than of administrative jurisdiction. It is 
hard to conceive a greater departure from the principles of fair play 
than those em.bodied in the McCarran Act. 

Our statement quotes from, a number of the decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States pointing up the life-and-death aspect of a 
deportation proceeding, the division of families, the consignment to 
almost certain death in many instances. More than that, we think 
that on the substantive question of when deportation may be permit- 
ted, important revisions ought to be undertaken. Responsible people 
have suggested, and I am not prepared to join them at this moment, 
that there ought to be an elimination, a ban of all deportation, upon 
the ground that banishment is punishment of a medieval character; 
that its criminal code ought to deal with its infractions by citizen 
and alien alike. But, in any event, we strongly urge that there be 
no deportation, save for conviction, within a limited period, for a. 
crime involving moral turpitude, and involving substantial jail 
sentences. We think that deportation ought never be used as a means 
of thought control. If an immigrant is guilty of illegal subversive 
activities, let him be tried and convicted by our normal judicial proc- 
ess, and then the immigration authorities will have an opportunity 
to come in. 

In short, so far as immigrants are concerned, we think that a nation 
of immigrants ought to treat them as we ourselves would be treated, 
and as our fathers or grandfathers were treated. 

We come now to a very sensitive problem, and that is the problem 
of naturalization. The McCarran Act has established principles of 
second-class citizenship for the foreign-born who have been natur- 
alized. We reject that approach to American citizenship. We insist 
that all citizens have the same burdens and responsibilities and enjoy 
the same rights and privileges. 

I was very much interested in Professor Davies' study of refugee 
immigration, in which he pointed out that the refugees responded to 
the call for service in America in the same percentage as did native 
Americans, indeed, his estimate was 1 percent higher. We believe 
that native-born citizens and foreign-born alike should enjoy their 
freedoms without fear that an unpopular expression may jeopardize 

I would refer you to three particular aspects of this problem as they 
are revealed in the McCarran Act, and against the backdrop of which 
we can determine what is fair, and what is human in the treatment of 
naturalized citizens. The Criminal Code provides very substantial 
penalties, as you gentlemen know, for persons guilty of contempt of 
Congress in declining to answer questions. Where the refusal con- 
cerns subversive activities, and occurs within 10 years of naturaliza- 
tion, there is automatic deportation. Secondary, affiliation directly 


or indirectly with an organization deemed subversive, within 5 years 
after naturalization, raises a prima facie presumption that the person 
was not disposed to the good order and happiness of the state at the 
time of naturalization. And, finally, there are special provisions for 
expatriation of the naturalized citizen. I might say that these prin- 
ciples of denaturalization collide squarely with the same constitutional 
standards that tlie Supreme Court has established. The Supreme 
Court has said, I think somewhat reluctantly, that denaturalization 
may be carried out. The late Mr. Justice Rutledge thought otherwise, 
and he has respectable authority in support of his position. 

But even the majority of the court made it clear time and time again 
that the burden must be placed upon the Government; the individual 
citizen contesting with some powerful adversary must not be required 
to carry the burden; that there is a presumption, a priority, and that 
its evidence must be of such propriety force as to leave no doubt of 
the misconduct at the time of naturalization in order to accomplish the 

Yet, our present law goes quite the other way establishing second- 
class citizenship. We think that the only ground upon which de- 
naturalization should be authorized is deliberate fraud ; not the in- 
definite concealment of a material fact that is provided now. 

We have this anomalous situation : A naturalized citizen may have 
his citizenship attacked on the ground that he concealed — and I em- 
phasize the word "concealed" — a material fact, particularly in this 
period where hysteria stalks many quarters. It is easy to understand 
that what is now regarded as highly material w^ould have been deserv- 
ing of not even a passing mention 10 years ago, and what is conceal- 
ment is left open for the courts to decide, a vague and difficult phrase 
that presents an invitation to the antiforeign spirit. The citizen, 
or the immigrant who seeks citizenship, is questioned at considerable 
length. Inquiries into his life are made in the greatest detail; and, 
if the matter was not sufficiently important to be the subject of inquiry, 
we don't think it should be dug up 5, 10, 20 years later, when it would 
be difficult to obtain facts and find witnesses as a basis to rob him of 
his naturalization. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, you have suggested a ceiling 
on immigration to the United States. What was your formula ? 

Mr. SwiREN. Our formula is a range between 300,000 and one-half 
of 1 percent of the population, which today would be about 760,000. 

The Chairman. You have suggested, on the question of appeals, 
that there be an appeal within the Immigration Service, but how 
would tliat work in connection with the action by consul ? 

Mr. SwiREK. We have had the experience in Government, as you 
will recall, of having a single representative abroad responsible to 
more than one aaency^ We are doing it now with regard to foreign 
aid and the State Department. 

The Chairman. Where would this appeals board be? Would it 
be in the United States? 

Mr. SwHREN. In the United States, and available at the instance of 
an American citizen only. 

The Chairman. Do yon think any such scheme as that would work 
if you had requests for visas from 300,000 to 750,000 people? Have 
you made any estimate as to how many possible appeals there would 
be annually? 


Mr. SwiREN. Yes, Mr. Chairman; there would be substantially less 
than in the customs appeals, where millions and millions of articles 
come in each year aiid are the subject of controversy. 

The Chairman. Don't you think that everybody that would be de- 
nied a visa would want to appeal ? 

Mr. SwiREN. No; I don't think so. Our experience has been, Mr. 
Chairman, that responsible organizations have looked after the prob- 
lem for the various groups, and they have acted with a great deal of 
understanding and responsibility. 

Commissioner O'Grady. In view of the statement made by a repre- 
sentative of the American Legion yesterday, to tlie effect that there 
is no labor shortage in Chicago and that immigrants are displacing 
American workers, may we have an expression of your views on the 

Mr. SwiREN. Let me divide the answer into two parts, if I may : 
In the first place, the best source of information on that problem seems 
to me to be our highly organized trade-unions. I think it is significant 
that the trade-union movement has changed its position very ma- 
terially on the admission of immigrants and supports a broadening of 
the scope of immigration admissions — that belies the notion that 
American jobs would be endangered. 

I might say that in our group, for which I speak, which is a federa- 
tion of Jewish trade-unions in this area, and the Jewish Labor Union 
Committee in this area, we are conversant with the problem. I have 
some familiarity with the problem which Mr. Samuel Levin spoke 
about yesterdaj^ where an industry that has been served almost ex- 
clusively by immigrants — the tailoring industry — was finding itself 
short of help in the Chicago area year in and year out over the last 
5 or 6 years because Americans were not willing to undertake the train- 
ing necessary. Trade schools had been set up at tremendous expense 
by both the industry and the union, and they were unsuccessful in 
attracting the necessary people. 

It seems to me that a casual expression by an individual who has 
not had to deal with the problem — whether he be a high official of the 
American Legion or any other organization — does not make a contri- 
bution to the problem. It seems to me that the broad-gage views of 
the American Federation of Labor and the CIO ought to be control- 
ling or determining whether or not jobs are really being jeopardized. 
As a matter of fact, in the period since we pulled out of the depression 
I know of no year, not a single year, that has gone by without some 
shortage in the labor market in Chicago. I would suggest that you 
pick up at random one of our Sunday newspapers, and see the column 
after column of advertisements, and the openings that cannot be read- 
ily filled. I wish that you would talk to concerns, such as many that 
I represent, and find how difficult it is today to fill ordinary, unskilled, 
or semiskilled positions, to say nothing of the skilled. We are being 
held back tremendously in the construction industry of this area by a 
shortage of skilled help. I think it is a false bogyman to advance 
the notion that in the limits Avithin which we are talking there can be 
any jeopardy to jobs or hopes. 

The Cpiairman. Thank you very much. We are a little behind 
in our schedule. Thank you for coming and for presenting your 


(A supplemental statement is as follows :) 

American Jewish Congekss, 
Chicago, III., November 10, 1952. 
Mr. Harry Rosknfield, 
Execniivc Director, 

PresidcnVs Commission on Immigration and Naturalizatioti, 
Washington, D. C. 
DE.VR ]Mr. Rosknfield : On October 9, 1952, Mr. Max Swiren appeared before 
your Comuiissiou diirinii' its liearinss and presented testimony on behalf of 23 
bodies, representing a major section of the organized Jewish community of 

During the course of Mr. Swiren's verbal presentation, which supplemented 
the written document submitted through the Commission, Chairman Philip B. 
Perlman raised certain questions concerning one or more of the proposals. 

I am submitting herewith 25 copies of a supplemental statement drafted by 
Mr. Swiren on behalf of the organizations represented in his initial presenta- 
tion. This statement directs itself to the questions raised by Mi. I'erlman. 
I would appreciate it very much if you would distrit)ute this supplemental docu- 
ment to the members of the Commission. 
Sincerely yours, 

Rabbi Sidney J. Jacobs 
{For the participating organizations) . 


This supplemental statement is directed to questions raised by the Chairman 
of the Commission during the presentation of our original statement on October 
9, 1952. 

We propose the establishment of a Board of Immigration Appeals to review^ 
decisions of immigration officers and denial of visas by any American consul. 
We urge judicial review in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act, 
subject at every step to proper security precautions. The Chairman of the Com- 
mission raised questions as to the form and feasibility of such proposed proce- 
dure, to which matters this supplemental memorandum is directed. 

In submitting the McCarran Act, the House Committee on the Judiciary 
pointedly refused to authorize review of consular action even by the Secretary 
of State. Each individual consul is thus endowed with arbitrary power affecting 
the very life of the prospective immigrant, influencing social and economic poli- 
cies at home, and fashioning attitudes and impressions abroad. At the very 
time that we are exerting monumental efforts to combat Conuuunist propaganda 
assaults upon democracy, we have contradicted those efforts by conferring 
unbridled power upon consular agents far removed from either supervision or 
American thinking. 

Our national immigration policy can be neither consistent nor imiform with 
hundreds of American consuls acting independently in the interpretation and 
application of the statute. Disturbed by this problem, the American consuls have 
voluntarily deluged the State Department with requests for guidance in thou- 
sands of specific situations. 

Unless our immigration procedures are to be a constant reproach to our pro- 
fessions of democratic faith, we must devise a system both uniform and rational 
in its operation. To that end, we propose the following procedure with respect 
to the granting of immigration visas : 

1. Each American consul should be empowered to receive applications for visas, 
make the necessary inquiries, and grant or reject the applications. For the uni- 
form guidance of American consuls, controlling regulations should be formulated 
by the I>oard of Immigration Appeals in conformity with statutory standards. 
Having in mind that the consul must represent the United States in a multitude 
of commercial and diplomatic matters far removed fi'om inmiigration problems, 
we see no reason for denying him the guidance of an agency whose primary con- 
cern is the administration of our immigration program. 

2. The Hoard of Immigration Appeals should be required to make a supervisory 
review of all consular action granting or denying innnigration visas. Such 
blanket review would provide the raw material for keeping the regulations 
attuned to current problems and changing conditions ; it would not be used to 
correct or alter individual decisions. To this end, each consul should forward 
to the Board the papers dealing with each application, together with a brief 


statement of the reasons for the consular action. The experience of our courts 
and aduainistrative agencies has demonstrated that a statement of the facts 
contro ling decision encourages mature and considered judgments, and provides 
as well a record for review. 

3. The Board of Immigration Appeals would be empowered to review a con- 
sular denial of a visa only upon application of an American citizen who is either 
the sponsor or an immediate relative of the immigrant. The statement of reasons 
furnished by the consul, with such deletions as security considerations dictate, 
should be furnished to the appealing citizen. This could follow the precedent 
for the statement of charges provided in the Executive order establishing loy- 
alty review. Administrative and judicial review could then follow, in con- 
formity with the Administrative Procedure Act, subject in each instance to 
appropriate security precautions. For practical purposes, the administrative 
review would be final in genuine security situations, but judicial review could 
prevent a gross miscarriage of justice or a clear disregard of statutory pro- 

The use of a single centralized agency to review determinations made in al- 
most every part of the globe is neither novel nor cumbersome. As a matter of 
regular routine, a reviewing body of the Department of Defense in Washington 
makes an examination, whether or not sought by the defendant, of every signifi- 
cant disciplinary proceeding in the Armed Forces to be certain that justice is 
fairly and uniformly administered. That experience illustrates the practical 
nature of the proposals for review of visa decisions above outlined. 

Arbitrary power in any form and in any official is incompatible with the 
American philosophy of government. To see a clear and obvious transgression 
of the statute and be helpless to seek any correction is a frustrating experience 
in government that we, of all people, cannot tolerate. As a matter of fact, the 
very existence of the right of review would impose upon each American consul a 
restraint, a sense of responsibility, and a concern that will tend to accommodate 
his thinking to the purpose and philosophy of the governing statute. 

At the risk of repetition, we want to make it abundantly clear that our pro- 
posals do not embrace and in no respect do we seek any relaxation of legitimate 
security requirements. Our purpose is to reach those cases which, by the thrust 
of arbitrary or uninformed consular decision, depart from the letter of the 
statute and the spirit of our foreign policy. Such decisions weaken the demo- 
cratic tradition in this country and discredit our democratic leadership abroad. 

The Chairman. Mr. Herman Bush? 


Mr. Bush. I am Herman Bush, representing the American Fed- 
eration of Polish JeAYS, Chicago District, 4447 North Kedzie Street, 
Chicago. Our organization contains a membership of 2.000 Jews 
of Polish ethnic ancestry. I would merely like to state that after 
hearing Mr. Swiren's excellent recommendations, we waive the invita- 
tion to testify formerly granted to us because of our complete accord 
and agreement with all that Mr. Swerin has stated. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Prof. Max Rheinstein. 


Professor Rheinstein. I am ]\fax Rheinstein, professor of law, 
University of Chicago, 1418 East Fifty-seventh Street, Chicago. 

I am not representing any organization. I am on the board of 
directors of the Immigrant Protective League, but I do not pretend 
to speak as their representative, although I have no reason to believe 


that my opinions would in any way be contrary to tliose of our 

I would like to address myself to some problems wliich may look 
of a subordinate character, but which I observe to have considerable 
significance in our foreign relations; namel}^, the impressions which 
are made abroad by the administration of certain aspects of our 
immigration laws. 

I have in recent years extensively traveled abroad. I have constant 
contacts with the people from abroad. I have come from abroad 
myself. I have come to this country as an immigrant. 

Now 1 think there is one aspect which creates a tremendous amount 
of bitterness and astonishment in foreign countries, and what may 
be even worse, exposes to ridicule; and, third, the constant contradic- 
tion which appears in the administration of the immigration laws 
by our re])resentatives abroad, and by our immigration officers in the 
port of entry. It would be very revealing for the Commission to look 
over foreign newspapers and see how every case is played up when an 
immigrant, or temporary immigrant, or a student, or a treaty trader, 
or visa has been issued to the person abroad by the consul, and then 
the person is held up at the port of entry and not allowed to enter, 
although he believes, and everybody else believes, he has been issued 
a valid entry paper. The situation is even less understood where the 
paper, apparentl}^ entitling a person to enter or reenter the United 
States, has been issued by the same agency, or at least one arm of the 
same agency which later on prevents the immigrant, or prevents the 
person concerned, from entering the United States. I am speaking 
of reentry permits. A reentry permit is issued by the Attorney Gen- 
eral, under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. It is very hard 
to understand, for people abroad, why anybody who has once resided 
in the United States, as an alien, who before he left the United States 
has applied for and obtained a permit of reentry — why he is stopped 
at the port of entry and may have to spend days or weeks and there 
have even been cases of years spent at Ellis Island. Those cases are 
simply not understood abroad. 

I think in any revision which we undertake of the immigration 
laws, attention ought to be paid to devising a system which prevents 
the present split of authority, and the occurrence of diametrically 
opposed decisions by one arm of the United States Government, and 
another arm of the United States Government. Our reputation 
abroad, I repeat, has been seriously harmed by such cases. 

There is another situation which also has been harmful to our 
reputation abroad. 

Again, I am not speaking of tlie big over-all problem of general 
immigration policies, to which so many witnesses have addressed them- 
selves so ably and competently. I am speaking of the very trouble- 
some problem of temporary visas for visitors. The United States has 
attracted the interest and the curiosity of people all over the world. 
People want to see this country which has assumed or to which has 
fallen leadership of the free world. They want to come for study 
purposes, some want to come just for sightseeing purposes or for 
purposes of performing here as artists or contributing to our own 
activities of learning and scholarly endeavor and, time and time over 
again, it happens that temporary visitor's visas are refused for rea- 


sons for which are either not revealed or for reasons which make our 
country look abroad as overly timid. I heard that this year in Europe 
time and over again, ''Are you waiting for a revolution, are you in a 
revolution recession, are you ripe for a rebellion or something, that 
you are afraid of allowing a temporary visit by a man like the pianists 
or artists or scientists of high reputation, against whom nothing can 
be said except that sometime in the past they paid contributions to this 
or that organization?" 

I wish only to invite the attention of the Commission to the impres- 
sions which these practices have created in foreign countries and to 
emphasize that these impressions are not quite irrelevant for our 
standing in the world and our foreign policies. 

Now on a broader scale, I would like to say this : It has already been 
brought out this morning that the absorption of immigi'ants to the 
United States is one contribution which this country makes to alleviat- 
ing population pressures and other difficulties in the world. Obvi- 
ously, and that has also been stated before, the absorption of immi- 
grants cannot and will not be the only way. There are two other great 
aspects of foreign policy of the United States which pursue the same 
end. One is the exportation of capital and the other is the im]3ortation 
of goods — quite particularly as expressed in our tariff policies. And 
we have so far been thinking of everyone of these three aspects and 
isolation of every other, and it would seem to me very essential for 
our rethinking of all these problems if we see them in their proper 
context and try to find a coordination of these three aspects. We 
have to choose between imported people, importing goods, and export- 
ing capital and none of these three aspects should ever be treated in 
isolation and independent of the others. 

Well, these are the problems to which I am grateful to have had 
an opportunity to address myself. 

I would like to say one additional word as a lawyer. It may also 
look a bit petty and perhaps insignificant, and I don't think it is, and 
that refers to the technical defects. To put it more popularly, nobody 
•can understand it at all. It is so complicated. There are sections in 
it which are 12 pages long. 

May I invite your attention to section 202 which I think nobody 
can understand until he has read it 12 times. I have read it now 
13 times and now I think I understand it. If and when a revision 
of this law is undertaken, I hope to goodness somebody will be called 
in as an expert in English. As it stands now, it is an abomination on 
the Englisli language. It is e^'en worse than the Code of Internal 

Having that off my chest, may I say one word on the quota system. 
I think the Commission is deeply interested in that. Well, I think 
1 have to separate here my feelings, my personal feelings, and desires as 
a human being, on the one side, and my guesses and predictions as 
to what is feasible within the framework of actual American political 

As a human being and individual, I would like to see equal oppor- 
tunities for every single individual in the world to enjoy the benefits 
of life in the United States and the opportunity of becoming an 
American citizen, to enjoy the same privileges which I have had. I 
am not convinced, however, that in spite of the widespread circulation 


of sucli desires at the present stage, the majority of the American 
people or those who make tlie laws for us are willinu' to ad()i)t the 
principle of unrestricted and general immigration. We will in all 
probability have to stick to the principle of over-all limit, how large 
or small, 1 regard this to be outside of my field of competence. 

Now, within the over-all number to be determined, how small an 
immigration be allocated, again, I feel myself compelled to say with 
great regret and great reluctance, but I am afraid the system of dis- 
tinction of national origins cannot be entirely abandoned. I am 
thinking of the difference between European and non-European im- 
migration, in wdiich case European and non-European does not neces- 
sarily coincide with those limits as defined in geography textbooks. 
Perhaps in that sense the borders of Europe might have to be drawn 
in somewhat a diiferent way. 

But we have already in the country enough tensions, and those 
tensions might be increased if we had too much immigration of people 
who are of different origin and different aspects than those groups 
Avliich have made up the United States, helped to make up the United 
States, which is European population. So I think that line of dis- 
tinguishing between European and non-Europeans, regrettable as it 
is and contradictory as it is to predictions proclaimed as ways of 
American life, stands. I see no chance of liaving them removed. But 
within the European immigration I see no reason for maintaining a 
national quota system and distinguishing between let's say the Brit- 
isli and/or Italian or German or the Scandinavian, so my suggestion 
Avould be very much in agreement with the representative of the 
Jewish organizations who spoke here just shortly before me, perhaps 
with one difference, but I find myself in great agreement with him in 
one respect. Let me first state the difference which I have with him. 
I think we should distinguish between European and non-European, 
but then within an over-all European quota we might have three or 
four catogories, first preference to spouses and close relatives of 
American citizens or otlier people who are already here; second, the 
asylum group, the people who are looking for political asylum or who 
belong to such categories of pressing need as presently represented by 
the German expellees or the refugees from the iron curtain countries. 

The idea of political asylum, religious asylum, and helping people 
who have been uprooted by events beyond their individual power; 
that should be a preference within the over-all European quota and, 
thirdly, persons having such skills as are needed or are in sliort sup- 
ply or particularly useful to the United States, whether that is the 
skill of the atomic scientists or the skill of the custom tailor or the 
optical worker ; and then if places are left within the over-all Euro- 
pean quota which probably will not be the case, then open the door to 
anybody who wants to come in. 

Commissioner Gullixsgn. This came to mind under Professor Alli- 
son's presentation but perhaps the law department of the university 
would answer this question : Out of the experience in the barring of 
these distinguished scientists, would the problem seem to be inevitably 
inherent in the laws of the present and the future as they are, or in an 
administrative state of mind? 

Mr. RiiEiNSTEiN. In both. And the two intertwine very closely 
primarily in their overcomplicatedness, which makes it extremely diffi- 


cult for the most skillful administrator or anyone else to handle it 
efficiently. As has been mentioned before, it has been numerous and so 
minute categories that the paper work to be done and the time to be 
consumed even in the most efficient administration of the present law 
is simply enormous and obviously tendencies which are mherent in 
all administration to be slow and clumsy, are mfinitely increased by 
the overcomplicatedness of the law. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Professor. 

Is Rev. Philip Van Zandt here ? 


Reverend Van Zandt. I am Rev. Philip G. Van Zandt, pastor of 
thf Looan Square Baptist Church of Chicago. I am also tlie repre- 
sentative on the Chicago Church World Service Committee for the 
Baptist denomination. , . ^i • t i 

I was born in Chicago. My father was born in Chicago. I have no 
relatives in Europe that make me interested particularly in this ques- 
tion personally at all, but I circulate among the churches and ,n talkmg 
about this -eiieral problem, I get the reaction from the churches which 
are made Sp of aU sorts of people. I find two or three things that 
ll'oM call to your attention; the first is that these people do not 
feel that it is entirely fair that there should have been the technical 
distinction made between displaced persons and refugees and ex- 
Dellees and escapees, but that there is room in America for people 
of he kii d of character that would be made up of folks who have 
enoucTh character and ambition and push to resist the tota itarianisms 
that they have had to escape from or were driven by into their present 
d stress/ul positions in Europe, especially. They feel tl^at there should 
be made some provision so that a good many more could be brought 
into 'his country and that they wifi make good citizens if they come. 
So in general; they feel that we ought to ask for emergency legisla- 
tion to dlow at least 800.000 more into this country, maybe 100,000 
a year or something of that kind ; that these should inc ude those dis- 
placed persons who had been all prepared to be brought to this counti y 
except that they did not happen to get their visas by December 31, 
last and that it should include escapees from behind the iron curtain 
who have been properly qualified otherwise and that it should also 
include a good many of those who were expelled from the border coun- 
tries before the close of the war, and that it ought to include members 
of families where same member of the family or more has already 
found refuge in this country. , . , . . .i ^i 

They feel that this should be emergency legislation rather than any 
attempt to change the present law, even though we may not agree with 
all points in the present law, and we hope that it won d be arranged 
so that the accidents of birthplace would not mean that the quotas 
from countries already mortgaged for many years ahead would be 

^"lt\^eems''toTh?folks, whom I talk to, quite silly to demand that the 
place in which a man was born-if that place happened politically to 
be under Russian or Polish or Austrian or Yugoslavian in 1920, that 
that should determine his opportunity, when his real character and 


ability would be so much more valuable as a determining factor in 
the matter. 

We have felt too, that any administration of such emergency legis- 
lation ought to be in the hands of the regular Immigration Service, 
and under nonsectarian Government auspices. We are not particu- 
larly concerned whether these folks that are brought over be of one 
religious denomination or another. We feel that it is contrary to our 
essential American way of life to demand that people shall ally them- 
selves definitely with one group and that there should be any quotas on 
the basis for or of their religious affiliations at all. So we would 
much rather have it a nonsectarian arrangement and that private agen- 
cies, either the nationality groups or the religious groups should 
simply supplement the total service to these possible future American 
citizens and not take the responsibility either of selecting the ones to 
be brought or screening them or paying their transportation until at 
least they should arrive on the shores of this country. And that we 
can supplement but not try to administer in any way the entrance of 
such folks. 

I speak, of course, not officially, I have not been delegated to speak 
officially for my denomination ; but I represent what I have heard from 
thousands of folks in different churches, not only in Chicago but 
spread out over the country as I have traveled and talked to them about 
this particular problem. 

Unless there is some question that is all I have to say. 

Commissioner Pickett. Do I understand that it is your view that 
the Commission should not concern itself with the new law, but simply 
concentrate its attention on the matter of emergency legislation ? 

Reverend Van Zandt. That is in general our feeling. We do have 
criticisms to make of the present law, but we don't feel that this is as 
relevant immediately as this emergency legislation would be. 

The Chairman. However, in establishing this Commission the Pres- 
ident instructed it to study and evaluate the immigration and natural- 
ization policies of the United States, and not merely confine ourselves 
to emergency legislation. 

Reverend Van Zandt. Well, if you want my opinion on the present 
law that we have, I would say that the greatest criticism is over the ad- 
ministration of the quota system in the fact that where quotas have 
not been used it has not been permitted to carry over to similar cases 
where there has been, as I suggested, the technical insistence upon the 
political standing of the country of their origin at the year 1920. We 
would much rather have the date advanced to 1950 or some other date 
which would bring the situation up to its present rather than its j.Hist 
balance in this country ; and we would feel that although the quota 
system is not — we feel absolutely wrong that the quota system as it has 
been administered has been entirely too technically considered and 
that tliere are considerations of elemental justice that ought to have 
some leeway where they have not, to be given that leeway in admin- 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Is Mrs. Rich here ? 



Mrs. Rich. I am Mrs. Kenneth F. Rich, director of tlie Immigrants' 
Protective League, 537 South Dearborn, Chicago. I am here to repre- 
sent that organization. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission, it is a pleasure to 
accept this invitation to a})])ear before men of vision, good will, and 
experience in this field. I have a ])repared statement which I would 
like to read. 

The Chairman. Yon may proceed with your statement. 

Mrs. Rich. I. The Innnigrants' Protective League takes delight in 
this invitation to appear before this new Federal Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization. We recognize in this body men of 
good will ; men of experience, and wisdom in the special fields of immi- 
gration, naturalization, deportation; men of insight and vision as to 
the role ^^■hich the United States must now learn to play as one in the 
family of nations — in policies which in the past this country has often 
blindly asserted were domestic policies only. Migration itself, with 
the spread of ])eoples across the earth — sometimes forced, sometimes 
voluntary — taking with them family groups, stretching human ties 
across two countries — migration itself is the intrinsic proof, that the 
policies which control and regulate it, can no longer remain ]n-ovincial, 
must become internatioiuil in this modern world. Our country has 
reached the moment when we know at last that the resentments of 
American policy by other countries resolved that racial discrimina- 
tions removed, can become through this very channel under discussion 
here one immediate stepiiing stone to international understanding 
and peace. Unwelcome though it may be in certain quarters, this 
means critical self-examination by our own beloved country, and 
willing changes in both law and procedures. They are always in the 
rear of the actual situation. We must catch step with the facts as 
they are. 

II. One moment for identification of the agency which we re]>resent : 

1. The Inmiigrants' Protective League is, this very week, 4C years 
old, incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, as a not-for- 
profit welfare organization dedicated to work with the inunigrant and 
the alien in the community in his adjustment to American life. 

2. Among its founders were Miss Jane Addams, eJudge Julian Mack, 
Prof. Ernst P^reund, Miss Julia Lathrop. Miss Edith Abbott, Miss 
Grace Abbott, Miss Sophonisba Breckinridge — the to]) names in social 

3. It was cradled at Hull House, but it has always served this whole 
community — based on the fact that industrial Illinois and Chicago 
have always been a i^ojndar destination for the immigrant, realizing 
that under this last displaced persons legislation, Illinois ranks second 
only to New York State, and Chicago second only to New York City, in 
the numbers who have arrived. There are now, since 1948, 30,000 such 
newcomers here in Cook County. 

4. The Immigrants' Protective League is nonsectarian, serves all 
races, peoples, creeds — 100 peoples upon its list — more than 15,000 
individual cases each year. 


5. It is an independent private welfare agency with no public funds; 
a constituent of the American Federation of International Institutes 
chiefly supported by private individuals and the Community Fund 
of Chicago, properly endorsed by all endorsing bodies. 

III. Points for change in laws and procedure : 

1. In immigration and deportation : The outlook of the Immi- 
grants Protective League on Immigration laws and procedures is 
based on the belief that the members of a family should have the 
right and opportunity to be together, somewhere on the face of the 
earth — meaning husbands, wives, parents, children. Barriers to the 
reunion of the pieces of a family through migration are injurious 
not merely to the family, but the the American community, in particu- 
lar to this American community, whether those barriers be those of 
required citizenship for nonquota status; those of age of the peti- 
tioner, those of date of marriage for sponsors. The league wishes 
to congratulate the authors of the new act which goes into effect on 
December 24, 1952, in having at last wiped out the latter discrimina- 
tion against husbands. 

Ever since the passage of that first Three Percentum Act of 1921, 
the league has been an eye the social ills in the community 
arising out of the terms of the law iii perpetuating the separation of 
families. No sane person can argue that the results of that separa- 
tion, in bigamy, adultery, international disertion, illegitimacy are 
healthy or safe for Chicago or any other American connnunity. The 
jDrevention is through facilitating both legislatively and administra- 
tively, not blocking the reunion of these separated families. A com- 
prehensive legal brief can be written on this one point alone. 

And the argument is equally true for separation of families through 
expulsion from this countr}'. Deportabdity of the breadwinner is 
open to the gravest criticism. There are very few circumstances which 
warrant on the part of our Government the wreckage of family life 
through expulsion of heads of families. Perhaps the only one indeed 
is of the subversive, and then only the real — not the imaginary — 

One never forgets the picture of the Norwegian seaman forced to 
leave by Secretary of Labor Doak — so hardened to human appeal — 
with milk dropping out of his sailors pockets from his baby's bot- 
tles, for whose birth he had waited, with his American-born wife, 
and thereby failed to "reship foreign" within the days allotted by the 
Federal regulations. It is vital tjiat the limited discretionary au- 
thority in deportation, secured with such difficulty under the Smith 
Act, be broadened, in order to protect from deportation and to preserve 
family life in the American community. Probably nobody of Ameri- 
can law so needs elasticity, but is more rigid, than that o;overning the 
admission, exclusion, and expulsion of aliens, regardless of their 
family ties. 

(1) National origins; (2) pooling of quotas; (3) mortgaging under 
displaced-person legislation : One immediate legislative step can be 
taken in behalf of separated families by the pooling of unused quotas 
within the total permitted at present. Some quotas are unused; some 
are oversubscribed. Quotas are not fixed according to need, but ac- 
cording to the most unrealistic and highly inaccurate national-origin 
plan in itself for its census base marking back to 1920, more than a 

25356—52 50 

780 coMivnssiON on immigration and naturalization 

quarter of a century ago. The population of the United States is 
not made up as it was in 1920. It is a completely unjust census base 
for modern purposes. Even had it been attempted then it would be 
impossible for the best demographer to count the great- great- great- 
great-grandchildren of America's original immigrants, and thereby 
to determine equitable immigration quotas. The archaic national- 
origin plan should go, relegated to the old-fashioned horse-and- 
buggy days of Americaii history. Quotas should be based on the 
current census and revised every 10 years when it is taken. 

And in the third place the unwholesome situation of separated fami- 
lies will be perpetuated, unless the lost quota places are restored which 
have bsen mortgaged under the Displaced Persons Act. It is salutary 
to new legislation to keep pointing out the current quota picture for 
those nationals who have surt'ered most at the hands of dictators. For 
the brave Baltic peoples, who have lost their countries as well as 
their homes, with their tiny national-origin quotas (Estonia, 115; 
Latvia, 285 ; Lithuania, 884) , places on the waiting lists are mortgaged 
into the future years as follows : 

Country : J/«; 

Estonia 2146 

Latvia 2274 

Lithuania 2090 

For certain other refuges, some from iron-curtain countries, the 
mortgaging of annual quotas is as follows : 

Country : ^'''"' 

Poland 2000 

Greece 2013 

Rumania 2019 

Yugoslavia 2114 

Although the attempt was made to keep families together under the 
displaced-person legislation, there were delays and separations be- 
cause of legal deadlines, so that some members were left behind. 
Some were left, indeed, in the very "pipelines." This country will 
best keep the faith in this situation if two le;iislative steps are token. 

Authorization of displaced persons' visas estimated at 7,500 for 
qualified persons caught midway upon the expiration date. 

Validation of quota numbers for those nationals whose quotas are 
thereby mortgaged into the future. Otherwise, displaced-person 
legislation becomes a hollow sham, justifiably so regarded by the home- 
less people in other countries, actually a cruel type of restriction, 
instead of the humanitarian measure which the United States has 
advertised it to be. 

2. Unjust deportation provisions: Two points in deportation pro- 
visions which the new act has not corrected are the injustic of — 

(a) Burden of proof is on the alien to show that he may not be 
what the Government alleges. In the new act this provision appears 
in chapter 9, "Miscellaneous" (sec. 291), and has been broadened to 
include more than deportation situations. In a punitive proceeding 
like expulsion, it is contrary, comparatively speaking, even under the 
Criminal Code of the United States to presume a man guilty until 
proved innocent. Quite the contrary. It is believed that the burden 
of proof on the accused should be stricken out of this law. 

(5) The other cruel injustice is deportability at any time after entry 
for various categories (ch. 5, sec. 241) . Again, for the worst of crimes 


there are statutes of limitation under American law. It is believed 
that they should be included in this act especially; otherwise, the 
family may be in danger of break-up during all of their lives on this 

3. In naturalization and citizenship: (1) The Immigrants' Protec- 
tive League assists thousands of aliens each year in making their appli- 
cations for United States citizenship. Tlie agency has always taken 
the position that too high a literacy test for naturalization, as in the 
new act, delays and defeats the objectives of assimilation. Chicago 
is proud of its adult-education director and department in the Chicago 
public schools. But public appropriations have not kept pace with 
adult education in needs of any of the cities, unless it be I3oston. Lit- 
eracy tests are not tests of personal character, merely tests of the edu- 
cational advantages which the applicant may have enjoyed. It re- 
quires that the applicant must be able to "read, write, and speak Eng- 
lish." This section does not prescribe a "reasonable test of his literacy 
shall be made." Because the tests as to English and civics have his- 
torically often been highly unreasonable and erudite in the past, it is 
believed that the most careful kind of administrative rule should be 
drawn up upon this point for the guidance of the United States nat- 
uralization examiners. 

(2) Declarations of intentions — Value to newcomers: There is one 
aspect of naturalization long debated before its section in the new act 
was written, which is of great importance to the newcomer; namely, 
the right to secure a declaration of intention. The new Immigration 
and Nationality Act makes the step (sec. 334 (f)) permissive, not 
obligatory as heretofore and at present. 

For old-timers, this change is all to be desired. Their long residence 
in the United States is in itself a declaration that they expect to make 
this country their home. 

For the newcomer, however, such is not the case. For him, the dec- 
laration of intention serves many immediately useful purposes : 

(1) It is a "morale builder," they tell us. Many have longed for 
years to "join the United States." to arrive at last in a safe country, 
the democracy upon which their hopes have been based through long 
years of waiting, gives them the eager wish to hold, at once, some kind 
of document of recognition. 

(2) For the stranger, it is a significant measure of protection. The 
handsome young Greek boy for instance, a new legally resident alien, 
is stopped by police as he walks along a Chicago street with the de- 
mand that he prove forthwith his legal entry. He comes to the Im- 
migrants' Protective League to apply for a declaration of intention. 
To be sure, his alien registration card, had it been promptly forwarded 
by the American consul in Athens, would have helped in the same 
way. But both the Departments of State and Justice are now far in 
arrears in their issuance. It is urgent at once that this "bottleneck" 
be released by appropriate administrative directives and provisions. 
It is curious that the new act specifies in contradictory fashion (sec. 
334 (f ) ) that a declaration of intention shall not "be regarded as evi- 
dence of such alien's lawful admission for permanent residence." The 
very same section, however, prescribed as one of the qualifications for 
a declarant is that he "is residing in the United States pursuant to a 
lawful admission for permanent residence." And the petitioner in a 


previous section (sec. 334 (b) ) is now required to make "an averment 
of lawful admission for permanent residence." The new law quibbles 
on this point. It is believed that declarations will not be issued unless 
there is good cause to indicate that the alien is legally in the United 
States. The declaration thereby becomes a personal protection in 
many frequent contacts of the newcomer. 

(3) But the declaration is even more important in industrial rela- 
tionships. Many employers now require it, especially if they are 
handling military contracts. 

(4) And of great importance in occupations and practice of profes- 
sions, in which many newcomers are highly trained and skilled, the 
declaration is indeed often required by the various laws of the 48 
States. In Illinois, for instance, the declaration of intention is re- 
quired for the practice of more than 19 of its licensed occupations. If 
the Government fails to facilitate the issuance of the declarations of 
intention, it will thereby contribute toward unemployment, or at least 
underemployment and loss of livelihood. 

That the Government is already doing that very thing, before the 
new act goes into effect, is evident from what appears to be ill-advised 
directions from the United States Department of Justice. This Pres- 
ident's Commission will wish to take testimony of this procedural 
point in these hearings in all of the cities. In the Chicago District 
of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, for in- 
stance, declarations are already discouraged, the distribution of appli- 
cations for them curtailed and blanks even withheld, unless the appli- 
cant or an agency insists. It is believed that this policy is inconsistent 
with the public welfare. This Federal regulation, if it be one, should 
be revised at once, and the doors to declarations opened wide, under 
the permissive terms of the new act. 

State of Illinois — Status Covering Qualifications for Occupations Licensed 
BY the Illinois State Department of Registration and Education 

(Information from Mrs. Butel, Chicago office, Illinois State department of 

registration and education) 

Beauticians and cosmeticians 

Detectives, patrolmen, and private investigators 
Funeral directors 
Land surveyors 

Medical : Medical doctors, osteopaths, chiropractors, and physiotherapists 
Nurses : practical, professional, and public-health 

Professional engineers 
Real-estate brokers and salesmen 
Structural engineers 


IV. Summary of 'points for change: To summarize, upon the basis 
of tlaily experience it is stron<;ly felt tliat — 

1. Now quota iinmi<»;ration status must be accorded to parents as 
well as to spouses and cliildi-en, and regardless of age or citizenship of 
the petitioner. 

2. There should be saving clauses as to deportability, so that hus- 
bands, wives, parents, and children may be kept together. 

3. Strike out of tlie deportation law, at long last, the interminable 
"at any time'' after entry. 

4. Strike out of the deportation law the "burden of proof" injustice. 

5. Validate quota numbei'S lost through the mortgaging of future 
quotas under displaced-person legislation, and visas for those caught 
midway in the processing before its expiration. 

6. Pool unused quotas within the total, for use by nationals whose 
quotas are exhausted. 

7. Abolish inaccurate national-origins plan for estimating immigra- 
tion quotas. 

8. Remove the rigid 1920 year and bring up to date the census basis 
for estimating quotas. 

9. Establish rules for the naturalization examination which will 
safeguard against undue insistence upon complete command of the 
English language. 

10. Issue regulations which will facilitate the filling and granting 
of declarations of intention. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mrs. Rich. 
Is Mr. Sharon Hatch here? 


Mr. Hatch. I am Mr. Sharon L. Hatch, executive secretary. Inter- 
national Institute of Milwaukee County, Inc., 125 East Wells Street, 
Milwaukee, Wis. I am here to represent that organization. It is 
a private agency supported by the Community Chest, an organization 
which was incorporated under the State laws of Wisconsin since 
1936, devoting itself to work to aid and assist the foreign-born. 

I have a prepared statement I should like to read. 

The ChairMxVn. You may do so. 

Mr. Hatch. Appreciation and thanks are expressed to the Com- 
mission for the privilege of appearing before you today in my behalf 
and the organization I represent. My primary interest today is to 
convey to you some observations personally acquired from experi- 
ences gained in the service in Europe during World War II and since 
my return from service in 1949 as executive secretary of the Inter- 
national Institute of Milwaukee County, and a member of the Wis- 
consin State Committee for Resettlement of Displaced Persons. I 
desire to present some material relative to section 2 (c) of the Execu- 
tive order pertaining to the problems and implications of overpopu- 
lation of parts of western Europe and serious refugee and escapee 
problems in these areas. 

These problems have been a matter of my attention for some time. 
As a major in the United States Army and a United States military 
government adviser in Germany, it was my official responsibility to 


observe, advise, and assist in those areas of military government af- 
fairs dealing with the public welfare of displaced persons, refugees, 
and expellee matters. Experience on a first-handed, on-the-spot basis 
with these problems has given me a firm conviction as to their grave 
importance. In the early phases of occupation in Germany in 1945, 
1946, and 1947, the organized transports of expelled ethnic Germans 
flowed into the western zones (British and United States) of Germany 
at a very rapid rate. For example, the area of Land Hesse of the 
United States zone of occupied Germany experienced approximately 
a 20-percent increase in its population within a period of about 1 
year. The pressures of this sudden increase in population overloaded 
the living and community facilities of an already depressed economy. 
Housing space, schools, welfare facilities, transportation, food dis- 
tribution, health services, and so forth, were confronted with over- 
whelming demands. It posed a real threat to the weak governmental 
structure of the western zones of Germany. Tension areas developed 
between the rival groups bidding for the necessities of life. This 
heritage of complex mass problems of an unprecedented magnitude 
created social unrest. Ramifications of this problem revealed them- 
selves in the form of political action of extremist tendencies. That 
overpopulation was a long-range problem of extreme complexity ; an 
issue whose influence was cutting across practically all channels of 
eft'ort to rehabilitate and stabilize the political, economic, social, and 
moral fiber of Germany, became clear and definite. 

I returned to the United States in early September 1949 after 68 
months of service, the greater majority of this period of service being 
in the area of displaced persons and refugee affairs. And now some 
3 years since leaving Europe the long-range problems of effective re- 
settlement of these refugees continues to persist in even greater pro- 
portions as to their significance than in the earlier months of the oc- 
cupation of Germany and Austria. 

Realizing that this Commission has available from numerous 
studies, full and complete statistics, I will omit a discussion of the 
statistical aspects of the problem and devote the remaining time 
to discussion of other phases of this problem's importance. 

If our foreign policy aims as one of its objectives to aid in achieve- 
ment of an enduring stabilization of the economies of Western Europe, 
which definitely in my opinion is a fundamental prerequisite to the 
establishment of a lasting peace, we, in the United States of Amer- 
ica, as partners with other friendly governments should be vitally 
concerned with the continued effort to meet these problems and issues 
arising from overpopulation in those areas of Western Europe where 
this problem exists in critical proportions. 

Efforts up to date have partially alleviated the situation. Our Gov- 
ernment has contributed much to assist in the solution and has con- 
tributed generously in finances and through personnel by means of 
agencies as UNRRA, IRQ. and the United States Displaced Persons 
Commission. The work of the voluntary agencies has been a very 
effective means of supplementing and assisting in this mass resettle- 
ment work. But, gentlemen, where are we now as of today? August 
31, 1952, concluded the work of the United States Displaced Persons 
Commission. This date saw the termination of this assistance. Never- 
theless, much work remained to be finished. Existing legislation 


leaves us "bare" with no adequate means to continue, as a leading 
world power, to offer leadership, hope, and a demonstrated determina- 
tion to meet our share of responsibility as a receiving country for 
the thousands of oppressed, disheartened, and dispossessed in west- 
ern Europe. We cannot afford to ignore the long-range implications 
and their significance in this problem of overpopulation. An overly 
restrictive policy of immigration will, without a doubt in my opin- 
ion, serve as a deterrent to other countries who otherwse might be 
willing to continue to receive a share of these refugees and to assist 
cooperatively in the solution of this problem. The negative influence 
of this "closed door" policy will, I fear, boomerang on us. The impact 
of neglect in meeting this issue by means of permissive legislation, 
will cost us in terms of good will more than the costs would be in 
terms of the establishment and maintenance of a program to further 
aid in the solution of this problem. Our country has gained as the 
recipient to date from its immigrants. Our gains have been numerous. 
Our history is abundantly explicit with the facts and conclusions on 
this point. Our most recent experience with the 340,000 admitted 
under the Displaced Persons Act has demonstrated constructive gains 
and has further strengthened our economy. We have gained in in- 
dustry, AVe have gained in the arts and sciences. We have materially 
enriched the culture of our country. Agricultural production has 
gained and the general labor-market needs have been aided through 
these newcomers to our country. These social, economic, and cultural 
gains have far outweighed the financial cost to our National Gov- 
ernment and its political subdivisions. 

A system of phmned resettlement, as was accomplished through the 
United States Displaced Persons Commission, the voluntary agen- 
cies, and the IRO, has assured a more effective integration of these 
newcomers into our communities. There is considerable and substan- 
tial evidence to document the fact that we, as a nation, could as- 
similate many thousands more of these refugees into our economy, 
with a further strengthening and enrichment of our national life. 

Our national long-range interests in relationship to this problem 
of overpopulation in areas of western Europe places us in a position of 
responsibility to actively participate in the enlightened solution of this 
complex but very vital problem. W^e have national and international 
responsibility for continued leadership in holding out hope and mak- 
ing it possible by remaining a country willing to receive these refugees 
in cooperation with other countries. 

In summary, my observations and study of this problem indicate to 
me the need for a thorough evaluation of its over-all relationship 
to the following basic points : 

(1) Its total relationship to the efforts of our Government and 
other governments in its broad phases as related to the establishment 
and maintenance of stabilized economies in western Europe. 

(2) The impact of the overpopulation problem upon those fac- 
tors — economic, political, and moral — which influence our joint and 
mutual efforts toward the achievement of an honorable, enduring 
peace with freedom. 

(3) Its relationship to the security and military defenses of west- 
ern Germany and western Europe, This aspect of this total problem 
is of vital significance and should not be underestimated. 


Therefore, in view of the important and urgent need for a prompt 
solution to the problems of overpopulation in areas of western Eu- 
rope, I implore this Commission's support and recommendation to the 
President of the United States that an impelling urgency for new 
legislation exists to make it possible for this great Nation as a lead- 
ing world power to adequately shoulder its responsibilities in this 
issue of the free world and to enable the United States of America to 
continue to uphold its unequaled national traditions as the champion 
of social justice before all men and nations. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

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

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





fourteenth session" 

Chicago, III. 

The President's Commission on Immigi^ation and Naturalization 
met at 1 : 30 p. m., October 9, 1952, pursuant to recess, in room 237, 
Federal Building, 219 South Clark Street, Chicago, 111., Hon. Philip 
B. Perlman, Chairman, presiding. 

Present: Chairman Philip B. Perlman, and the following Com- 
missioners: Monsignor John O'Grady, Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson, 
Dr. Clarence E. Pickett, Mr. Thomas G. Finucane. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will be in order. 

This afternoon we will have Prof. Philip M. Hauser as our first 


Professor Hauser. I am Philip M. Hauser, 5729 Kimbark Avenue, 
Chicago. I am professor of sociology at the University of Chicago. 
Prior to joining the University of Chicago, I served as Deputy Di- 
rector of the Census Bureau for some years and Acting Directcr of 
the Bureau before the last census, in preparation for the 1950 censius. 
I also represented the United States Population Commission of ti^e 
United Nations for some 5 years. 

I have a prepared statement I would like to read. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Professor Hauser. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, 
I am appearing before this Commission to testify on the need for 
rethinking and revamping Public Law 414, Eighty-second Congi'ess. 
I appear partly as a student of population problems, but primarily 
as a citizen. Needless to snj, my university, which does not interfere 
in any way with my right of saying what I think, does not in any 
way endorse or necessarily agree or disagree with my testimony. 
There are a number of features of Public Law 414 with which I 
disagree, but this statement is restricted to some considerations which 
bear on basic policy problems in respect to the numerical limitation 
on immigration and to the quota system for the admission of 

The gist of my testimony against the Immigration and Nationality 
Act may be stated as follows: (1) It is not based on a sound con- 



sideration of United States population policy; (2) it embodies pro- 
visions completely inconsistent with the needs of the world in which 
we live; (3) it perpetuates a doctrine of racism based on unwarranted 
assumptions in respect to the differential quality and potentials of 
various ethnic and national groups; (4) it is blind to the historic 
example afforded by the experience of the United States of the capacity 
for any people to rise to positions of high social, economic, and polit- 
ical level when provided with the opportunity to do so; (5) it is 
inconsistent with, and jeopardizes, our position of world leadership 
in the present troubled international situation; (6) it provides our 
deadly enemy in the cold and hot war, the U. S. S. R., with rich grist 
for her cunning propaganda mill dedicated to the undermining of 
cur relations with the rest of the world, and particularly with the 
critical less-developed areas of the world; (7) it is not integrated 
with our economic or foreign policy, and particularly with our pro- 
gram to help promote the development of the less developed areas of 
the world. 

First of all, I should like to point out that any enactment concerned 
with fixing numerical or qualitative restrictions on immigration should 
take cognizance of the place of such legislation in the context of a 
general population policy for the United States, as well as the rela- 
tion of such a policy to national and international needs and to the 
foreign policy and commitments of the United States. Such cog- 
nizance is certainly not taken by Public Law 414. This law can hardly 
be said to be the end result of a careful consideration of total United 
States population policy and foreign policy and objectives. It may 
more accurately be described as a patchwork modification of previous 
legislation, relating to immigration which had its origin in the special 
problems, high emotionalism and political furor of a period at least 
three decades ago. 

For example, the numerical restriction on the total number of immi- 
grants contained in Public Law 414 is an arbitrary number. It was 
unrelated to the needs of the United States at the time of its original 
enactment in 1921, or its revision in 1924; and in being reenacted in 
substantially its 1924 form is even less related to the needs of this 
country at the present time. The numerical limitation of approxi- 
mately 150,000 immigrants, provided for by the 1924 act, restricted 
immigration to about one-sixth of 1 percent of the total population 
of the United States in 1920. It was arbitrarily low even at that time 
in the light of the widespread and unfounded fear of labor surpluses 
in this country. Today such a numerical limitation, in view of 
domestic and international needs, may be regarded as patently inhu- 
mane, shortsighted, and detrimental both to the United States and 
to the world at large. 

With an unprecedented world need for places of refuge and asylum 
for politically persecuted and enslaved human beings who manage to 
escape from behind the iron curtain, with problems of settlement still 
facing millions of wartime displaced persons, with problems of popu- 
lation pressure haunting various areas in free southern and eastern 
Europe, and large parts of the free Orient, there is a greater need 
than ever before in human history for opening the gates, within rea- 
son, to a new world and new opportunity to worthy fellow human 
beings. Moreover, with our own unprecedented era of full and even 
more than full employment, in which the labor market is the limiting 


factor to many of our defense and normal production needs, the 
United States is in an excellent position to absorb relatively large num- 
bers of persons from abroad. 

I do not pretend to have a numerical figure for the limitation of total 
immigration Avhich is exactly the right one; but in view of the situ- 
ation I have briefly described above, it is clear that the present nu- 
merical limitation is absurdly low. Alternatives were considered in 
the debate preceding the enactment of Public Law 414. The Hum- 
p])rey-Lehman bill, for example, provided for approximately 100,000 
more immigrants a year than does the present law. This figure of 
250,000 by no means represents the upper limit of immigrants which 
we could safely absorb. But, even the Humphrey-Lehman figure 
would represent a great improvement over the present legislation, in 
the light of our own and international needs and in view of the fan- 
tastic situation which has arisen in respect to the mortgages which 
have been placed on the future immigration quotas of many countries. 

What is needed in order to arrive at a more sensible and realistic 
numerical limitation on total immigration is careful study and de- 
liberation of a type which I trust this Commission's activities is 
initiating. The figure must be arrived at on the basis of the best esti- 
mates of world needs and the long run, as well as the short run, in- 
terests of the United States. 

I should like to turn next to a consideration of several aspects of the 
quota system provided for in Public Law 414. This act, while repre- 
senting some improvement in its provisions for Asiatics, nevertheless 
in substance retains the national origins formulas initiated in the 
Immigration Act of 1924. The quotas allotted give preference to the 
entrance of immigrants from northern and western Europe, and 
greatly restrict the entrance of persons from southern and eastern 
Europe, in a ratio of about 85 to 15 percent. As a distinct improve- 
ment over the 1924 act, the 1952 act removes the racial disqualification 
for citizenship but it provides only a token quota for Asiatic immi- 

These provisions are completely inconsistent with the demographic 
needs of these various areas of the world. The rate of population 
growth of northern and western Europe has declined greatly during 
the past half century, so as to foreshadow periods of actual population 
decline in the not too distant future. In contrast, the rates of popu- 
lation growth of southern and eastern Europe and of Asia are still 
at relatively high levels, and have the potentialitj' of further increase 
as they experience the full effects of improvement in agricultural and 
industrial technology and in modern medical and public health meth- 
ods. In other words, we have assigned relatively large quotas to 
those parts of the world which least need it, now and in the foresee- 
able future; and we have assigned the smallest quotas to those parts 
of the world which now, and in the foreseeable future, have the 
greatest needs. 

It would be better if this allocation of quotas were the result merely 
of ignorance of the facts of differential rates of population growth' 
and pressures, than of the prejudices and racist doctrine which they 
embody. It was the intent of the Immigration Act of 1924 to en- 
courage immigration from northern and western Europe, greatly to 
restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe and to pro- 
hibit immigration from the Orient. Tliese provisions undoubtedly 


reflected the prejudices against the latter groups based on the unwar- 
ranted assumption that they represented peoples of undesirable- 
characteristics and inferior stock. Quota allocations in the Immi- 
gration Act of r924 enacted into law the accumulated prejudices and 
bigotries of some of the American people. Public Law 414 has not 
hesitated to reenact them. Such behavior on the part of the Congress 
of the United States not only represents a complete insensibility to 
the public opinion of large parts of the world and of the various 
ethnic and racial groups affected who are citizens of this country, but 
also a complete disregard of one of the most glorious chapters in the 
history of the United States. No other nation in the history of man 
has provided as inspiring and convincing a demonstration of the fact 
that any people of any ethnic origin or race can do what any other 
people in the world can do; ancl can achieve the highest possible 
standards of social, economic, and political existence if provided with 
the opportunity to do so. In reenacting the quota system of 1924 into 
Public Law 414, we have in fact closed our minds and our hearts to 
one of the truly great contributions that the United States has made 
to human knowledge and to the cause of world citizenship. 

The existence of such legislation as the present quota system in the 
statute books of the United States is to be particularly deplored in 
view of the position of world leadership which the United States has 
assumed in the almost three decades which have elapsed since the 
passing of the Immigration Act of 1924. It embodies a vicious and 
self -incriminating doctrine inconsistent with our position as a leader 
in the cause of world freedom and democracy. It is among the great- 
est barriers to our gaini]ig the confidence and trust of many of the 
])eoples of the world. I can document this assertion with what I 
have seen and heard in my own exj^erience in many parts of the world. 

Less than 3 weeks ago I returned from my fourth trip abroad. It 
was an extended trip of over 14 months, most of which I spent in the 
Orient, and during which I completely circumnavigated the globe. I 
can assure this Commission that Public Law 414 is well known to the 
peoples of the world and that it is not favorably known. It does untold 
damage to the United States in creating attitudes of distrust and 
hostility. For example, I have on a number of occasions been embar- 
rassed by Asiatic people who have questioned me about the quota 
system, as one aspect of what they regard as our racial and etliiiic 
prejudices. Few discussions of world or United States problems failed 
to elicit some question about United States racial prejudices in policy 
or deed and some manifestation of puzzlement about, or hostility to it. 
It is absurd to think that we can retain our position as the world leader 
in the fight for freedom and democracy with the peoples whom we 
explicitly and openly brand in our legislation as undesirable and 

Furthermore, in reenacting the quota system in 1924 into the Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act of 1952, we have unwittingly placed into 
the hands of the ruthless, adroit, and unscrupulous propagandists of 
the U. S. S. R., a major weapon with vvhich to attack us. As a resident 
of Southeastern Asia for about a year, I had occasion to listen to Radio 
Moscow and to read the local news reports of the activities of Russian 
agents and propagandists. In this critical area, the fate of which may 
well determine the fate of the world, the U. S. S. R. is skillfully and 


continuously making the most of our ethnic and racist doctrines as 
promulgated in Public Law 414. 

I have heard on numerous occasions the propaganda blasts of Radio 
Moscow. Much of its content was so distorted, fabricated and patently 
absurd that I am sure it fooled nobody — except possibly its perpetra- 
tors. Some of it, however, met high standards of effective propaganda 
technique, particularly that which, in even small part, could be docu- 
mented as in the case of their, on the whole, wild and exaggerated de- 
pictions of our racial and ethnic prejudices and animosities. I am sure 
it was not the intention of the drafters of Public Law 414, or of the 
Congress, to place a powerful weapon into the hands of the U. S. S. R. 
in their propaganda war against the United States. But I can assure 
the members of this Commission that its enactment has had just such 
an effect. 

Finally, it does not take very deep analysis of Public Lxw 414 to 
discover that its enactment was a discrete, segmental piece of legisla- 
tion without regard to the economic and foreign policy of the United 
States and certninly without integration with the programs designed 
to promote the development of the less developed areas. The critical 
problems arising from great variations in the standards of living of 
the various peoples of the world are attributable in large part to the 
differences between the distribution of the world's resources and popu- 
lation, and to the historical accident of diff.u-ential developments in 
agricultural and industrial technology. In pursuing a policy designed 
to raise the standard of living of all the peoples of the world, and 
especially of those in the less developed areas. We can theoretically 
bring about a. better relationship between distribution of the world's 
resources and population in either one of two ways or by some combi- 
nation of both. First, we could admit relatively large numbers of 
people from the less developed areas which would tend to promote a 
better world balance betAveen population and resources; or second we 
could export capital goods or promote other forms of economic 
assistance which would tend to have the same effect. We are in fact 
doing some of both ; we are not doing them in an integrated and con- 
sistent manner within a well formulated and understood framework 
of policy taking account of both its domestic and international impli- 

I have not troubled the Commission with a presentation of the many 
facts, quantitative and qualitative, which are available to document 
the testimony I have presented. The Congressional Record and other 
reports are replete with such inforliiation. I have tried to emphasize 
the basic importance of rethinking and rewriting our immigration 
laws in the context of a total population policy for the United S'ates 
and of our foreign policy and commitments. We need an immigration 
act in accord with the realities of our domestic and world needs and 
consistent with our position of world leadership. 

Our immigration laws up to this point, including Public Law 414, 
do not meet these criteria. The immigration policy of the United 
States has been ably summarized by Senator Paul H. Douglas in his 
speech in the Senate of the United States on Monday, May 10, 1952, 
when he said — the Senator, I might say, is a former colleague at the 
University of Chicago — 

"If we look over the history of inmiigration policy, I think we can 
say, considering migration by continents, that migration from Africa 


was forced ; migration from Asia was prohibited ; migration from the 
Americas has been free ; and migration from Europe was first free and 
then restricted." 

This poUcy has not been the product of careful study and delibera- 
tion but was rather the result of historical accident and piecemeal 
legislation in the absence of a well-formulated population policy. I 
have appeared before this Commission in the hope that it will be the 
forerunner of basic research into this problem and of a more rational, 
deliberate, and objective approach to the immigration policy of the 
United States than such policy has hitherto received. 

Commissioner Pickett. In view of our population trends and em- 
ployment, what estimate would you arrive at as a possible figure for 
total immigration? 

Professor Haus£R. Such estimates are possible ; I am not prepared 
to present one now. I have been back only 3 weeks after 15 months' 
absence from the country. I think in general this is the kind of thing 
the expert can provide, so to speak : He can provide certain facts and 
then judgment must be exercised by administrators ♦or Congress or 
whoever is responsible. One thing I am sure of, having looked through 
the mass of debate and discussion and consideration that preceded this 
and other inniiigration legislation : That no one figure have I seen of 
careful, deliberate consideration, was the maximum number, and how 
that Avould affect the strength or economy of the United States. For 
instance, it is conceivable, one of the criteria for relatively large pop- 
ulations, is the demand for the military. So if there is no problem of 
national defense or freedom of democracy in the world, w^e would have 
quite a different answer than you might want to admit ; or if you as- 
sume you have to live in a military world or need some other form of 

My point is, arriving at the number of 150,000 was not a result of 
deliberation that either our economy or our manpower needs were 
related to that figure. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Doctor. We appreciate 
your appearing here. 

Professor Hauser. Thanlc you, sir. 

The Chairman. Is Miss Esther Davis here? 



Miss Davis. I am Esther Davis, 82 Washington Street, Chicago. I 
represent the displaced persons subcommittee of the Chicago Church 
World Sei-vice Committee, of which I am chairman. I am also speak- 
ing as an individual Baptist. 

I have a statement prepared by Mr. Ralph E. Smeltzer, director of 
the Chicago Church World Service Committee and myself, which 
I would lii-ce to read. 

Tlie Chairman. You may do so. 

Miss Davis. We appreciate this opportunity to present testimony to 
the President's Commission and we wish to thank the Commission for 
its invitation. 

We have been authorized by the Chicago Church World Service 
Committee to present this testimony. The Cliicago Church World 


Service Committee has been engaged in the resettlement of DP's and 
refugees on behalf of the Protestant denominations in the Chicago 
area for the past 3 years. The committee is an operating unit of the 
Church Federation of Greater Chicago, 

For many months our committee has studied the matter of United 
States immigration and naturalization policy, particularly in refer- 
ence to the continued immigration of DP's and refugees. On April 
16, 1952, it took the initiative in preparing a document dealing with 
the analysis and recommendations for such legislation. This docu- 
ment was based not only upon the committee's study but also upon its 
3-year experience in resettling DP's and refugees. On June 5, 1952, 
the document was adopted with minor changes, by the department of 
citizenship education and action of the Church Federation. On 
June 6, 1952, the board of directors of the Churcli Federation adopted 
the document as its statement of policy and action. 

This document was finally entitled "What Should Be the Immigra- 
tion Policy of the U. S. A,?" Its subtitle was "Analysis and Recom- 
mendations of the Department of Citizenship Education and Action 
and of the Displaced Persons Committee of the Chicago Church 
World Service Committee Re : Immigration and Naturalization Legis- 
lation for the United States." It was used as a guide to help Chris- 
tians be more intelligent about this complex but crucial social problem 
which was before the last session of Congress. It stated the problem 
and the issues at that time. It analyzed the arguments for and against 
the three bills before the last session of Congress: Namely, the Mc- 
Carran- Walter bill, the House Joint Resolution 411, and the Celler 
bill. It stated the moral and spiritual principles involved. It pre- 
sented a statement of policy on immigration and naturalization legis- 
lation. Finally, it made specific recommendations for action for local 
church groups, individual Christian citizens, and for the Church 

Some aspects of this document are now out of date because of the 
passage of the McCarran- Walter bill, and because House Joint Reso- 
lution 411 and the Celler bill died with the close of the last session of 
Congress. But as far as our committee and the Church Federation 
of Greater Chicago are concerned this document remains basic. A 
copy is attached to this testimony and is to be considered a part of it. 

I shall now read the two sections which today remain wholly appro- 
priate for the consideratiton of the President's Commission. 

First, I want to quote the section on page 2 entitled "The Moral 
and Spiritual Principles Involved.^' 

Our Christian faith calls us to a compassionate concern for the millions of 
uprooted and surplus people throughout the world. They are fellow beings. 
They are in unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own. Some 
are in these circumstances because of the war, some due to postwar vengeance, 
others due to the present cold war, and still others due to the economic and social 
conditions of their countries. All are subjects for Christian concern and com- 
passion. The Christian Church is the agent of God's mercy and will in the world. 
The Christian Church in the United States is in an unusually favorable position 
to press for and to help facilitate the amelioration of the world's suffering people 
through immigration. 

Next, I shall quote the section beginning on page 2, entitled, "State- 
ment of Policy on Immigration and Naturalization Legislation." 

The plight of the world's uprooted peoples creates for the United States, as 
for other liberty -loving nations, a moral as well as an economic and political 


problem of vast proportions. Among these peoples are those displaced by war, 
and its aftermath ; the refugees made homeless by reason of Nazi, Fascist, and 
Communist tyranny, and more recently, by military hostilities in Korea, the 
Middle East, and elsewhere; the expellees forcibly ejected from the lands of their 
fathers, and the escapees who every day break through the iron curtain in search 
of freedom. These persons long for the day of their deliverance and for the 
opportunity to reestablish themselves under conditions of peace and promise. A 
problem of equal urgency is involved in the surplus populations that cannot now 
be supported by the economies of their respective countries. The pressure exer- 
cised by these suri lus people is of a kind seriously to threaten the stability and 
well-being of the entire world. 

We see in this situation an issue that can be resolved only as nations, collec- 
tively and separately, adopt policies dictated by considerations not only of justice 
and mercy, but also of sound mutual assistance. 

On the international level, we believe the United States, for moral reasons as 
well as in the interest of its own economic and political security, should remain 
steadfast in its purpose to cooperate with other nations in meeting the needs of 
displaced persons, refugees, and surplus populations. Through the United 
Nations, the United States contributed generously of its resources in the work of 
the International Refugee Organization. Likewise, the United States is partici- 
pating in the activities of the Oflice of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the 
United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency, and the United Nations Relief 
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Our country, through 
the United Nations, and in other ways, assisted in providing a haven in Israel for 
many thousands of Jewish refugees. More recently the United States joined 
with 16 governments in the creation of the Provisional InterGovernmental Com- 
mittee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe. The purpose of this com- 
mittee, in part, is to continue, for a limited period, the migration activities pre- 
viously carried on by the International Refugee Organization. 

The Congress of the United States is considering a revision of our immigration 
and naturalization laws. It is of the utmost importance that legislation be 
enacted that will conform with our democratic tradition and with our heritage 
as a defender of human rights. The adoption by Congress of an enlightened 
immigration program would add immeasurably to the moral stature of the United 
States and would hearten those nations with which we are associated in a common 
effort to establish the conditions of a just and durable peace. 

In the formiilation of its immigration policy, Congress should take into account 
the plight of the world's uprooted peoples and the tensions occasioned by the 
surplus populations that cannot now be sui ported by the economy of their respec- 
tive countries. It is right and proper that Congress shall approve such precau- 
tionary measures as may be required to ensure our Nation against the infiltration 
of hostile forces. We believe this end can be achieved without the imposition of 
such restrictive measures as would violate the American conception of justice. 

We believe that the revision of our immigration and naturalization laws should 
provide a more flexible quota system. This .system, based upon the national 
origins formula, was dictated by considerations which are not relevant to the 
present international situation. Under existing legislation provision is made for 
the possible admission to the United States, each year, of 154,000 immigrants. 
For one reason or another the quotas assigned to many countries cannot now 
bf> filled. Serious considerations should be given to the pooling or adjusting of 
unused quotas in order to facilitate family reunion, provide skills needed in our 
country, and to offer asylum to persecuted victims of totalitarian regimes. What- 
ever new plans for the use of unused quotas for refugees may be established, 
admission and transportation should be the responsibility of government and 
not of the voluntary agencies. 

We believe that Congress should complete the process of amending immigration 
and naturalization laws so that, within the quota system, all discriminatory 
statutes based upon considerations of color, race, or nationality would be removed 
not only in principle but in fact. 

We believe that Congress should establish a system of fair hearings and judicial 
appeals respecting the issuance of visas, admission and deportation practices. 

We belie> e that Congi-ess should adopt such legislation as may be required fully 
to complete the displaced persons program to which our country is committed 
under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 as amended. This legislation should 
provide for the admission to the United States of (a) those who were processed 
under the Displaced Persons Act but for whom visas were not available on 
December 31, 1951, ( 6 ) an additional number of persons of those groups, especially 


German ethnic refnsrees, for wliom a clearly insuflicieiit number of visas were 
provided in the original lejiislation, and (c) our fair share, under proper safe- 
guards, of those who have escaped from behind the iron curtain subsequent to 
January 1, 1!)4!>, the cut-off date specified under the original displaced persons 
legislation. The additional visas here recommended should be authorized within 
the i)eriod eiidinu' December ol, 1952, and should be granted without regard to 
sectarian considerations. 

We believe that Congress should adopt special legislation to permit a generous 
uuniber of German ethnic refugees and political refugees from behind the 
iron curtain to find new homes in our country during the next ?> years. 

We believe that immigration from overpopulated countries should be handled 
through our regular innnigration system on a fair, nondisci'iminatory basis. 
Any emergency legislation to bring "surplus populations" to this Nation should 
be enacted only as a part of an over-all United Nations plan. 

We believe that Congress should remain steadfast in its commitments to 
cooperate with other nations looking toward the migration and resettlement 
of displaced persons, refugees, and surplus populations under circumstances 
of freedom and opportunity. We therefore oppose any proposals which would 
hinder in any way the operation of those international agencies in this field 
to which the United States is a party or which would diminish the participation 
of our country in them. 

At the same inie we would welccnne the immediate establishment of a na- 
tional commission trully representative of governmental and nongovernmental 
bodies to study and analyze the problems of refugees and surplus populations, 
and to make reconunendations looking toward a .iust and humanitarian solu- 
tion to these problems so important to world peace and security. 

This quotation is from our paper on Statement of Policy on Im- 
niifrration and Xaturalization Leoislation, 

We should like to summarize the above policy statement with the 
followintr additional remarks. We favor liberalizing United States 
immi<2:ration policy. We favor the pooling- of quotas so that this can 
liappen. But we favor going l^eyond this step because not even this 
step will sufficiently alleviate the refugee emergency situation in Eu- 
rope and elsewhere. We favor special legislation to admit up to 
300,000 refugees during the 3-year ])eriod 1953-55. 

Admitting this number of refugees will help to solve three urgent 
problems and aid three groups. It will help the refugees by provid- 
ing them with new homes; second, it will lielp to relieve overpopulated 
countries of their overpopulation; and, third, it will provide the 
United States with additional manpower, new cultural resources, and 
worthy future citizens. 

Tlie present overpopulation emergency in some European countries 
is due primarily to the presence of bona fide refugees : German ethnic 
refugees, refugees from former Italian possessions, Greek refugees, 
l)olitical or iron-curtain refugees, and a few remaining DP's. The 
refugee category does not and sliould not include so-called surplus or 
overpopulation. It includes only those persons who have been dis- 
placed directly by World War II or its aftermath, or directly by the 
present so-called cold war. The problem which some countries have 
in keeping the birth rate and nonrefugee population within the limits 
of the economic resources of the nation is not a ])r()blem to be solved by 
innnigration. It is a separate problem and one which must be dealt 
with in another and separate manner. 

Subsequent to the development and release of the document, What 
Shoidd Be the Immigration Policy of the United States?, our dis- 
l^laced persons subcommittee has considered further the question of 
the functions of government and jjrivate agencies in the operation of a 
future refugee immigration program. Our connnittee has prepared 

253.'56— 52 5] 


the following statement and suggestions to tlie President's Commission 
on this important question: What should be the functions of govern- 
ment and private agencies in the operation of a refugee immigration 
program ? 

The administration of a refugee program should he on a humanitarian and 
nonsectarian basis operated hy the Government with complementary services 
provided by voluntary agencies. Illustrative of what might be regarded as 
an appropriate relationship between the Government and voluntary agencies 
are the following suggestions : 

Direction. — By a senior officer directly responsible to the Secretary of State 
with such staff "assistants in the United States and overseas as may be neces- 
sary. Such assignment of direction of the refugee program would avoid many 
of the duplications and complications of direction by a special commission and 
would make the refugee program an integral part of our regular immigration 

Representatives of voluntary agencies and other qualified persons serving on 
an advisory committee to the director could help in developing policies, in 
strengthening public support, and in securing local cooperation among their 

Numbers. — To be determined by the Congress in the light of the needs among 
refugees and the opportunities for them in the United States. We believe that 
approximately lOO.OOO refugees per annum, or 300,000 over a 3-year period, with 
family connections in the United States, or possessing special skills, or with no 
opportunities elsewhere, can be absorbed readily in the American economy if 
there is careful selection and placement. 

The voluntary agencies, with their intimate associations with refugees, can 
render special aid in recommending categories, locations, and individual nomina- 
tions of such refugees. 

Overseas selections. — Administrative resp'onsibility would be carried by the 
regular consular officers, augmented as necessary by additional staff. 

Voluntary agencies overseas would counsel with potential or prosi>ective im- 
migrants, assist in their processing, and render such religious and welfare 
services as would be helpful in the program in each country concerned. They 
also would enlist the cooperation of counterpart voluntary agencies. Their 
knowledge of the families and individuals involved would enable their repre- 
sentative to serve as friends of the court in the determination by the consular 
service of their eligibility for United States immigration. 

Transportation. — All arrangements for transportation would be mnde by the 
Government. Cost of transportation would be shared by the refugee and the 
Government, the refugee share being $100 for each person over 1(3 years of age, 
$50 for each person (J to 15 years of age, and nothing for each person 5 years 
of age or under. This tran.sportation cost would be considered us a loan to the 
refugee by the Government, repayable within 3 years without interest. 

Voluntary agencies would ren''er complementary religious and welfare services 
in camps, centers, en route, and in pier reception. 

Reception, at port of entry. — All arrangements would be under the direction of 
the Government. 

Voluntary agencies would render complementary services in welcoming and 
counseling with the new arrivals, in facilitating contact with churches and 

Placement and distribution. — Plans for placement would be developed through 
appropriate regional, State, ccmnty, or city offices of a Federal agency or through 
State or local government agencies cooperating with the Federal refugee ngency 
director or liis regional representative, on the basis of a careful analysis of 
placement opportunities, cooi>eration of friends, relatives, etc. 

Churches and community agencies would be responsible for assistance, through 
local advisory councils, on problems of comnmnity relations, agency cooperation, 
education, and other needed services. 

Placement procedure. — In order to avoid the jtroblem of trying to match in 
advance the prospective immigrant with a particular job opportunity or a si»onsor 
in this country, which at best has not been a very satisfactory arrangement, the 
refugees would be brought to this country and placed in hostels or camps in those 
States where there are resettlement opportunities. These establishments might 
be operated by the individual State governments, by the Federal agency, or by 
voluntary agencies. Refugees and employers would then negotiate with each 


other face to face. This would give stability of placement not possible through 
assurances and good-faith oaths. 

Voluntary agencies, and especially the churches, can render indispensable aid 
at this level in securing the placement opportunities and in rendering a continuing 
service to newcomers. 

Bond.-i nnd puNic-chan/e liahiVity af^surances. — Would not be required except in 
cases where relatives, frienls, or churches desire to guarantee a specific family 
in which dependency is a factor. 

Humnnitariun factors.— The governmental agency will need to be especially 
authorized to maintain family units in its selections and in every reasonable way 
to maintain an emphasis upon the humanitarian factors in selections so that 
families, including their dependent members, may he included. The program is 
not a labor market but a movement of families to new opiiortunities. 

Voluntary agencies will need to stand ready to assist in placing families with 
dependents^ some family units which are not economically self-supporting, and 
willows with children. 

Up to this point we have been discussino; why we think new immi- 
gration legishition is needed and what we think is needed. The con- 
chiding section of our testimony deals with how we think such legisla- 
tion can be secured. 


We believe that there are many serious defects in the McCarran- 
Walter bill. After the bill has been in operation for a reasonable 
period of time, we believe that these defects will be recognized by a 
majority of the Members of Congress and that the bill will be sig- 
nificantly revised or amended. We hope so. But it seems to us very 
unlikely — even remote — that the next Congress will attempt to make 
such changes in this bill which has just been passed and which has 
not yet been tried. 

We believe, therefore, that it will be much easier to secure in the 
next session of Congress special emergency legislation to continue a 
liberalized inmiigration policy and to permit refugees needing a home 
to come to our land. 

Even though we believe that it will be considerably easier to secure 
support for such special emergency legislation than to substantially 
change the McCarran-Walter bill, we do not believe that it will be any 
push-over. In order to secure even such legislation, we believe that 
three important steps must be taken. 

First, there must be a united approach to Congress. The three 
faith groups and the nationality groups must come to a general agree- 
ment as to what they want and then to make a united approach to 
government. Such cooperation had much to do with the enactment 
of the Displaced Persons Act in 1948. That was a positive lesson. 

A negative lesson can be seen in the defeat of the Celler bill. The 
principles in this bill were not agreed to by the three faith groups and 
the nationality groups. Most Roman Catholic and nationality groups 
testified in favor of this bill ; most Protestant and Jewish groiips testi- 
fied against it. This split in the ranks of the grou]is desiring a liberal- 
ized immigration program was publicly evident at the open meeting of 
the United States Displaced Per.sons Commission in Chicago last Jan- 
uary. Instead of that conference being used to help close ranks, it 
was used to widen them. 

It is clear to us here in Chicago that if new liberalized immigration 
legislation is to be secured in the next session of Congress a new, 


sincere, and successful attempt must be made to close ranks. This 
will have to be done on the basis of a new and compromise bill. We 
have explored the possibility of such a compromise with the nationality 
groups in Chicago and the Protestant Church leaders in 'New York. 

Three basic issues and differences were involved in the Celler bill : 
( 1 ) Special emergency legislation versus satisfactory permanent legis- 
lation, (2) preference to overpopulation versus preference to refugees, 
(3) continued sectarian operation versus Government nonsectarian 

From our exploration with the groups just mentioned, it is our judg- 
ment at the moment that if the proponents and opponents of the Celler 
bill — and the issues involved in it — are able to agree and to compromise, 
it will be along the following lines : (1) Agreement on the need now for 
special emergency legislation; (2) resettlement in the United States of 
bona fide refugees, which will at the same time relieve overpopulation 
in the countries of asylum ; (3) agreement on Government nonsectarian 
■operation of such a refugee resettlement program with the sectarian 
agencies carrying on supplemental and complementary services. This 
form of operation will avoid and reduce any further tensions between 
the faith groups. 

May we repeat again: If the faith groups and nationality groups 
do not get together on the basic issues of a future liberalized immigra- 
tion program, it is very improbable that the next Congress will enact 
such legislation. 

Not only will there have to be closed ranks and a common front, 
but there are two other steps which will be necessary. The next step 
will be to sell Congress and the American people on the importance 
and value of bringing more refugees to this country for humanitarian 
reasons, for reasons of national self-interest, and for reasons of world 
peace and United States security. This step may be harder than it 
was in 1948. 

The third and last step will be to convince Congress and the Ameri- 
can people that such a liberalized Government-operated refugee reset- 
tlement program will actually more than pay for itself in terms of 
dollars and cents. The fact that the resettled refugees will soon be 
paying taxes to the Government far over and above the cost of their 
transportation and resettlment will need to be emphasized. 

It is our hope that the President's Commission will come forward 
with recommendations for special emergency legislation which will 
call forth the support of all three faith groups and the nationality 
groups. We can only speculate as to how well the next Congress will 
receive the report of this Commission appointed by a President whose 
Congress has rejected both his proposal for, and his veto of, immi- 
gration legislation. On the other hand, if this Commission's recom- 
mendations are such that they can form a basis for agreement by the 
groups interested in securing liberalized emergency legislation, we are 
convinced that those recommendations will secure a much better hear- 
ing by the next Congress. 

Again, may we express our appreciation to the Commission for 
inviting us to present our testimony and for listening to us so 


Analysis and Recommendations of the Department of Citizenship, Education 
AND Action and op the Displaced Persons Committee of the Chicago "World 
Service Committee Re: Immigration and Naturalization Legislation for 
the United States 

the problem 

There is no more important or controversial lesislation before Congress than 
United States immigration and naturalization legislation. Throughout Europe 
many millions of refugees are in acute need. Surplus populations are not being 
absorbed in many lands. United States immigration laws are outmoded. Emer- 
gency immigration legislation expires June 30, 1952. 

the issues 

Now before Congress are — 

1. The McCarran-Walter omnibus immigration bill (introduced January 29, 
1952, in the Senate and February 14, 1952, in the House), regulating long-term 
United States immigration. 

2. House Joint Resolution 411 (introduced March 26, 1952) , designed to provide 
during the next 6 months enough additional visas to admit persons whose papers 
were processed at the expiration of one section of the DP Act last December 31. 

3. The Celler bill, H. R. 7376 (introduced April 3, 1952), providing a 3-year 
emergency program admitting 300,000 refugees and surplus population. 

Analysis of 1 {the McCarran-Walter immigi'ation hill). — It is highly contro- 
versial. It has passed both Houses of Congress and will become law unless the 
President vetoes it and Congress sustains his veto. 

Arguments pro: (1) It eliminates race as a bar to immigration; (2) it elim- 
inates sex discrimination; (3) it provides for a certain amount of selective 

Arguments con: (1) It establislies new racial discrimination; (2) it imposes 
more restrictions on immigration and naturalization than the present law ; (B) it 
facilitates unfair deportation and denaturalization proceedings; (4) it weakens 
the safeguards against arbitrary treatment of aliens ; (5) it fails to provide for a 
pooling of quotas. 

Analysis of 2 (H. J. Res. 411). — It is generally a noncontroversial bill which 
passed the House of May 19, and is awaiting action by the Senate. It provides 
for the completion of the DP Act of 194S as amended, and brings up no new issues. 

Arguments pro: It has the humanitarian purpose of providing visas for DP's 
whose papers are already processed, whose bridges have been burned behind 
them, whose hopes were about to be realized when the visas gave out, whose 
morale is now suffering greatly. In familiar terms, it "clears the pipeline." 

Arguments con : No more DP's should be admitted. (This argument was over- 
come with the passage of the DP Act in 1948.) 

Analysis of 3 {the Celler bill, H. R. 7';376).— It is an emergency measure to 
bring to the United States during the next 3 years 300,000 nonquota immigrants : 
162,000 "surplus populations" (117,000 from Italy, 22.500 from Holland, 22,500 
from Greece) and 138,000 refugees (117,000 German ethnics and 21,000 political 
refugees from the iron-curtain countries). It is a highly controversial bill be- 
cause: (a) It calls for admitting "surplus populations" on an emergency basis 
which is a new departure in United S'tates immigration policy; (b) because it 
does not include "surplus populations" from other overpopulated countries; (c) 
because this bill discriminates in favor of a Roman Catholic overpopulated coun- 
try whereas there are other equally deserving overpopulated countries represent- 
ing other faiths ; {d) because it would continue for a 3-year period the sectarian 
operation of the present DP Act; (c) because it would provide financial support 
for voluntary agencies (including sectarian ones) from tax funds; and (/) 
because it gives numerical priority to "surplus populations"' rather than to 

Arguments pro : 1. Many more refugees needing homes should be admitted to 
the United States during the next 3 years. 2. Some European nations, especially 
our allies, should be helped to relieve the pressure of their surplus populations. 
3. The immediate needs of refugees and surplus populations should be met by 
emergency legislation because our regular immigration laws do not permit their 

Arguments con : 1. No more refugees should be brouglit to the United S'tates. 
2. Immigration is not the solution to the problems of surplus populations. 3. It 


is time to end emergency legislation. 4. This bill would continue the sectarian 
operation of the present DP Act which places the major burden of resettlement 
upon the sectarian agencies. 5. It provides financial support from tax funds 
to sectarian agencies. 


Our Christian faith calls us to a compassionate concern for the millions of 
uprooted and surplus people throughout the world. They are fellow beings. They 
are in unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own. Some are in 
these circumstances liecause of the war, some due to postwar vengeance, others 
due to the present cold war, and still others due to the economic and social con- 
ditions of their countries. All are subjects for Christian concern and compassion. 
The Christian Church is the agent of God's mercy and will in the world. The 
Christian Church in the United States is in an unusualy favorable position to 
press for and to help facilitate the amelioration of the world's suffering people 
through immigration. 


The plight of the world's uprooted peoples creates for the United States, as for 
Other liberty-loving nations, a moral as well as an economic and political problem 
of vast proportions. Among these peoples are those displaced by war and its 
aftermath ; the refugees made homeless by reason of Nazi, Fascist, and Com- 
munist tyranny, and more recently, by military hostilities in Korea, the Middle 
East, and elsewhere ; the expellees forcibly ejected from the lands of their fathers, 
and the escapees who every day break through the iron curtain in search of free- 
dom. These persons long for the day of their deliverance and for the oppor- 
tunity to reestablish themselves under conditions of peace and promise. A prob- 
lem of equal urgency is involved in the surplus populations that cannot now be 
supported by the economies of their respective countries. The pressure exer- 
cised by these surplus people is of a kind seriously to threaten the stabilization 
and well-being of the entire world. 

We see in this situation an issue that can be resolved only as nations, coUec- 
tiveif and separately, adopt policies dictated by considerations not only of justice 
and mer-'v, but also of sound mutual assistance. 

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

The Congress of the United States is considering a revision of our immigration 
and naturalization laws. It is of the utmost importance that legislation be en- 
acted that will conform with our democratic tradition and with our heritage as 
a defender of lumian rights. The adoption by Congress of an enlightened immi- 
gration program would add immeasurably to the moral stature of the United 
States and would hearten those nations with which we are associated in a com- 
mon effort to establish the conditions of a just and durable peace. 

In the formulation of its immigration policy. Congress should take into account 
the plight of the world's uprooted peoples and the tensions occasioned by the 
surplus populations that cannot now be supported by the economy of tlieir respec- 
tive countries. It is right and proper that Congress shall approve such pre- 
cautionary measures as may be required to insure our Nation against the infiltra- 
tion of hostile forces. We believe this end can be acliieved without the imposition 
of such restrictive measures as would violate the American conception of justice. 

We believe that the revision of our immigration and naturalization laws 
should provide a more flexible quota system. This system, based upon the na- 


tional origins formula, was dictated by considerations whicli are not relevant to 
the present international situation. Under existing legislation provision is 
made for the possible admission to the I'nited States, each year, of 154,000 im- 
niigrants. For one reason or another the quotas assigned to many countries 
oaunot now be tiled. Serious considerations should be given to the pooling or 
adjusting of unused quotas in order to facilitate family reunion, provide skills 
needed in our country, and to offer asylum to persecuted victims of totalitarian 
regimes. AVhatever new plans for the use of unused quotas for refugees may be 
established, admission and transportation should be the responsibility of govern- 
ment and not the voluntary agencies. 

We believe that Congress should complete the process of amending immigra- 
tion and naturalization laws so that, within the quota system, all discriminatory 
statutes based upon considerations of color, race or nationality would be removed 
not only in principle but in fact. 

We believe that Congress should establish a system of fair hearing and judi- 
cial appeals respecting the issuance of visas, admission and deportation practices. 

We believe that Congress should adopt such legislation as may be required 
fully to complete the displaced persons program to which our country is com- 
mitted under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 as amended. This legislation 
should provide for the admission to the United States of (a) those who were 
processed under the Displaced Persons Act but for whom visas were not available 
on December 31, 1951, (b) an additional number of persons of those groups es- 
pecially German ethnic refugees for whom a clearly insufficient number of visas 
were provided in the original legislation and (c) our fair share under proper 
safeguards, for those who have escaped from behind the iron curtain subsequent 
to January 1, 1949, the cut-off date specified under the original displaced per- 
sons legislation. The additional visas here reconnnended should be authorized 
within the period ending December 31, 1952, and should be granted without re- 
gard to sectarian considerations. 

We believe that Congress should adopt special legislation to permit a gen- 
erous number of German ethnic refugees and political refugees from liehind the 
iron curtain to find new homes in our country during the next 3 years. 

We believe that immigration from overpopulated countries should be handled 
through our regular immigration system on a fair, nondiscriminatory basis. 
Any emergency legislation to bring "surplus populations" to this Nation should 
be enacted only as a part of an over-all United Nations plan. 

We believe that Congress should remain steadfast in its commitments to co- 
operate with other nations looking toward the migration and resettlement of 
dis]>laced persons, refugees, and surplus populations under circumstances of 
freedom and oi)portunity. We therefore oppose any proposals which would 
hinder in any way the operation of those international agencies in tliis field to 
which the United States is a party or which would diminisli the participation 
of our country in them. 

At the same time we would welcome the inmiediate establishment of a national 
Commission truly representative of governmental and nongovernmental bodies 
to study and analyze the problems of refugees and surplus populations, and to 
make recommendations looking toward a just and humanitarian solution to these 
problems so important to world peace and security. 


The following reconuneiidations are made because of the extreme urgency, the 
immediacy, and the world-wide inq^ortance of the problem. The immigration 
policy of the United States is being rewritten by the present session of Congress. 
Before that body adjourns the first week in July, it may be expected to define 
United States policy regarding refugees, surplus populations, remaining DP's 
and long-term immigration. The decision of Congress regarding uprooted and 
surplus people will have much to do with world cooperation and church-state 
relations as well as with the future of hundreds of thousands of individuals. 
The following recommendations are made in the light of these facts. 

A. That the Churcli Federation of Greater Chicago adopt the foregoing state- 
ment as its statement of policy on immigration and naturalization legislation. 

B. That it circulate this statement along with the analysis and recommenda- 
tions among the Protestant citizenry of the Chicago area in an effort to educate 
the citizenry as to the present immigration issues before our Nation. 

C. That it carry out the following specific actions which follow directly from 
the above statement, and that it encourage Protestant groups and individuals in 
our community to act in a similar fashion. 


1. Re long-term legisUiUon. — (a) Write to the President of the United States 
declaring our opposition to most of the principles embodied in the McCarran- 
Walter immigration bill and ask the Congress to sustain a Presidential veto. 

(6) Ask the Congress to enact legislation more in accord with the policy set 
forth above, and which, to a large extent, was proposed in a bill S. 2842, intro- 
duced by Senators Humphrey, Lehman, Douglas and 10 oth<n-s on March 12, 1952. 

2. Re 6-month lefjislution {July 1-Deccmhcr 31, 1952).— Ask Congress to enact 
emergency legislation to admit those DP's, German ethnic refugees and political 
refugees who have been processed but for whom visas were not available. House 
Joint Resolution 411 intends to carry out this principle, but it includes only 
DP's. In order fully to carry out the above principle, it should be amended 
to include visas for German ethnic and political refugees who were also caught 
in the "pipeline." 

3. Re 3-year emcrffcney legislation {January 1053 through December 19o5).— 
Ask Congress to enact new emergency legislation to admit over a period of 3^ 
years a generous number of German ethnic refugees and political refugees. 
This could be done by revising or amending the Celler bill, or by introducing and 
enacting a new bill. 

4. Re siiri)lus populations.— Ask Congress not to enact any emergency legisla- 
tion which would bring surplus populations to this Nation, but to appoint a com- 
mission to study the surplus population prol)lem at an international level in 
order to advise on methods of i)ermanent solution. 

Adopted (in general) by DP resettlement committee of the Chicago World 
Church Service Committee on May 9, 1952. 

Adopted (with minor changes) by the department of citizenship, education, 
and action of the Church Federation of Greater Chicago on .June 5, 19.52. 

Adopted (as here reproduced) by the board of directors of the Church Fed- 
eration of Greater Chicago on June 6, 1952. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Miss Davis. Is Mr. Boss here? 


Dr. Boss. I am Dr. Charles F. Boss, Jr., executive secretary of the 
board of world peace of the Methodist Church, 740 Rush Street, 

Mr. Chairman, I may say at the start that I am an amateur in a 
sense and shouldn't be "considered as an expert or authority on this, 
but I think I shall be presenting pretty well the attitude of the 
leadership of our churches and our board and our members. 

Also, I would like to say that certain of the statements which I 
make are based somewhat on the consensus of judgment of our group 
which met in New York jnst a little over 10 days ago, on Monday, the 
29th of September, in which we seemed to have arrived .at some de- 
cisions. So, while I am not quoting them directly, I am sure that what 
I have to say is based very largely on this rather considerable group 
from Europe and the United States who came together to discuss this 
whole program of migrant persons. For that reason, I want to 

Commissioner O'Grady. Was there a meeting of the representatives 
of your church ? 

Dr. Boss. No, sir; they were brought together by the National 
Council of Churches, and the two persons who just preceded me were 
at that meeting, so that on many points I should, of course, be quite 
in agreement with the presentations made. 

May I first thank this Commission for the privilege of appearing 
before it to make a statement on what I believe to be the attitudes 
and convictions of responsible persons in our church and church 
boards. I would like to insert there, so that you know at the begin- 
ning my view on it, that I support a number of persons who might be 


brought into the country of at least 250,000. That was the consensus 
of judoment in Ney York of the 60 or 75 persons representing the 
Protestant Churches of tlie national council, and certain other groups. 
I would myself say 300,000, but I defer to the judgment of those who 
are working more particularly in this field. 

The Chairman. Is that annual ? 

Dr. Boss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that j^our view as to the number to be admitted 

Dr. Boss. Yes, 162,000 was too small. It was proven that the coun- 
try can absorb more than that number. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Was that for an indefinite period? 

Dr. Boss. We are thinking of a permanent period, as I shall indi- 
cate. I will make the differentiation between the emergency legisla- 
tion and the permanent aspects of the recommendations. 

I wish also to say that I have made five trips into Europe in the 
last 6 years or -so, and that in addition one other one into central 
Europe, and that these trips into Europe have taken me not only to 
western and central Europe, but on two occasions into Poland and 
Czechoslovakia, and once into Hungary, and on three of the trips I 
have worked in Yugoslavia. So that I do have at least some of the 
background of study, of conducting seminar work to support in the 
main what I have to say. 

Further, it should be said in the light of our criticisms of the pres- 
ent legislation that we are not unaware of the complexity of the im- 
migi'ation problem nor of the extreme difficulties faced by Congress 
and the Judiciary Committee in efforts to arrive at a just and acept- 
able solution to the immigration problem. 

Churchmen — and I assume others — are in full agreement that we 
€an no longer describe as emergency legislation that which is essen- 
tial to meeting the just needs of migrant peoples, most of whose plight 
is due to war dislocations. However, the immediate postwar emer- 
gency problems are past, and we know that we are confronted with 
a long-term problem in efforts to meet the tragic plight of many mil- 
lions of homeless people. A recent survey carried out in part on the 
ground in Europe, the Middle East, ancl certain areas of Asia, re- 
veals the existence of no fewer than 14,250,000 homeless peoples. As 
Dr. Elfan Rees and Dr. Robert C. Mackie, representing the special 
problems of migrant people and the World Council of Churches, 
have stated. This number is more than the total population of 

These more than 14,250,000 migrant, homeless people include such 
€ategories as we have been accustomed to use in connection with dis- 
placed persons, refugees, expellees, escapees, and others. It is in- 
teresting to learn the facts, just a few of which I may cite, for example, 
that in Iran there are 2,000 refugee White Russians; there are just 
a few that ought to be brought in to indicate that there is a Christian 
responsibility, ancl responsilbility to think of in line with aliens. For 
example, in Iran, White Russians, where can they go? What can 
they do? They can't go back to Russia; they don't know whether 
they would be admitted to the United States. In answer to the ques- 
tion. How many people have crossed west over the iron curtain, the 
answer is that it varies from 500 per week to 1,000 a night, mostly 
East Germans; that in India you have the usual situation of citizens 


of Pakistan who are homeless in India ; tliat is, Hindus who fled from 
Pakistan, and have been living there, and Moliammedans from India 
driven out who were homeless, and, of course, the homes were ab- 
sorbed, so there has been no plan of correlating these exchanges of 

Dr. Mackie recently said that we must consider t^iat the situation of 
these people is due to "the relentless effect of politics on their fate.'' 
And Dr. Rees stated that "so long as there is an iron curtain, there 
will be refugees. So long as there is tension between the great forces, 
preventive action is a mirage," 

In any case, we are now confronted with a total ])roblem of over 
14,250,000 refugees of all categories and are faced witli a long-range, 
not an emergency, program. 

While there are no doubt other objections, I desire to present four 
objections to present legislation. I have tried not to go into all the 
details, but to deal with certain outstanding objections : 

I. The basis of computation of the number of immigrants to be per- 
mitted to enter the United States is faulty. We are in agreement with 
those who would determine a pei'centage of the numbers in the various 
national gi'oups in the United States in 1950 instead of the use of the 
year 1920. 

II. We raise objection to the limitations of judgment and justice 
involved where the consular agents are made the final judges and 
determiners of visa clearance to the United States. There is too much 
room here for decisions based upon subjective factors, elements that 
enter into personal vievrs in racial, social, economic, and political 
matters, and sometimes pressures which may be exerted upon such 
officers. We believe there should be some form of appeal machinery 
established before final decisions are made. 

III. We object to any discriminatory factors being included in our 
immigration legislation. All discriminatory elements should be elim- 
inated : race, sex, color, geographical location, and so forth, and I think 
we should say, especially with this Asian triangle legislation, as it is 
called, that should be completely rewritten. We think that the factors 
should be consistent with the fundamental provisions of our Bill of 
Rights and in harmony with the spirit and traditionally established 
liberties of America in her magnificent development of more than a 
century and a half. 

IV. We object to the inadequacy of the provisions of the present 
legislation as applied to individuals subject to exclusion from entry, 
denaturalization, and deportation. Adequate safeguards are lacking- 
in the legislation which would give to foreigners or aliens the same 
respect for human personality, for the dignity of the individual and a 
full and just consideration of their cases before exclusion, denaturali- 
zation, or deportation. There is a practical reason too why revision 
is neecled at this point. Whatever may be gained by our good propa- 
ganda abroad, it is often offset by persons rejected from citizenship 
in the United States by unjust, harsh, or by summary rejection in the 
categories named above, or, let's say, by the discriminations we have 
suggested above. That point was very adequately brought out by the 
first witness I heard earlier, who was very expert and had spent a con- 
siderable time in the Pacific and the Asian regions. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. You mean Professor Hauser? 


Dr. Boss. Yes, Professor Hauser. Thank you. 

We, therefore, ^YouId recommend that legislation be enacted by Con- 
gress which would deal with two major aspects of the responsibility 
we face : 1. Emergency legislation. This, as the previous speaker sug- 
gested, should be only that which is necessary to complete the program 
which is already in progress. This would include the reception and 
integration of peisons in a program to which our churches and peoples 
generally, we believe, are in agreement and to which they are com- 
mitted : 

(1) For those who are processed under the Displaced Persons Act, 
but for Avhom no visas were available as of December 31, 1951. (2) 
Provision for an additional number of qualified persons for whom the 
number of visas provided for by previous legislation were insufficient. 
(3) The reception of our fair share of "escapees" from behind the iron 
curtain during the period of January 1, 1949, to December 31, 1952. 
These persons should be admitted on a nonsectarian basis as a part of 
emergency legislation. 

I am in agreement with those who feel we are dealing with a great 
human problem, and, certainly these differences should not enter in, 
and I think that we may reasonably hope that the three large faith 
groups in the United States, and some others who perhaps don't fall 
exactly in those categories, might well come to agreement on some 
solution to this problem, which botli Christians and non-Christians 
alike, I am sure, feel is a moral responsibility and human responsibil- 
ity, and we must do something about it. 

Following this particular section, I believe that generally — by the 
way, this was agreed upon in New York — I am letting any other groups 
speak for themselves, of course — I do not represent the National 
Council, but I am stating here things which were in pretty common 
agreement in New York when we met 10 days ago. It was generally 
agreed that what we have stated here — that having done that, we ought 
to face this long-term problem of the migrant population, consisting 
of more than the whole population of Canada. 

We propose the following : 

I. That the basis of the quota system be a reasonably liberal per- 
centage, based on the 1950 figures instead of the 1920. I think it was 
in Dr. Paul Douglas' speech on the immigration legislation that he 
called attention to the fact that for a 10-year period, not too many- 
years back, we were receiving pretty nearly a million people — an 
average of nearly a million persons a year — and we absorbed them, 
and they came in, and they have been a good substantial part of the 
citizenship. It, also, in humility might require that we think back 
to the fact that all of us are the children, or grandchildren, or great 
grandchildren of immigrants. This Nation was built on the basis 
of immigrants. 

II. That the unused quotas be pooled with special consideration 
for the admission of members of families still in other lands, uniting 
them w^itli those members of their family who have already been ad- 
mitted to the United States. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Are you recommending that as part of 
permanent legislation, or emergency legislation? 

Dr. Boss. I think this should be permanent, but it would also apply 
very definitely to emergency legislation. 

Commissioner O'Grady. The emergency also? 


Dr. Boss. Yes, sir; because some people would be beyond quotas; 
some of it would be with reference to people who had come through 
the regular immigration process within quotas. I would think the 
general principle ought to apply. 

III. Remove all discriminatory provisions: race, color, sex, geo- 
graphical location, and so forth, especially eliminating the "Asia Tri- 
angle," which in its effect upon orientals and southern Asians is a 
discrimination based upon race and color. We can't afford any longer 
to continue to pass out to the world legislation and action which is 
based on racial and color discriminations. We have suffered enough 
from it at the hands of those who want to use this as propaganda 
around the world. It has been one of the great weaknesses of our 
program that we haven't been able somehow to get more positive ele- 
ments of what we do believe in and stand for across to these other 

IV. Create proper administrative machinery for hearings and ap- 
peals before final decisions are made in cases of immigration, natural- 
ization, and deportation. We are convinced that it is possible to work 
out the technical provisions involved on a just basis without requiring 
the elimination of proper precautionary measures for the exclusion 
of persons who are hostile to the principles and provisions of the 
Constitution of the United States. 

V. We support the proposal for the placement of responsibility for 
the immigration functions and operations of the United States under 
a staff officer of the Department of State (probably of the rank of 
Assistant Secretary), who shall be responsible directly to the Secre- 
tary of State. This would unify the whole operation involved in 
the consideration by our Government of matters of immigration and 
naturalization. I think this was pretty well the consensus of judg- 
ment of this large group that met in New York. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. By that, do you mean taking out the functions of 
the Department of Justice as well, and putting it under the State 
Department ? 

Dr. Boss. No. There are certain aspects of this, such as FBI in- 
vestigations and other things, which, of course, were the Department 
of Justice, not State. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. What about the immigration, would that be put 
under the Secretary of State ? 

Dr. Boss. So far as immigration is concerned, and the carrying out 
of these items with regard to refugees. Now I wasn't dealing with 
the whole problem of immigration, but with the problem as it relates 
to this whole matter of the reception of displaced persons, expellees, 
escapees, and refugees, so I am not trying to think through the legal 
problem there. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Would you have one centralized service? 

Dr. Boss. One centralized service in all of this ; correct. 

The Chairman. The way it is written in the statement j^ou have 
been referring to it seems to apply to all the permanent functions. 

Dr. Boss. I think that is true. I confess that this had to be written 
after I came back this morning. I was in the State Department the 
last few days, and, as perhaps someone from my office has indicated, I 
came back just this morning and over here to testify. So I think per- 
haps a more careful revision of that paragraph might be necessary, 


and, also, I do not qualify as an attorney with regard to the legal 
aspects that are involved here. 

VI. We support the proposal for an advisory committee or commis- 
sion composed of well-qualified, nongovernmental leaders from church 
and other civilian organizations to work with the staif officer of the 
Department of State in carrying out the important responsibilities of 
immigration and care for refugees. You see, I was fairly specific there 
as to what I meant. 

Such an administrative committee represents agencies whose func- 
tions are closely related to the development of favorable public opin- 
ion, on the one hand, and also to the reception and integration of im- 
migrants into the local communities. 

The Chairman. In proposing that the placement of responsibility 
for the imigration functions be under an Assistant Secretary of State 
who would report directly to the Secretary of State, would that not 
bypass the Under Secretary, and usually the Assistant Secretaries 
re])ort to the Under Secretary who acts for the Secretary? 

Dr. Boss. I think I said "shall be responsible directly to him," but 
there is a great deal of correlation work which a man in that position 
would have. I didn't try to work in the detail of the Department's 
work there, but I realize that there would be a great deal of correlation 
with the Departments of Justice and Immigration, as it now exists^ 
and other relationships that we would have to carry out. 

Mr. RosENriELD. Just one question, sir : Your first proposal reads : 
"That the basis of the quota system be a reasonably liberal percentage 
based on the 1950 figures instead of the 1920." What did you means: 
by "reasonably liberal percentage"? 

Dr. Boss. I mean one that could perhaps be reviewed, restudied, and 
would take into account the experience we have had which has gone.^ 
certainly, beyond th ability to do, say, 162,000. That reviews the 
period before 1920 and since 1920, and looks at the current situation of 
national groups rather than the other, and sets a figure of 250,000^ 
which, you see, was the figure that the group in general — we had some 
votes on it to show the consensus of opinion, and the majority voted 
for about 200,000. Some of us were willing to vote for 300,000. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. 200,000 or 300,000? 

Dr. Boss. 250,000. There were a few, I think, who didn't want more 
than 150,000. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

(There follows a letter submitted by Dr. Charles F. Boss, Jr., execu- 
tive secretary of the Board of World Peace of the Methodist Churchy 
in clarification of his testimony.) 

Commission on World Peace 

OF THE Methodist Church, 
Chicago, III., OctoUr 10, 1952. 
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Executive Office of the Pf^esidcnt, Washington, D. C. 
Gentlemen : Two things I should like to make clear following my testimony 
of yesterday. 

First, the consensus of opinion in New York with regard to the number of 
refugees we were recommending was 250,000 over a period of 3 years, but these- 
were entirely above the quota. In addition, of course, one would have to say- 
that the quota provided for at present is below what we believe should be a 
minimum'. If we take one-third of the 250,000 estimate above the quota antt 
the quota, we come out still approximately as I stated, namely, 2.50,000 per year- 


as a total. I do want to make clear that the specific action in New York re- 
quested 250,000 over a 3-.year period over and above the quotas. 

Secondly, may I suppleixient in writing my reference to the matter of the 
administration of a refugee program. My point was that it should be operated 
on a humanitarian and nonsectarian basis, in such a way as to unify the whole 
process. We believe this should be under the direction of a senior officer re- 
sponsible to the Secretary of State, with such staff assistants as necessary in 
the United States and overseas. This unified direction of the refugee program 
would avoid duplications and complications, and would make the refugee program 
an integral part of the United States' regular immigration program. It was not 
my intention to suggest a reorganization of government. I admit, however, that 
the chairman was in order in raising the question since my paragraph was not 
sufficiently explanatory and precise to answer his question. I trust that my 
remarks in answer to his question, however, were fully understood. It was my 
further thought, as presented in the paper and extemjjoraneously, that the 
advisory committee composed of representatives of voluntary agencies would 
further tend to unify the total program for refugees as well as function in 
strengthening public support and in securing the cooperation of the comnuinity 
agencies in receiving and integrating refugees. 

I will appreciate the attachment of these remarks to my statement of yes- 
terday in order to clarify the two points which were raised. 
Sincerely yours, 

CiiABLKS F. Boss, Jr. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Robert Levin here ? 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Levin, who represents the Illinois CIO, has 
notified us that he is going to mail a statement to the Commission. 
The Chairman. Our next scheduled witness is Mr. Edward R. Lewis. 



Mr. Lewis. I am Edward R. Lewis, 1138 Hamptondale Road, Win- 
netka, 111. I am a lawyer and a member of the American and Chi- 
cago Bar Associations and the American Legion. I have been a 
member of the American Legion since 1919 and I am the post com- 
mander of Winnetka Post No. 10, Illinois. 

I have a prepared statement I wish to read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Lewis. In the beginning let me say that in this statement I have 
earnestly endeavored to speak in the interests of all Americans, no 
matter when they or their foref atliers came to this country. We are all 
in this country together, and if the result of any immigration policy 
hurts one group of our people, it hurts all of us. I speak with the 
kindliest feelings for all law-abiding Americans, of whatever origin, 
working to advance the welfare of our country. 

The enemies of our immigi'ation laws are fond of asserting that 
those who favor them are discriminatory, even arrogant in their con- 
duct toward more recently arriving Americans. Well, a little story 
shows that the American of old native stock can testify that there 
is discrimination against him, too. In fact, on any question involving 
immigration, I venture to say that for many years a representative of 
an alien named group will receive far better attention than an Ameri- 
can whose people have been here 300 years. 

Some years ago, in a large American city, a man ran for an office 
which called for professional attainments. Yet it was elective. The 
man is descended from two families whose ancestors came to this 
country 300 years ago. An alderman of the same political party who 
emigrated from a country in central Europe, asked him when his 


j)eople came to the United States. The candidate said modestly that 
they came about 300 years af^o. The aklerman's face fell. Then he 
brightened. "Well, it won't hurt you none. We'll take care of you. 
You'll be all right." 

The New York Times of October 1 contained a news item stating 
that Senator Herbert H. Lehman, of New York, in his appearance be- 
fore this Connnission proposed that our immigration laws be amended 
to increase, as stated in the news item, the number of quota immi- 
grants from 154,000 to 3.50,000 and that they be admitted "according 
to a system of 'preference based on individual worth and need rather 
than on national pedigree.' " 

Senator Lehman went on, "Let those who defend the national origins 
quota system be forced to read aloud the names of the winners of the 
Congressional Medal of Honor, or to recite the daily casualty lists 
from Korea — and then let them dare to say that those of one national 
origin are less fit to be Americans than those of another national 

Such a statement saddens me. No one has said or implied that any 
man is less fit to be an American than another on account of his na- 
tional origin. But will Senator Lehman say that a soldier descended 
from a Revolutionary soldier who wins the Medal of Honor is any less 
iworthy than a soldier who came here in 1938? It would seem that 
Senator Lehman is mentally, at least, scorning the old native stock, 
not that the old native stock is scorning the later arrivals. 

I am in complete opposition to Senator Lehman's proposal and to 
his point of view as stated in the news item. 

Many people talk of selection on individual tests, and attack the 
quota system as an arbitrary method designed to discriminate against 
immigrants from central, southern, and eastern Europe, as "wicked," 
"nefarious," and "vicious." 

I doubt whether many of these severe critics know what the quota 
system is. I doubt even more whethei- they liave given 10 minutes real 
study to the question of the actual working of so-called tests of 
individual worth. 

We have a total annual quota now of 154.206. Suppose that 2 
million people a])ply for immigration visas. It would be cruel and 
intolerable to let 2 million people cross the oceans and apply here for 
admission. In that case, the selection would take place in this country, 
154.200 would be selected here and 1,845,784 sent back across the ocean. 

Of course, that would never be allowed. The selection must be 
made at our consular offices all over the world. They might be located 
in 25 countries with 50 or more consular offices. 

The same tests of individual fitness would have to be applied in of the scattered consular offices. It could not be left to the indi- 
vidual hunches or pi-eferences of our consular offices. There would 
be no fairness in that. 

Tliere might well be 20,000 applications filed in one consular office 
and only 100 in another. It would be grossly unfair to admit, say, 
10 percent at each office. The 100 at one office might be all superior 
to the 20,000 at the other. Or the 20,000 might all be superior to the 

What are the individual tests that we would lay down for the 
consular offices to follow? 


We already have physical tests and have had them for many years. 
We already require that the applicant show that he will not become 
a public charge. We already have a literacy test. We already exclude 
those guilty of crime involving moral turpitude. 

Any further individual tests would be merely a judgment as to 
character. Such judgments are notoriously subject to the prejudices 
and even wdiims of the examiners. 

Any man who has been through the Army or Navy physical exami- 
nation knows how subject to error they are. And where examinations 
are of great masses of people, individual tests of character become 
simply a mockery. 

In short, it is impossible to work an immigration-restriction system 
without some sort of quota system. 

Senator Lehman himself w^as one of the sponsors of Senate bill 2842, 
introduced last ^Marcli 12, which provided for a quota basis. It was 
the national -origin quota basis, too, the national-origin basis so much 
abused by the advocates of large immigration. It was the national- 
origin basis with the figures adjusted to the results of the 1950 census. 
But it may be safely said that the quotas adjusted to the 1950 census 
woidd not be materially different from the present quota figures. 

The national-origin basis is fair to all. It provides that each 
country can send such proportion of 150,000 annual inmiigration as 
that country has contributed to our population in all our history. 
What could be fairer ? If, then, a country has contributed 10 percent 
of our population, it can send 10 percent of our annual quota 

There can be little doubt that many millions of Chinese, great num- 
bers of Japanese, would be eager to come to this country if thev were 
allowed entry. But to let in 10,000,000 Chinese or 5,00(),000 Japanese 
w^ould, of course, create at once a yellow-race problem in our country 
of tragic proportions. 

There is no way of handling immigration where the pressure of 
numbers is great save by a quota system, and there is no fairer method 
than the national-origin method. 

We are told that we need large immigration to meet our labor 
demand. At present, there is a great demand for labor. There has 
been a great demand for labor for 13 years now, ever since the begin- 
ning of World War II in 1939. But, if we import labor to meet an 
unhealthy passing demand, every person brought in would simply 
swell the unemployed when the inevitable recession comes. 

I maintain that the United States can raise its own labor supply. 
We do not need any immigration to do our work. The best and finest 
immigration will furnish us all the labor we shall ever need — immi- 
gration by American-born babies. If a country of 156,000,000 people 
cannot furnish its own labor supply, it is rotten to the core. In that 
case, no immigration can save it. 

But we are not rotten to the core. We are sound and healthy. We 
can do our own work. 

It is safe to predict, if we should let in 5,000,000 immigrants now, 
that it would not be 10 years, perhaps not 5 years, until by the mere 
increase in births in Europe and Asia we would be told that it would 
be cruel to shut the gates against 5,000,000 more clamoring for admis- 


There is no end to the process until tlie country is crowded to the 
limit with a vast overpopulation, a mass of diverse people, with no; 
background in our country. 

The figures of those of native parentage under the 1950 census are' 
not yet available. But the 19^:0 census showed that there are five- 
States where less than 50 percent of the white population is of native' 

In 1940 there were four cities of over 500,000 population with 
less than -10 percent of the white people of native parentage. There 
were 11 cities in 1940 with from 100.000 to 500,000 population with 
less than 40 percent of the white population of native parentage. 

In the country as a whole, only 71 percent of the white population 
in 1940 was of native parentage. 

Some years ago I heard a United States Director of Immigration 
recite some of these figures of the proportion of native percentage in 
some of our large cities. He was born in Germany and was brought 
to this country when a baby. He cannot, therefore, be met with the 
favorite charge that he is one of the colonial stock. He said, "Well, 
gentlemen, I think you will agree with me that these proportions are' 
all lopsided." 

His audience seemed to agree. 

This, of course, implies no criticism whatever of the foreign-boni' 
or their children. But it does imply it is based on the deep conviction 
that a country is in danger when in five States less than 50 percent and 
in 15 cities of over 100,000 population less than 60 percent of the- 
people have roots in this country of less than one generation. 

Politics and the administration of government, law and the operation,, 
of our courts and the prevention of crime, yes, literature, poetry, and 
the drama and fiction all are prevented from reaching their best 
development in a country where the people do not understand eachi 
other and do not have deep and loving roots in a common past. 

There are many indications that we do not understand each other. 
In our politics, we have had for a generation alien blocs attempting to 
influence our political action in the interest of their native or ancestral, 
lands. There was tremendous alien-bloc activity in the debate over 
our entrance into tlie First World War. Groups with hyphenated, 
names deluged Senators and Congressmen with petitions, letters, and 
telegrams urgiug action in behalf of the Kaiser's German3% and threat- 
ening them with rej)risal if they did not do as the senders desired. 
Alien blocs exerted great pressui'e on the war-debt question, the ques- 
tion of our entrance into the old League of Nations, and on the 1924 
Immigration Act itself. Again, in the year and 10 months before 
Pearl Harbor, tremendous pressure was exerted in behalf of Hitler's 

Our politics have been warped and distorted for more than a gen- 
eration by tlie pressure of alien blocs. 

Chief Justice Taft said in 1926 that he believed that one of the 
chief causes of our sorry record in crime and law enforcement lay 
in our heterogeneous population. 

This does not mean^and this I wish to say most emphatically — 
that the foreign-born and the children of foreign-born are less law 
abiding than the rest of the population. I find no evidence of that. 
But it does mean that all of us, native-born of many generations,, 

25356—52 52 

812 coMMissiOisr on immigration and naturalization 

native-born of one or two generations, and foreign-born, all alike, are 
grievously handicapped by our excessive heterogeneity. We do not 
know and understand each other, and are therefore more likely to 
quarrel with each other. Juries find it more difficult to come to agree- 
ments w^hen they are of entirely dili'erent origins. 

I think our woeful heterogeneity hamj)ers the development of our 
literature. Great poetry, fiction, and drama are the spontaneous, 
happy expression of people who know" each other, who have deep lov- 
ing sources in a common past, as Athens had in the great Periclean 
Age and as England had in Shakespeare's time. 

Lincoln spoke in his first inaugural of ''The mystic chords of mem- 
ory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living- 
heart and hearthstone all over the broad land." which he predicted 
''would swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely 
they will be, by the better angels of our nature. * * *." 

But our "mystic chords" are jangled and confused. They go back 
in one generation to a score of foreign lands. 

You cannot teach a "mystic chord" in the schoolroom. 

Our forefathers were wiser than we liave l)een. They did not even 
believe in immigration. Washington, Franklin, Jelferson, and Ham- 
ilton all distrusted iunnigration. 

I do not go as far iis they did. But I do believe, solemnly, devoutly, 
that the time has come to call a halt. Every element of our national 
ideals calls for lessening immigration, instead of increasing it. 

I am a Chicago lawyer, a member of the American and Chicago 
Bar Associations. I have been a member of the American Legion 
since 1919 and am a past commander of m}^ post, Winnetka Post No. 
10, Department of Illinois. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Is Mr. Okal here i 


Mr. Okai.. I am Jan Okal, editor of the Slovak American, 485 South 
Drexel Boulevard, Chicago, 111., which I represent. 

I have a prepared statement to submit, but would like to read two 
excerpts from it before submitting it for the record. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Okal. In my prepared statement I talk about three groups of 
Slovak people in America, especially of the group which came before 
the First World War. and after, and now this new group of political 
refugees. I would like to read that part whenever I am speaking 
about these political refugees [reading] : 

Whatever the difference is between these two groups in technical ability and 
the external signs of tlieir Americanization, it is safe to say that in the com- 
paratively short time that both groups have lived in this country their Ameri- 
canization has l)een complete. In other words, America has become their true 
motherland, a land which they love and are jiroud (rf, their citizenship in which 
they treasure ; and, with few exceptions, their loyalty to America and to its 
democratic institutions makes them not only good but exemplary American 
citizens. In the same way, the private life of these Slovak immigrants may 
be considered exemplary, evidenced by the firm morale of their daily working- 
day life, the rapidity with which they first settled and then remained in certain 
localities, the strength and size of their families, the high ratio of their savings, 
the ownership of homes and of small businesses and factories, the deep and 
formal adherence to religion, and, on the other side of the picture, the almost 
negligible percent of delinquency to be found among them. 


Passing, now, to the studj' of the third group of immigrants of Slovak descent, 
we see that this group is marked by the characteristics of the earlier two groups, 
but that, in addition, it has certain characteristics peculiarily its own. This 
third group is newly arrived and is comprised of political refugees. They have 
been admitted to the United States on the basis of a special DP bill. Numeri- 
cally, this group is the smallest, but it is also the most select. It is comprised 
of people who were the direct and most bitterly persecuted targets of the first 
onslaught of communism ; and, therefore, it is a group representing the best- 
educated and most politically conscious levels of the Slovak nation. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Your prepared statement will be in- 
serted in tlie record. 

(The prepared statement submitted by Jan Okal, editor of the 
Slovak American, is as follows : ) 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I wish to thank you for this op- 
portuuity given me to api^ear before your Commission. I regard this opportu- 
nity as a great personal honor, for I, too, am one of the many hundreds of thou- 
sands of thousands whose life has been rescued from certain slavery or death 
thanks to the inunigration policy of the United States Government. 

In order to make clear my own view on the problems of the immigration policy 
of the United States, allow me tirst to say a few words by way of introduction. 
I was born and lived and studied in the country of Slovakia, a country which 
today, not by its size but by reason of its heroic tight against communism, has 
won the admiration of the wlKjle world ; that is to say, of the free world. My 
profession was that of educator, both as a teacher in school and as a writer and 
editor engaged in pul)lication. When the war came to an end I knew that 
my usefulness in Slovakia was over and that any help I hoped to give to my 
Slovak peojile would have to come from me as an opponent of communism in the 
free world rather than as a prisoner of communism in my own country. I chose 
the alternative, therefore, of exile and all its agony, willing to wait until the 
day, no matter how distant, when an American visa would at last be mine and 
would enable me again to open the door to a free life. 

Upon my entrance into the United States I thought it my first duty to acquaint 
n)yself with the American way of life ; and, therefore, I enrolled as a student 
at De Paul ITniversity in Chicago. It was a tribute to me when your great 
American citizen of Slovak origin — Rev. John J. Lach, of Whiting, Ind., a man 
who had gathered, as head of the war-bond drive among Americans of Slovak 
descent, the sum of $100 million in Victory bonds — when this great American 
citizen invited me to take over the position of editor of the oldest Slovak news- 
paper in this country, the newspaper known as the Slovak American (Slovak v. 
Amei-ike), of which he is both owner and publisher. Just as circumstances had 
provided me with the opportunity to know by direct experience not only my own 
country of Slovakia but also many other countries of Europe, so now, shortly 
after my arrival in America, I was given the opportunity, both through personal 
contact and the nature of my work as editor, to come to know and appreciate 
the life of America and the problems facing Americans of Slovak descent of the 
first, second, and even third generation. By careful observation and study, I 
have atterapted to understand and adopt the spirit of America as my own, that 
spirit which has made America great and strong and wonderful in the eyes of 
the whole world. 

I am deeply aware of and embarrassed by the fact that I would be abusing the 
cordial hospitality of this great country, a second homeland to me since my ar- 
rival, were I, as yet not its citizen, to speak presumptively upon the questions 
concerning xVmerlcan inmiigration law as these reflect the will of American 
citizens and their elected representatives. However, to the degree that the immi- 
gration policy of the United States, based on legislation is, in last analysis, the 
result of searching study of the sociological, economic, psychological, domestic, 
and foreign political factors of modern life, I ask you kindly to permit me also 
to bring to vdur attention a few matters which have impressed me and which 
may be worthy of your attention. 

My position as editor has placed me in a position where many hundreds of 
biograi lilies of Americans of Slovak descent have come under my hand. Study 
of these has brought me to the conclusion that certain of their characteristics 
stiind out and may be considered hereditary traits of the Slovak people. Never- 
theless, there is a great difference between those immigrants who belong to what 
may be called an uncontrolled immigration— namely, that group which came to 


America before the First World War — and those immigrants who came here- 
after the First World War, for the latter group was admitted to this country on 
the basis of a system of national quotas. The quota system itself influenced 
emigration from" Slovakia only quantitatively; that is, it limited the number of 
immigrants to be admitted without malting any provision for qualitative selec- 
tion. Nevertheless, a qualitative difference between these two groups may be 
seen in that the pre-First World War group represented for America an addi- 
tion to its strength in nonskilled labor forces, whereas the second or post-First 
World War group contributed greatly to an increase of its strength in highly 
skilled labor. It w'as not a result of the immigration quota system enacted after 
the First World War that Americanization— by which I mean the adoption of 
the American language and of the social habits and democratic traditions of the 
American way of life — was much more rapidly achieved by the second group • 
than the first. My studies have shown me that the degree of Americanization 
achieved by this second group of immigrants — a group in its first generation — 
has reached a level equal to that of the earlier group — a group now in its second 
generation. The increasing qualitative superiority of Slovak immigration is thus 
beyond question, and this superiority is directly proportonal and attributable to 
the progress itself of the land of their origin — of Slovak — in the fields of edu- 
cation, technology, and social welfare. 

Whate\er the differences between these two groups in technical ability and 
the external signs of their xVmericanization, it is safe to say that in the compara- 
tively short time that both groups have lived in this country their Americani- 
zation has been complete. In other words, America has become their true moth- 
erland, a land which they love and are proud of, their citizenship in which they 
treasure, and, with few exceptions, their loyalty to America and to its democratic 
institutions makes them not only good but exemplary American citizens. In the 
same way, the private life of these Slovak immigrants may be considered exem- 
plary, evidenced by the firm morale of their daily working-day life, the rapidity 
with" which they first settled and then remained in certain localities, the strength 
and size of their families, the high ratio of their savings, the ownership of homes 
and of small businesses and factories, the deep and formal adherence to religion,, 
and, on the other side of the picture, the almost negiigil)le percent of delinquency 
to be found among them, and so on. In the last half-century about 500 churches 
and the parochial schools and social centers attached to them have been built 
by Slovak inmiigrants. and through them have come into being a great nunil)er of 
fraternal and cultural organizations, patriotic groups, and sports clubs. 

Passing now to the study of the third group of immigrants of Slovak descent, 
^e see that this group is marked by the characteristics of the earlier two groups, 
but that, in addition, it has certain characteristics peculiarly its own. This 
third group is newly arrived and is comprised of political refugees. They have 
been admitted to tlie United States on the basis of a special DP bill. Numeri- 
cally, this group is the smallest, but it is also the most select. It is comprised of 
people who were the direct and most bitterly persecuted targets of the first 
onslaught of conmiunism ; and, therefore, it is a group representing the best- 
educated and most politically conscious levels of the Slovak nation. The out- 
standing characteristic of this group is its militant anticommunism. Since 
this group, especially upon its arrival, first settled in old Slovak communities, its 
resolute anticummunism at once stimulated and renewed to greater activity 
the latent, passive anticommunism of the earlier Slovak immigrants, and it 
may be asserted that thanks to this third group older Slovak communities in 
this country were transformed in a comparatively short time into true counter- 
subversive bastions in which America may place full reliance. This third group- 
of Slovak immigrants in America, in addition to the sentimental and material 
reasons of other Slovak groups already cited, has reasons both intellectual and 
political for loving America. Having seen the fall of many European nations,. 
it sees that America is the one and only country in the world healthy enotigh and 
strong or capable enough not only .vet to save its democratic institutions but 
also by the very being and symbol of its existence to stand as the hope of new 
freedom and national sovereignty for the countries behind the iron curtain. 
This new inmiigrant group has identified the fate of America with the hope of 
liberation of its own mother country, and for this reason is ready at all time- 
to work, to fight, and to make any sacrifice for America. 

The Americanization of this new group has been amazingly rapid, and many 
of the new immigrants have entered boldly upon all the fields open to them ini 
business, industry, and culttiral activity in America with an even greater cour- 
age and confidence — and resultant success — than that of their earlier immigrant, 


It is only natural that (he members of all tlie various national immiinrant 
groups in America should from sentimental reasons seek the admission of the 
: greatest lunnber of new iuunigrants to their grouii as possible and that they 
sliould, therefore, demand the abolition of the restrictive national quotas in the 
immigration law. For sentimental i-easons, again, there is also the strongest 
opposition to the possibility of greater immigration. However, there is no 
country on eartli which bases its legislative enactments solely on sentiment, 
and consequently it may be taken for granted that the immigration policy of 
the United States shall in the future take into consideration the sum total of 
the political, economic, moral, intellectual, and spiritual factors that go into 
all legislation, let alone that of innnigration. With due deliberation America 
shall view the scales to determine how inmiigration in general and national 
immigr-ation in particular contribute to American life, and upon discovering 
the benefits that the latter do bring, open its doors all the wider to great immi- 
grant numbers. 

It has been my purpose to try to present in brief the moral, economic, and 
political benefits brought to America by immigrants from my country of Slo- 
vakia. I would be delighted, circumstances permitting, to present the case for 
Slovak immigration with numerical tables and exact statistics. Unfortunately, 
the means for such research are not at my disposal. It will be a great honor 
to me, therefore, if what I have said here will even slightly contribute to the 
solution of the innnigraut problem of the United States and a country already 
so boundlessly blessed by God. For having been received into America and 
given a home as a dispossessed political refugee, I wish to express my deepest 
gratitude and to promise my loyalty as a national nntil such a time as the law will 
permit me to become a loyal citizen. 

Permit me once again, for this opportunity to present my views, to express 
my deepest respect for this Commission and to say thank you. 

The Chairman. Rev. Berto Dragicevic ? 


Reverend Dragicevic. I am Rev. Berto Dragicevic, executive direc- 
tor of the Croatian Refugee Committee, 4851 Drexel Boulevard, Chi- 
cago, whicli is the organization I am representing here. 

I have a prepared statement which I wish to submit. 

The Chairman. Tliank you very much. It will be inserted in the 

(There follows the prepared statement submitted by Rev. Berto 
Dragicevic, executive director, Croatian Refugee Committee:) 

I do not believe that the matter should remain where the Congress left 
it. — President Truman. 

The Croatian refugee immigrants take this occasion to express their deep 
gratitude to the President of the United States, the Honorable Harry S. Truman, 
and to the Displaced Persons Commission, especially Messrs. Gibson, Rosenfield, 
and O'Connor, for realizing their desire to emigrate to this land of freedom 
and opportunity. Their interest to aid our remaining brethren in the DP camps 
in Europe only deepens their gratitude. 

In view of the fact that President Truman wishes to know how the new 
immigrants have adjusted themselves and of what value they are to America, 
I am happy to give my observations, opinions, and suggestions to this Com- 
mission, and at the same time to avail myself of the opportunity to extend my 
cordial greetings to you. 

(A) Immigration. — Whether it be according to the quota system or by special 
legislation, this question is of great importance and concern to America, as 
President Truman himself asserts, "It is of ma.1or importance to our own security 
and to the defense of the free world." Nevertheless, great care must be exercised 
as to who and in what manner people immigrate to this country. At no time 
should it ever be forgotten that very many Communists in various ways emigrate 
to America. The most dangerous are those Communists behind the iron curtain, 
which is situated not on the distant border of Rumania and Bulgaria but on the 
Italian-Austrian borders. 


It is my considered opinion that America made two mortal errors in Europe : 
(1) allowing the Russians in eastern and central Euroi^e ; (2) opening her 
doors to Yugoslav Communist spies, thus affording them the opportunity to 
poison America. Just lately, the Immigration Office in Washington has issued 
toui-ist, visitor, student and similar visas for Yugoslavia. I can state with 
guaranty that 75 percent of those who receive visas will bring great harm to this 
country, because they come for one only purpose — espionage. I base my state- 
ment on the fact that only true and tried Communists, for the most part young 
people, can emigrate from Yugoslavia to America, or else their relatives in this 
country are known for their Communist sympathy. 

It is, therefore, my considered opinion that it is of utmost importance to pro- 
ceed with exacting care in screening applicants than thus far. Again, attention 
should be focused on the refugees who are in dire circumstances. While it is 
highly laudable to express concern for overpopulated lands, yet there is the 
very pressing problem of approximately 26 million displaced persons in Europe, 
Asia, and the Far East. Overpopulated lands have at least some order within 
themselves and their inhabitants a domicile, while many a I'efugee is in a posi- 
tion similar to homeless animals and wander about without the benefit of 
protective laws. 

I realize tliat it is absolutely impossible for lands overseas to absorb all 
Vefugees, especially America, but I do believe they could in a way similar to 
the Atlantic Pact. In that way perhaps many refugees could i-ealize gainful 
employment and thus gain economic assurance. It would mean too an im- 
mense benefit to the Atlantic Pact for it would branch out into mutual help 
and cooperation. 

(B) Quota sj/stem. — It is generally agreed that the quota system should be 
increased and in accordance with the good-will of the democracies, and de- 
crease it appreciably as regards lands l^ehind the iron curtain. At all times the 
strictest control must be exercised. 

It is respectfully suggested that President Truman seek of the United Nations 
tlie establishment of an international law that would reunite dispersed families. 
All will readily recognize this law as one of the most humanitarian of all that 
govern international relations. Such a law, nioreover, would curtail much of 
the evil rampant in the world today. Disi)ersed families are among the greatest 
propagators of communism and grievously harm human solidarity in the world. 

(C) NaturaIi,7atlon of immigrants. — The age group of the new immigrants per- 
centagewise is as follows : 1 to 19 years is 29.;"> ; 20 to GO years is 06.8 ; 60 and over 
is 3.7 (The DP Story, p. 3G8). 

The greater the numlier of adult immigrants, the greater the difficulty as to 
tlieir naturalization. This is readily understandable for immigrants in the 
past, and regrettably so, did not attach the necessary importance to becoming 
citizens, or were not able to. It is therefore urgently important that more facile 
legislation be introduced to solve this unfortunate situation, for there exists 
a great numl)er of old immigrants who from various reasons, such as illiteracy, 
never became American citizens, yet heartily desired so — of course only the de- 
serving and those without a criminal record would benefit from such legislation. 
This deplorable situation has had an adverse effect on the new immigrants, 
despite the higlier rate of literacy in comparison to the past inunigrarits. By 
allowing the old immigrants to easily become citizens of the United States, it 
is my belief, that many difficulties and obstacles will be removed and will place 
the question of naturalization of the refugee immigrants on a clear and firm 

If it is thought that further investigation should be initiated as regards this 
question, I would be more than happy to offer a more detailed report and con- 
crete suggestions, and with the understanding of the representatives of the 
various nationalities in this coiintry who have the same thorny problem. 

(D) Exclusion and deportation. — Laws of exclusion and deportation must 
remain so long as the possibility exists of dangerous subversives entering this 
country. In the meantime there exists the prol)leni of those refugees who en- 
tered this country illegally. Many and many of these illegal entrants, who fled 
their native lands to escape the Communist terror, are persons of good moral 
character and bear a deep and abiding love for America. Under no circum- 
stance can they return to their homes behind the iron curtain. The prolilem of 
illegal entry for tliem, so desirous of residing permanently in this land of liberty, 
is very pressing and fraught with the deepest anxiety since there exists no law 
for their permanency of residence in the United States. I trust sincerely that 
the understanding heart of America will create a consoling law for these un- 
fortunate ones. 


In the near past widowed mothers with infant cliildren have emigrated to this 
country. These sorely-tried mothers lind themselves in no position to offer a 
normal life, as enjoyed by American cliildren. to tlieir offsprinji", many of whom 
are ill or gradually falling victims to the ravages of tlie war. Can any assurance 
he given of bettering their pitiful lot? 

Sad to relate, tiiere exists among refugees on American farms economic dis- 
satisfaction. Because of law wages and long hours many have illegally left 
their sponsors. It is my opinion that these refugees prefer farm life, even though 
they are not familiar with American farm methods, if there would be a pro- 
tective law guaranteeing them a fair, living wage. 


Dr. Smook. I ant Dr. Ronuin I. Sniook. I am an attorney by pro- 
fession: my office address is 2006 West Chicago Avenue, Cliicago. 
111., and I have been practicing for the last 25 years. From 1947 
to 1950 I was director of the relief operation in western Europe repre- 
senting the United Ukrainian Relief Committee of the United States. 
Throngh otir effort we were able to help resettle in this country about 
33,000 Ukrainians, and about 50,000 Ukrainians, displaced persons, 
through other countries like Canada, Australia, and South American 

I am going to read from my notes and it will take me j)robably 5 or 
6 minutes. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. 

Dr. Smook. I appear here, also, as vice president of the United 
American Relief Committee, and as a representative of the League 
of Americans of Ukrainian Descent. Now, the League of Americans 
of Ukrainian Descent is a strictl}^ Chicagoan organization, comprised 
of several religious, civic, and educational organizations, about 50 in 
number. Tlie United Ukrainian American Relief Committee is an 
organization comprised of about 500 different welfare organizations 
of the United States, with headquarters in Philadelphia. I do not 
have a written authorization from these organizations to represent 
them at this hearing because I wasn't notified in time to secure such 
written authorization, but I have no doubt that such authorization 
would have been given in writing. 

INIy organization and I are primarily interested in the welfare of 
Ukrainian people who need assistance because of the upheaval caused 
by the last world war. I am also appearing as an American citizen 
in order to express in a small way my knowledge and experience iit 
connection with the problem at hand. First, we Americans of Ulirain- 
ian descent have no argument as citizens of this country with any 
laws of the country. "We are confident that the Congress of the 
United States is well able to take care of the necessary legislation for 
this country. In the same sense, we have no argument with the Mc- 
Carran-Walter Immigration Act. However, since there is a possibil- 
ity that this act may be amended in the future, may we be permitted 
to make comments and suggestions as to where we believe the act is 
deficient, discriminatory against the eastern European and central 
European people. 

If we are to institute a new immigration policy, such a policy should 
be planned so that it will be elastic enough to serve for a long period 


of time and not necessitate a revision for an emergency period, or the 
satisfaction of political parties in power, or to conform with the 
■changes in the map of Europe. We shoulcl also plan an immigration 
policy with the view of economic, social, and political benefits to 
•be derived by the United States and the security of the United States. 

I am of the opinion that immigration brings prosperity to the 
•country. Prosperity in all its phases and the best example of that 
is the development of our neighbors to the north, Canada, where 
immigration had been restricted for so long to the so-called Anglo- 
Saxon race; by tlie lifting of race prejudice barriers and allowing the 
influx of immigration, Canada as well as Australia today are seeing 
an era of economic and social development. 

I believe that the Commission will agree with me that with the influx 
-of the so-called displaced persons to the United States that probably 
close to 400,000 in number, we have collected several millions in taxes, 
we have sold them furniture, clothing and everything that goes to 
keep up the family. All this is not putting the money that they earn 
into the banks where it stays without use, but it is putting it in places 
where a commerce grows, and that is the reason why I believe that to 
give opportunity to especially young people of the world to come to 
the United States will be of benefit not only to them individually, but 
to us Americans that are living today, and I believe that this country 
has greatly benefited by such immigration, providing it is put in a 
human way, if it is not discriminatory. And I believe that the Mc- 
'Carran Act is short of that. It does not really treat everybody alike. 

We want to register our protest against the present national origins 
quota system as it appears in the McCarran-Walter Act. We want 
to launch our protest against the discrimination between Nordic and 
middle and southern European people. We want to point out that 
there is a fallacy in the belief that a certain kind of people are more 
easily assimilated into the American way of life. 

To the contrary, experience has proved that the people from eastern 
Europe, when they come to this country, have to learn the language, 
hard as it comes, but they learn it. They learn the habits, the history, 
culture, customs, and they learn to become assimilated and prove to 
be fine American citizens. 

Further, I shall stress that the 1920 census should not be taken as a 
criteria. This is especially unfair to the Lithuanian people. Here 
I would like to state to the Commission that, in eastern Europe, if you 
look on a map of eastei'n Europe, there aie many countries composed 
of several nationalities, and I am speaking of one of these nationali- 
ties, and I think that if the United States is going to formulate a new 
policy of immigration it should take that into consideration; that, 
for instance, a Russian Empire comprises 150 or 160 nationalities, 
that the Yugoslav has three or four nationalities, that Poland has 
three or four nationalities — by that, I mean Ukranians, Poles, white 
Russians, Lithuanians. If we are to be fair and exercise a really 
broader immigration policy, we should take that into consideration, 
that all these nationalities should be permitted, according to whatever 
quota device, to come to this country. 

There is one point I would like to stress. That is this : the American 
Government was a party to probably the most hideous crime that was 
committed on humanity. By that 1 mean we were a party to the so- 


called forceful repatriation of peoples from Germany and other occu- 
pied countries. 

Now, in order to esca])e bein<>- executed by the Connnunists many 
of these people that found themselves in western Europe had to state 
that they were born in any place exce])t Russia or any other Com- 
munist country. That was the only way, gentlemen, to escape 

Now they had several screenings. These screenings as they lived 
in the camps were probably every week a diiferent one and different 
organizations, and tliis and that, and once they stated a place of birth 
they had to carry that along. Many of them came to this country 
Avith such misstatement. 

Gentlemen, I have already in Chicago several cases up before the 
Immigration and Naturalization Department for hearing to deter- 
mine if these people are subject to deportation. "\Miere would we 
deport them? I think this is most inhumari. I realize that those 
officers in this department are exercising their duties; neveitheless, 
something should be done for these unfortunate people because they 

The Chairman. Well, what should be done ? 

Dr. Smook. We should pass the law permitting these people to stay. 
Otherwise, they are now subject to deportation and that is what should 
be done, except, gentlemen, yon just can't shake it off from the sleeve. 
These things should be thought out, but it is one of tlie very serious 
problems we have, as you will find out. 

We have already a law for 15,000 people, allowing those who came 
to this comitry legally but overstayed their time and are subject to 
deportation, we had Avith the Displaced Persons Act something that 
would permit them — specifically naming them — to stay in this country. 
I think something of that nature could be devised, and I would be 
glad to work on it. 

The only reason I brought it up is that if we are to present a new 
immigration law, that such a thing should be taken into consideration, 
and then I would also lay stress upon giving to the young people of 
different countries who would like to come to America that oppor- 
tunity ; and also, I want to stress that we should not combine a long- 
range immigration policy with the emergency legislation. Namely, 
mortgaging the quotas as we have done now. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Doctor. 

Is Mr. Edward E. Plusdrak here ? 


Mr. Plusdrak. My name is Edward E. Plusdrak. 

I am a lawyer, assistant State's attorney, and I appear today on be- 
half of the Illinois Division of the Polish American Congress, of 
which I am the president, and on behalf of the American Committee 
for Resettlement of Polish DP's. 

I have a prepared statement, and I won't impose on your time. 

Basically, Mr. Chairman, we share the views expressed by Senator 
Paul H. Douglas in his monumental speech to the Senate on May 19, 
1952. We hope that his views will prevail in the new Congress. 


I think that you will give full consideration to the outline of the 
argument that t have made in my statement and I am going to limit 
myself now merely to the defects as we see them which are embraced 
in the present McCarran Act. We believe that tlie act was conceived 
in a spirit which is un-American, which is discriminatory and not in 
keeping with the philosophy of brotherhood that prevails at least in 
its appearances in the history of America. 

Now, basically, we object to the quota restrictions in the present act ; 
and we feel they ought to be flexible enough to meet the requirements 
as they might appear abroad, and as they might be reflected in the 
capacity of this country to absorb new immigration ; secondly, it is our 
position that the selection of immigrants should be introduced to a 
special board charged with formidating and carrying out a national 
immigration policy, resting upon fundamental principles; thirdly, 
we strongly believe or observe that the immigration proceedings 
should conform to the requirements of the Federal Administrative 
Procedures Act. Thus, that the denial of a visa by an American consul 
should u])on application of an American citizen concerned with the 
matters, be subject to review by a board of appeals, and thereafter 
subject to a board of judicial review. 

The Chairman. Have you considered what such a review procedure 
would entail in the way of time? 

Mr. Plusdrak. The matters could be expedited. As I see the act 
now, it completely deprives anyone interested in the matter from 
having a complete hearing, and it vests the consul \\ith all this author- 
ity and discretionarv power. 

Mr. KosENFiELD. Have you had any experience with advisory opin- 
ions where the consuls forward the case to the State Department for 
an advisory opinion ? 

Mr. Plusdrak. My experience has been that the consul is the abso- 
lute monarch. He decides either way, and there is absolutely nothing 
you can do about it, and in fact you cannot even inquire as to his basis 
for it. I think you can always write and you get a response and it 
says because of some section of regulation so and so the application is 

My fourth point, Mr. Chairman, is that deportation should be a 
matter of judicial review. I think on that point I will stand by this 
recommendation; and the McCarran act as it is today departs from 
basic constitutional requirements of fair play in entrusting unlimited 
authority to the Attorney General. There you have a different situa- 
tion, of course, because the party is in this country and endowed them 
with certain rights. 

I want to conclude by this statement, that we hope the problem 
of immigration and naturalization will be reexamined in the light 
of achievements and considerations of our foreign-born citizens in 
war and in peace and that the concept of national origin as a quota 
basis be discarded as an antiracial ideology. 

I want to end it with a quip which seems to have deeper impli- 
cations than it might appear. As one student of the problem wisely 
observed, speaking on the subject and question of national origin, 
''The sheep may not be separated efficiently from the goats on the 
basis of geography." 

Thank you. 


. The C11AIR.MAX. Thank you very iniicli. Your prepared state- 
ment will be inserted in tlie I'ecord. 

(Tlie prepared statement of Mr. Edward E, Plusdrak submitted 
on behalf of the American (^onnnittee for Resettlement of Polish 
DP's and Polish American Congress, Illinois Division, follows:) 

We submit this statement on behalf of some 400 delegates grouped in the 
Illinois Division of the Pcjlish American Congress, which represents the lead- 
ing Polish-American fraternal organizations, civic and cultural clubs through- 
out Chicago. 

Chicago is especially a fitting center to hold the hearing for it is a metro- 
politan area made great by the skill and brawn of the immigrants from many 
lands. The city numbers over GHO.OOO citizens of Polish extraction. They, 
together v^-ith the other so-called minority groups, have contributed immeasur- 
ably to tlie political, social, educational, economic and religious importance 
of Chicago. 

Other northern cities, as Detroit, Buffalo, Milwaukee, New York and Cleve- 
land, also have a high percentage of their citizens of Polish descent. But it 
is not only in the large industrial cities that the immigrant Poles or their 
children have rendered their contributions, but also in the farming and in the 
mining areas throughout these United States. 

We take this opportunity to pay tribute to President Truman for his genuine 
concern over the plight of refugees and regarding the problem of achieving 
fair immigration and naturalization laws. His veto of the McCarran bill, 
although overridden by an ill-advised Senate, was a fearless and laudable act 
of fine statesmanship. It is hoped that this Commission will collect important 
information, receive wide cross-country opinions, and then present its findings 
and recommendations to the President and to the new Congress to i*epeal or amend 
the McCarran Act. 

It is not our purpose to review the history or philosophy underlying Ameri- 
can immigration legislation. However, it must be noted that too often our 
immigration and naturalization laws were enacted without a fair evaluation 
of the pertinent facts and were established contrary to American inherent 
principles of human decency and individual liberty. 

The motley of immigration and naturalization acts and regulations was 
in sore need of reexamination and codification. However, the recently en- 
acted McCarran Act not only failed completely in this respect but adopted 
provisions that spell out antiracial bias and threaten our American basic con- 
cepts of racial equality. 

In substance, the McCarran Act is deliberately designt^d to curb the flow 
of immigration to a mere trickle by insidi(ms limitations and restrictions. 
The act retains the national-origin quotas as an obvious means of reducing 
immigration from the eastern and southern part of Europe. "That area, 
where the need is great, is assigned less than 20 percent of the quota. By this 
infamous device an English immigrant is legislated to be 1?> times as desirable 
as an Italian and 12 times as desirable as a Pole. We repudiate such compari- 
sons and such quotas as unworthy and unwarranted." 

Small as are the critical quotas, they are mortgaged to the extent of 50 per- 
cent until displaced persons admitted under special legislation of Congress shall 
have been fully charged off. Thus, the Polish quota of 6,."')24 is mortgaged ."lO per- 
cent until the year 19D0. Unused quotas in one area may not be transferred to 
another. Our experience with tliis device during the last 5 years has been to 
cut the maximum in half becanse only a small portion of the quotas assigned to 
countries in west or north Europe are being used. 

About 1.''>S Poles in Europe are seeking admission to this country. Contrast 
this with the quota of 6r),.361 for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, immigration 
from which during the last 5 years averaged little more than 20,000 a year. 

Another defect is the requirement that the place of birth ratlier than the 
domicile or citizenship of the immigrant determines the quota to which he is 
assigned. This means that hundreds of thousands of innocent persons trans- 
iwrted across Europe by the Nazis and Cmnnmnists must wait hopelessly for a 
quota number for tlie country of origin while thousands of such numbers are 
available and unused for the country of domicile. 

We agree, of course, fully with the principal enunciated bv the Supreme Court 
in the case of Nishirnvra Elciii v. TJnlfcd fitatcs (142 U. S. 6.51), that: 

"It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation 
has the power as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation to 


forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them onljr 
in such cases and upon conditions as it may see fit to prescribe." But as a 
nation we have matured and must now renounce the Fascist doctrine of racial 
superiority. We join others in declaring that the immigration policy of our 
country must be predicated upon these three fundamental principles : First,, 
immigration properly administered is healthy and good for our culture, our 
economy, and our progress. The introduction of new threads into our national 
fabric adds strength and resilience; second, the admission of immigrants must 
reflect a wholesome spirit of international good will, understanding, and co- 
operation consonant with our foreign policy ; third, immigrants admitted to our 
country must be permitted to rebuild their lives in an atmosphere of peace and 
tranquillity made secure by democratic principles and judicial processes. 
Accordingly, we suggest these corrections in the present immigration law: 

1. The total of 1.54.000 immigrants "permitted" annually by the McCarran Act 
be doubled in the light of the need abroad and our capacity to absorb at home 
made so tremendou.s liy the high degree of technological development. 

2. The selection of immigrants should be entrusted to a special board charged 
with formulating and carrying out a national immigration policy resting upon 
the fundamental principles above outlined. The urgency of the situation rather 
than any artificial regard for national or racial origin should be of primary 
concern. The board should have flexible power to set percentages, within 
statutory limits in the following categories for which priority would be accorded 
in granting immigration visas : 

(cr) Immigrants seeking to join their families in this country. The principle- 
of reuniting families must apply with equal force to both citizen and alieui 

(ft) Persons seeking asylum. Refugees from racial, religious, or political 

(c) Persons having special skills, training, and qualifications. 

3. Immigration proceedings should conform to the requirements of the Ad- 
ministrative Procedures Act. Thus, the denial of a visa by an American consul 
should, upon application of an American citizen concerned with the matter, be 
subject to review by a hoard of appeals, and thereafter subject to judicial review. 

4. Deportation should be a matter of judicial rather than administrative juris- 
diction. The McCarran Act departs from basic constitutional requirements of 
fair play in entrusting unlimited authority to the Attorney General. 

The McCarran Act by its stringent, alien, and arbitrary provisions regarding 
deportation creates a second-class citizenship. "The concept of second-class 
citizenship collides with the principle of equality before the law and should be 
rejected. Citizenship, whether acquired by naturalization or birth, should be 
irrevocable. The sole exception that can be tolerated by a free peo])le is revoca- 
tion of citizenship acquired through deliberate fraud — not the indefinite conceal- 
ment of what may subsequently be deemed material. The required evidence 
must be of such probative force as to leave no doubt on the ultimate issue, and 
the procedure must be designed to assure to the naturalized citizens the full 
measure of protection in contesting with so powerful an adversary as his: 

We hope that the problem of immigration and naturalization be reexamined 
in the light of the achievements and the .contriltutions of our foreign-born 
citizens in war and in peace ; that the concept of "national origin" as a quota 
basis be discarded as an antiracial and Fascist ideology. As one student of 
the problem wisely observed, "The sheep may not be separated efliciently from' 
the goats on the basis of geography." 

The CHAiRMAisr. Is Mrs. Adele Lagodzinski here ? 


Mrs. Lagodzinski. I am Mrs. Adele Lagodzinski, president of the 
Polish Women's Alliance of America and secretary of the Polish- 
American War Relief, 1809 jSTorth Ashland Avenue,' Chicago. 

I would like to speak about a few points. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to liear you. 


Mrs. Lagodzinski. First, to amend the McCarran bill as discrimina- 
tory and undemocratic and reducing thousands of American citizens 
to second-class citizens; second, to raise the quota to allow thousands 
of those who still remain in Germany through no fault of their own 
to be able to come to the United States, especially those who have 
relatives and were able to come on the quota. 

As we understand, the Polish quota has been reduced, and there are 
many here who are able to support the relatives that were left behind 
in Germany and in Austria. 

I have just returned from making a tour of the DP camps in Ger- 
many and some of the conditions I found there were deplorable and 
beyond human dignity, the living conditions. I appeal now to the 
President's special Commission to correct some of these, probably by 
amending a bill to allow some of these who are now under the category 
of tubercular and who have families in the United States, to allow 
them to bring in these people and take care of them. There are thou- 
sands of children left behind in Germany and living under the German 
economy, citizens of Poland who are practically without a country 
now. We must make provisions to have them either come into the 
United States or make provisions to have them settle elsewhere, 
because, gentlemen, it seems so unfair. We left 6(\000 — and I am 
talking for the Polish group — left behind who for no reason of their 
own were unable to come to the United States, didn't have assurances 
of housing or work assurances. They can't go back to their country. 

Under the German economy the adult gets on the average of $10 
a month and the children $2.50 per month. Children under 1 year of 
age I don't have to tell you that there are no provisions for, and it 
just doesn't seem fair that these people should be forgotten. 

We talked about the expellees yesterday; what provisions have we 
made in the bill for expellees? I can't understand why that would 
be a separate category. What would we call these people? They have 
been taken out of tlieir homes 10 years ago, with the existing law and 
existing conditions in their own countries they can't return there. We 
have abandoned them and I really think that I would say pretty 
bluntly that tlieir blood is on our hands. It is a hopeless case. They 
have no future and I think we as American citizens should at least 
take care of the children and the women. We would incorporate and 
have that incorporated either in special legislation or by amending 
the McCarran bill ; amending the category of the naturalized citizen, 
amending the bill to allow those who are sick and not capable of 
taking care of themselves in the camps, but who would have relatives 
in the United States and who can take care of them here, and allowing 
the women and children to come into the United States on a special 

The Chairman. Are you talking about Poles, for instance, who are 
in Western Germany? 

Mrs. Lagodzinski. Yes; in Western Germany. 

The Chaikman. And where were they originally ? 

Mrs. Lagodzinski. In Poland. They were taken forcibly out of 
their country and brought into Germany and put at hard labor ; I am 
also talking about hard-core cases. 

On the other hand today we talk about expansion in Germany. To 
tell you the truth I was captivated at the beauty of that country. There 
are millions and millions of beautiful fields where these expellees can 


be resettled there in their own country and speak their own hmguage; 
bnt what about the Czechs and Yuooslavs and Poles who don't speak 
the German languaoe ? I have been in camps where they had German 
teachers because Poles didn't provide Polisli teachers. I can't imagine 
of any conditions existing as they are now in these German camps and 

I feel tliat they are our responsibility, because we have placed them in 
the position they are in now. Yet we have many of these DP's wlio 
came to the United States who can provide for relatives in Germany 
and can bring them here. I would say they could bring in 15 or 20,000 
of people. There are 60,000 in France, and 65.000 people which are 
Poles in Germany, for which I tliink we could make a place in the 
United States. But we must make some provisions for it. I talked 
to Mr. Hugh Gibson when I was in Geneva. He was leaving on a 
trip to South America to try to find places for hard core. They will 
tell the same story : Why doesn't the United States make the first move ? 

Commissioner O'Grady, We have taken quite a few, have we not? 

Mrs. Lagodzinski. We have, but we are not doing enough ; are we 
going to abandon women and children? We talk about brotherly 
love. They were taken forcibly out of homes and brought to Germany 
and put in hard labor. They have seen families of their common 
enemy assisted with our United States money and Marshall plan and 
ECA, and I have seen the beautiful buildings and I have seen the 
housing for expellees, but nothing to do for these displaced persons 
living beyond human dignity. We talk about portable GI homes. 
They are palaces to some I have seen. 

I only want to talk for a few minutes. Let's reflect, and realize- 
that we have a duty to these people. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Charles Kozmarek, you are next on the schedule. 


]\Ir. RozMAKEK. My name is Charles Rozmarek, I am the president 
of the Alliance Printers & Publishers, Inc., which publishes the Polish 
Daily Scholar, the largest Polish daily in the United States, and also- 
publishes Semimonthly Scholar, which lias the largest fraternal circu- 
lation among the Poles, namely, about 200,000 every 2 weeks. 

I am the president of the Polish National Aliens with a membership 
of 380,000 in 32 States ; I am also the president of the Polish-American 
Congress and I am authorized to speak in behalf of 6-million Ameri- 
cans of Polish descent in this country. 

I have a i)repared statement I would like to read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Rozmarek. The Polish-American Congress, uniting 6 million 
Americans of Polish descent, has been keenly interested in immigration 
matters since its founding in 1941. AVe anticipated that World War 

II which started with the Nazi invasion of Poland and with the con- 
nivan.ce of Conununist Russia, would bring on a vast refugee problem 
affecting not only the Poles, but other peoples who were victims of 

Our organization was among the first to look into problems of Polish 
displaced persons in Germany. In 1946, I as president of the Polish 
American Congress, led a delegation on a tour of DP camps in Ger- 


many. Our findings there Avero reported to the White House and to. 
the State Department, and we made recommeiuhitions to benefit the 
displaced ])ers()ns, particularly the Poles. At this point I wish to add 
that Mr. James Byrnes, Avho at that time was the Chairman of the 
American ])eace delegation to the Luxembourg Pahice in Paris, specifi- 
cally requested me to make a very careful personal check for him,, 
which 1 had done and submitted to him. The Polish-American Con- 
gress persistently advocated that America admit a fair share of dis- 
placed j^ersons. ' The ITnited States Displaced Persons Act of 1948 
was welcomed heartily by us. Our second national convention at 
Phila(lel[)hia, May oO, 81, and June 1, 1948, authorized the organizing 
of the American Committee for Resettlement of Polish Displaced 
Persons. We further sought an amendment to the United States 
Displaced Persons Act, to permit entry into America of 18,000 ex- 
Polish soldiers from England. And this became an amendment to- 
the DP Act. 

Oiir American Committee for Resettlement of Polish DP's did a 
very creditable job in hel})ing some thousands of Polish DP's to re- 
settle in the United States. And we are keeping this committee 
together under the chairmanship of Judge Blair F. Gunther, of 
Pittsburgh, ready to continue its humanitarian work if and when 
America again opens her gates to the hundreds of thousands of re- 
maining DP's and the more recent escapees from Conmuuiist enslaved 
countries behind the iron curtain. 

During the time the displaced persons came to this country, I had 
an ap})ortunity to house about 478 persons in my own home. Many 
of these had assurances which had been filed — naturally they had been 
signed by the sponsors who had executed these assurances. They had 
sold their homes or had discontinued their business, and all those per- 
sons who had arrived in Chicago without quarters, they went through 
my home. In fact, I have got about nine of them now, at the present 
time. In my judgment those people will be very good citizens. Many 
of the boys have joined the United States forces; some of the boys 
whom we had brought over have not only fought in Korea and are 
fighting in Korea, but have made the supreme sacrifice. 

The Polish- American Congress is opposed to the McCarran immi- 
gration bill. It voiced its disapproval of this unfair immigration bill 
by a special resolution, adopted by nearly 1,000 delegates at its third 
national convention at Atlantic City on May 31, 1952. 

We pointed out that both the existing and proposed immigration 
laws were too discriminatory to certain nationality groups, particu- 
larly to those from central and east European countries. We advo- 
cated that unused quotas for a given year be distributed to other na- 
i ionals where the need happened to be the greatest. We asserted right 
along that our nation should not estrange the peoples whom we want 
on our side in the fight against conmuinism. 

In my opinion, there is as flagrant a discrimination against certain 
nationality groups in the newly enacted innnigration laws, as was 
in the old law. Quotas were and are unfair for many peoples, and 
particularly in reference to the Poles, who fought so valiantly on 
our side in World AVar II. In 1921 the Congress of the United States 
passed a law restricting the total number of new immigi-ants to 3 
]>ercent annually of the number of the foreign born residing in Amer- 


ica as of 1910. In 1924 the law was further amended to admit only 
2 percent of those who were foreign bom based upon the census of 
1890. This immigration law has been unfair to the Polish people, 
for the past 30 years. 

In view of the fact that Poland had been dismembered by Eussia, 
Germany, and Austria, the Polish immigrants in many instances in 
1890 were not listed as Poles, but have been officially registered as 
Germans, Austrians, and Kussians, contrary to their will. Moreover, 
the selection of the census of 1890 as the basis for alien immigration 
quotas was unfair to the Poles. The greatest Polish immigration to 
the United States took place from 1900 to 1913. 

Now, gentlemen, in view of the fact that the Polish quota under 
the old law was little over 6,000, that meant that back in 1890 when 
that number of Poles was taken as the basis for the quota, it showed 
that there were only at that time about 300,000 Poles in the United 
States. That was iiot true. There were a great many more Poles 
than that, but just as I have enumerated in the previous paragraph, 
they had been listed under different designations of nationalities. 

Now when you come to consider that these peoples, say, after the 
immioration had ceased to flow from Europe because of the First 
World War, the number of Poles in this country was considerable, 
and that was prior to the enactment of this legislation of 1921 as 
amended in 1924. That is my main point. I don't believe that we 
should have it on the statute* books if we want it to be fair to the 
groups who have made this country the most powerful Nation on 
the face of the earth, that we should not discriminate against them. 
Those people are mighty good citizens. Around 88 percent of the 
Poles in the country are iDroperty owners. They are good, substantial 

Further, the restriction on eligibility to enter the United States 
should be tempered, and the process of deportation should be less 
severe, especially in cases affecting aliens with proven good moral 
character while living in our country, even though they had entered 
as illegal immigrants. 

How wrong can we be in our discrimination against certain nation- 
ality gi'oups is being proved at this very moment in Korea, where 
DP's from the very countries we label inferior, are dying under the 
Stars and Stripes alongside native American boys. 

It is our hope that the President's Connnission on Immigration and 
Naturalization will succeed in presenting recommendations that will 
result in remedying all the inequities of our immigration laws so 
that the true meaning of the welcome inscription on the Statue of 
Liberty in New York Harbor be recognized again by the downtrodden 
and the weary peoples of the world. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Roz:marek. My recommendation to you gentlemen, is this: 
let us be fair. Let us treat fairly, on a numerical basis, on the numer- 
ical statistics on the people in this Nation. Let us pass a law which 
will be based upon the actual numbers, not on some fictitious number 
that had been drawn without any basis of law or reason, in my 

Mr. EosENFiELD. How can you determine the number of people of 
Polish extraction, or any other group, who were in the United States 
as of a ffiven time? 


I^Ir. RozMAREK, Well, practically every group in this country knows 
more or less how many peoples of that group are located in this comi- 
try. How do we determine that? AVe determine that by the mem- 
bership in our churches. Not all Poles attend Polish churches. Some 
of them attend probably a church of their faith which is nearest to 
their home, but through our fraternal organizations, through our 
churches, and through our statistics in our fraternal organizations 
we have a fairly good idea of what the numbers are in this country. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. In other w^ords, would you suggest that the Gov- 
ernment look to the nationality groups themselves to determine this 
factor ? 

Mr. RozMAREK. "Well, I would suggest that because, after all, they 
deal in these matters practically every day. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman, Is Mr. Armando F. Conto here ? 


Mr. CoNTO. I am Armando F. Conto, representing Freez-King, 
6237 North Oak Park Avenue, Chicago. I am the general manager of 
that corporation. 

I represent in a way a group of manufacturers, small and medium, 
in the executive and manufacturing end of the business on the North 
Side of Chicago. Since 1950, after Korea, we started to have meet- 
ings once a month in order to see if we could help each other in the 
allocations of materials. Now the problem has come up several times 
among ourselves that we steal skilled help from each other. 

Tlie Chairman. You steal them ? 

Mr. Conto. We steal them. 

There are at times some bitter discussions actually. Well, what 
we do — to give you an example : In my organization, I have been adver- 
tising Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, in the Chicago Tribune, big 
signs, small signs, telling them something else — something, you know, 
to try to get them there — skilled, expert machinists, tool makers. Well, 
they don't come. The element that comes there is — well, I tell you, 
the people that apply are the people that are there on Monday, and 
then Tuesday are not at work, they go back to the old place, and they 
get kicked out. That is what we get most of the time. 

The Chairman. Do you get the people that are discharged from 
other businesses? 

Mr. CoxTO. I come to that, what we get. There is an unstable 
element that will not do good anywhere. We get some other help. 
There is one, as I have now, from an establishment that is on strike — 
right now the International Harvester Co. is on strike. Oh, 3^es, we 
got some. How long will they stay with us? I don't know. 

The Chairman. Wliat are you suggesting? 

Mr. CoNTO. What w^e should do. We have been talking here about 
the quota system and one thing and another, and that's all fine and 
dandy. I?ut we have to remember, gentlemen, from lO.'lO to 1939 we 
trained very few skilled workers — by skilled workers I mean tool 
makers, die makers, machinists. We did not train them because we 
did not have enough work for people. 

25356— &2 .5.1 


The Chairman. Wliat are you proposing to us ? 

Mr. CoNTO. I will tell you what I recommend : Outside of the quota 
from any nationality, to allow the manufacturer who says: "I have 
advertised for 10 Sundays in the Chicago Tribune that I need some 
skilled help, I have to produce" — let us import him, we guarantee it 
for the 5 years it takes to become an American citizen. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. How would you select them ? 

Mr. CoNTO. The American consul can screen them. 

The Chairman. How many manufacturers do you speak for? 

Mr. CoNTO. We are 95. Every month we meet, and have repre- 
sented 35 to 50, according to the weather. We have dinner once a 
month together — 95 is really the total amount. 

The Chairman. And they employ approximately how many pex)ple ? 

Mr. CoNTO. Well, it varies all the way from, I think 25 is the small- 
est, and the largest would be 300 or 350, something like that. 

Connnissioner Finucane. Have you tried a long-range training 


Mr. CoNTo. Yes. I am glad that you asked me that question, I 
will tell you: I am afraid you don't have the time, but I would like 
to do it. It will take me only a minute. Now you know a boy has 
to be 18 years old beioie he can work with machines — there is a law 
about that. Now a long-range training program means they have 
to start learning the trade, they have to start making a small amount 
of money per hour. A boy 18 years old would like his own auto- 
mobile. No. 1. No. 2, he already has a girl friend, and lie has to go 
out on vSaturday. They want to work in a garage for twice as much. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Conto. 

Now, we are going to put into the record at this point a statement 
from Helen B. Jerry, attorney. Immigrants' Protective League, 537 
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, 111. She sent this statement instead 
of appearing in person. 

(The statement follows :) 

Statement Submitted by Helen B. Jerry, Attorney, Immigrants' Protective 


I find many of the provisions of the McCarran Act that are advantageous, 
therefore, I will only talk about the sections of the act that I think need re- 
vising and they are as follows : 

Section 203 (a), allon^ation of visas to quota immigrants: When we give 30 
percent of the quota to parents of American citizens, we ai'e depriving the 
American citizen of the right to have his parents with him. As the law stands 
now the waiting list in the preference quota requires that a parent wait for a 
period of from 5 to 29 years. A parent cannot come from Austi'alia, Greece, 
Italy, Lebanon, Philippines, Portugal, Rumania, Turkey, until he has waited 
that length of time. Last October the parent of an American citizen arrived 
from Turkey after waiting 29 years to get here. This provision should be 
amended to permit an American citizen to bring his adopted child or children, 
his dependent brothers and sisters who are single, his sons and daughters over 
21 who are single and his father-in-law and mother-in-law nonquota. If we 
take these close relatives out of the preference quota and out of the quota 
waiting list, we will have no immigration problem. 

A great deal has been said to this committee about what should be done with 
national origins provisions. If we are honest and believe that all men are 
created equal, we should have no trouble in solving this problem. Our laws 
as they stand now are the best weapons that the Communists have in showing 
the racial prejudices, inequalities, and injustices that the American people are 
inflicting on people of different shade of skin. Take out the close relatives 
of the American citizen who are now registered in the quota and divide 154,000 


qvTOta members equally among all countries and there will be no immigration 

Section 249 (2) should be deleted froim the law. The act provides that a 
person may apply for citizenship if he can prove that he was in the United 
States prior to July 1, 1924, and has remained here continuously since that 
date to the present time. This is impossible for a person who had been in 
the United States befoi-e World AVar 1, who being a single migratory worker 
cannot establish proof of residence by work letters or other evidence that he 
was in this country on July 1, 1924, and lived here continuously to the present 
time. Therefore, if section 249 should be amended by deleting the provision 
in (2), cases of this sort will be easily adjusted. 

Section 245 (a), adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of a person 
admitted for permanent residence : This section provides that the status of an 
alien who was lawfully admitted into the United States as a bona fide nonimmi- 
grant and who is continuing to maintain that status may be adjusted by the 
Attorney General in his discretion. We have in our office at least two to three 
hundred aliens who w-ere admitted into the United States legally as students or 
visitors and after staying here for a while married American citizens and have 
families. When they went to get an extension of their student or visitor's visas 
from Immigration and Naturalization Service and disclosed that they are now 
married to American citizens, their student or visitor's visas were canceled and 
deportation proceedings were started against them. Therefore, under this act, 
they cannot adjust their immigration status because they are no longer considered 
as continuing to maintain the lawful status under which they were admitted. 
You will say that under section 101 (a). No. 27 (A), a nonquota immigrant is 
* * * spouse of a citizen of the United States and therefore the alien who 
could not adjust his status under section 245 as mentioned above being nonquota 
should be able to adjust his status by virtue of that fact and can readily obtain 
a visa at an American consulate. Prior to the passage of the McCarran Act, the 
Immigration Service granted an alien in this country in the category of husband 
or wife of American citizen the privilege of preexamination. This privilege has 
now been withdrawn, so that although the law gives the spouse of the American 
citizen nonquota status, it is useless, since he cannot get a visa unless he travels 
to his native country. We have in our ofiice a Greek husband who is an account- 
ant. He came to the United States as a visitor and married an American citizen 
and has a child. The family are living with an income of $245 a month. We 
tried to get permission for him to enter Canada to get a visa and were told that 
it would be impossible. We tried Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, but no country would 
give him a visa. He is, therefore, compelled to go back to Greece, but before he 
goes he must borrow about $2,000 to pay his transportation and to leave suffi- 
cient funds with his wife and child to cover their expenses while he will be away 
from work for at least a period of 3 to 6 months. If section 245 is amended by 
deleting the underscored clause, "who is continuing to maintain that status," 
then this husband would not be forced to leave the United States. Or if the 
McCarran Act is amended to include the privilege of preexamination, then this 
husband would have little difficulty to enter Windsor, Ontario, Canada, call at 
the American consulate there, and return the same day with a visa. It is an 
old maxim of the law that the law will not require a person to do a useless act. 

Section 24;^ (b) : "If any alien has been given a reasonable opportunity to be 
present at a proceeding under this section, and without reasonable cause fails 
or refuses to attend or remain in attendance at such proceeding, the special 
inquiry officer may proceed to a determination in like manner as if the alien 
were present." This provision should be deleted. Section 242 (b) (2) further 
provides that "the alien shall have the privilege of being represented (at no 
expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such 
proceeding, as he shall choose." The part in parentheses should be deleted and 
amended to read that if the alien is indigent or if he is a per.son in the low-bracket 
salary group or is institutionalized the attorney should be furnished by the Gov- 
ernment at Government's expense. 

Section 281 should be amended. Under section 245, if we go back to the his- 
tory of the registry procedures, we will find that it was established for the 
purpose of covering up the errors, inefficiencies, and failure of duty on the part 
of Government officials in their work. Under the naturalization law, a person 
cannot become a citizen unless he can prove that he is in this country legally, 
and to do .so he has to have a certificate of arrival. It is the duty of the immi- 
gration officers at the port of entry to keep a record of each alien who arrives 
in this country. Prior to July 1, 1924, it is a well-known fact that records were 


kept very inefficiently. It is known that at some ports of entry records were 
■willingfully or accidentally destroyed, and because the Government failed to keep 
the records the burden of proof is on the alien to prove that he is in this country 
iegally, and after he does this he still must pay $25 to the Government for 
creating a record. When the Registry Act was passed, Congress arrived at the 
fee of $18 for certificate of registry to cover the $8 head tax and $10 visa fee 
that an alien arriving after February 2, 1917, would have to pay, but many of 
these people arrived when the head tax was only $4. Some other people made 
a legal entry by paying 5 cents at the border when they enter through Canada 
or Mexico. To charge these aliens $2.5 for creation of a record when they were 
only supposed to pay 5 cents is more than exorbitant. Section 281 provides $25 
for appearance fee for an attorney. This seems to be a curious provision, espe- 
cially in view of the fact that the United States district court charges $2 and 
the United States cii'cuit court of appeals charges $5. 

These are the sections that I believe create undue hardship to aliens and 
citizens of the United States, and I respectfully ask that they be amended. 



The Chairman. We also put into the record at this point a statement 
from the Midwest Chinese American Civil Comicil of Chicago, 109 
North Dearborn Street, submitted by its representative, Gun Sing 
Wan, Instead of appearing in person he has submitted a written 

(The statement follows:) 

Midwest Chinese American Civic Council of Chicago, 109 N. Dearborn Street, 
Room 407, Chicago 2, III, 

1. Section 203. Allocation of immigrant visas within quotas : The present law 
assigns 50 percent of the Chinese quota of 105 to qualified immigrants of high 
education and training, 30 pei'cent to parents of citizens, and 20 percent to chil- 
dren and spouses of permanent residents. A bona fide applicant, having the 
qualifications of eventually becoming a useful citizen but unfortunately does 
not belong to the three categories, will be excluded. In all fairness, in cases 
where the annual quota is below 200, we would like to see at least a 10 to 20 
percent allocation of the quota to bona fide immigrants who are not within the 
meaning of section 203 (a), paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 

2. In determining the qualifications of Chinese applicants for admission into 
the United States under the present law, we would like to see some due con- 
sideration given to tlie following Chinese practices : 

(a) Due to the absence of marx'iage certificate or marriage license in China, 
an appropriate procedure may be formulated to determine marital status of 
Chinese applicants ; 

(b) Due to the absence of birth certificates and death certificates in China, 
an appropriate and reasonable procedure may be formulated to determine the 
status of persons claiming to be minor children of citizens or in determining 
death where the question becomes pertinent. The practice of using blood test 
to determine kinship in Chinese cases at present has given rise to some hard- 
ships among Chinese applicants. 

3. In administering the present law, we would like to see some consideration 
be given to the difference of names in a Chinese individual. This is due partly 
to the practice of some Chinese to put their surname first. Then in other cases 
while tlieir surname has already been put as the last name, it is reverted to again 
by those who know the Chinese custom of placing surname first but without 
knowing that the position has already been reverted. In other instances, names 
of the same individual differ on account of differences in pronunciation 
qnd spelling and of the Chinese practice of using family name, courtesy name, 
school name as the occasion requires. 

4. In admistering section 241, 242, the power of Attorne.v General should be 
defined more concretely in making searches and arrests, bearing in mind the 
constitutional rights of the individual concerned on the one hand and the effective 
administration of the law and the security of the United States on the other. 



The Chairman. We also have a statement from Ira H. Latimei', the 
executive director, Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, 5031 Dor- 
chester Avenue. This statement was forwarded in lieu of an oral 
statement by Mr. Latimer. The statement will be inserted into the 

(The statement follows :) 

Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, 

Chicago, III., October 8, 1952. 
Mr. Philip B. Perlman, 

Chairman, President's Committee on Immiyration Laws, 
United States Courthouse, Chicago, III. 

Dear Mr. Perlman : We respectfully suggest that the President propose to the 
Congress that the immigration law be changed as to section 23 of the Internal 
Security Act of 1950, called the McCarran Act. 

This objectiuuable law provides for the conviction of those aliens who are 
found by the Immigration Service of the Department of Justice to have become 
deportable and who are not able or do not deport themselves to be arrested and 
found guilty in a Federal court of the crime of failure to deport themselves and 
thereupon suffer sentence of 10 years in a Federal prison. 

We have recently assisted an alien to apply for a pardon from Gov. Adlai 
Stevenson, of Illinois, so as to avoid the harsh consequences of this McCarran Act 
provision — and tiie chairman of Stevenson's pardon board said that it was not 
the functions of the State board to temper the injustice, if such it be, of the 
Federal law. 

The case we assisted is an alien, George Horbachek, born in Moscow 50 years 
ago, who came to this country as an immigrant at the age of 13 with friends but 
no relatives. He served a 4-year sentence in Indiana for stealing his own car and 
a 13-year sentence in Illinois for a robbery he denies committing. For conviction 
of two felonies this alien i.s subject to deportation— but Kussia will not accept a 
Czarist citizen nor will any other country, so he becomes an undeportable deportee. 
It is just such a person who must spend 10 years in a Federal prison for being 
unable to deport himself to any country. We submit this is bad law, if not 

The United States Government is continuing the war in Korea over the issue 
of refusing to return prisoners of war who do not desire to return to North Korea 
or China. By analogy the same Government is in this and thousands of similar 
cases preparing to imprison aliens from iron-curtain countries who are unde- 
portables, for the felony of failure to deport themselves despite the fact that no 
country will accept them. 

Ira H. Latimer, 
Executive Director. 


The Chairman. Also, in lieu of appearing personally, Mr. Samuel 
A. Goldsmith, executive director of the Jewish Federation, and of the 
Jewish Welfare Fund of Chicago, has submitted a statement, which 
will be inserted into the record at this point. 

(The statement follows:) 

In order to relate itself to problems presented by immigrants and to the 
welfare and medical service needs of the Jewish population of Chicago and of 
the United States, as well as of other countries, the Jewish community of 
Chicago has ci-eated two central organizations for financing and planning pur- 
poses. One of them, 52 years old, is the Jewish Federation, which embraces the 
major local medical and welfare organizations. The other is the Jewish Wei- 


fare Fund, 17 years old, which deals primarily with the problems presented by 
dislocation of Jewish communities or individuals overseas. 

The establishment of Jewish central financing and planning organizations is 
part of a long tradition, going back well over 2.000 years. It has been inspired 
by the necessity imposed upon the Jewish community as a whole for dealing 
wdth needs jiresented by members of that community, and in dealing from time 
to time with dislocations and oppressions suffered by various Jewish com- 
munities which required assistance from other Jewish communities. 

Since 1942, and in order to deal with the results of the grave psychological as 
well as physical disabilities, indignities, and sufferings imposed upon the Jewish 
communities of Europe, the Jewish Welfare Fund of Chicago has raised and 
spent, through various operating organizations, the sum of $42,140,496. In the 
course of these operations, the funds of the Jewish Welfare Fund of Chicago, 
joined l>y funds supplied by many hundreds of Jewish communities in the 
United States and other free countries, assisted vitally in the migration of 
many hundreds of thousands of Jews from Europe, the Near East, the Far East, 
North Africa — to other countries in Europe and to countries where the door was 
open for immigration — dominantly, of course, Palestine and Israel, Canada, 
Australia, and Central and South American countries. 

To Chicago itself, since 1936, it has been estimated that some 32,000 Jewish 
immigrants have come. Some, in the first important wave of immigration, from 
1936 to 1942, came directly as a result of persecution suffered at the hands of 
the Nazi-dominated regimes. The second group came in 1943 to 1952, under the 
established inmiigration laws of the United States and under the special legisla- 
tion known as the displaced persons laws. 

The agencies of the Jewish Fedei'ation in Chicago comprise a children's 
bureau, a family service, hospitals and clinics, homes for the aged, a vocational 
service, a tuberculosis sanatorium, community centers, various loan funds, a 
convalescent home — in fact, an all-embracing welfare and medical service. These 
agencies are so organized as to emphasize the human needs rather than the 
institutions as such, and therefore there is a free flow of activity among them on 
behalf of individuals in need. 

The present annual gross budget of these agencies is in excess of $11,000,000 
and the deficit applied by the federation this past year was approximatly 
$4,300,000, of which $1,113,000 is supplied by the Chicago nonsectarian Com- 
munity Fund. This chain of organizations has, since 1936, been at the service 
of the immigrants (as it was for many years preceding 1936), in order to help 
those who did need help to secure such physical and psychological help as 
would accelerate materially the process of adjustment. 

The actual facts would seem to indicate that in spite of the abnormal disabil- 
ities suffered by way of deprivation of wealth and by way of exposure to physical 
hardship by the immigTants whom we have received since 1936, the vast majority 
of these people made their own adjustment without assistance from our agencies. 
The earlier immigration — that is, from 1936 to 1942 — naturally, was somewhat 
better off than the later immigration since 1943. Of those who came in the 
earlier group, some 2,300 families came to our family service for assistance 
and received assistance that amounted to $521,39.5. Among the group that 
came from 1943 to 1952, there were 4,000 families that received service and 
material help. The assistance granted them amounted to $2,502,315. The total 
therefore, spent on some 6,300 families was $3,023,710. The average time that 
they received assistance amounted to 3 months for the first group and 4 months 
for the second group. There are 201 families still receiving financial assistance. 
The rest have graduated into the comnumity, and we feel sanguine that the 201 
families will soon do so, except for a few hard-core cases that have developed 
since their immigration. Naturally, some of the people have become ill and 
some are aged persons who need care. 

Our vocational service, our hospitals, our homes for the aged have all joined 
hands in making this process of adjustment as rapid as possible. Our com- 
munity centers have dealt with an average of some 700 people in special study 
classes that supplement the English and Americanization classes of the public 
educational institutions. 

In the past, we had a special department that helped to distribute physicians 
and others into the smaller communities of Illinois and neighboring Iowa. Be- 
tween 300 and 400 physicians were resettled among this group. Loan funds 
have been made available to help set up people in business. 

A special group of children brought here originally under the United States 
Committee for European Children and latterly under the European-Jewish 


Children's Aid, which is associated with the United Service for New Americans, 
have come into our children's bureau. All told, since 1!>;?5, liUi> such single 
children — not part of any family — have come. They have been cared for at an 
e.xpenditure of $;?31,r)fr). On September 1, 1952, there were still 46 refugee 
children under care, of whom IS needed no financial assistance, and even of the 
28 who were receiving financial assistance, very few required to be fully main- 
tained by the Jewish Cliildren's Bureau. Many of the children have gone on to 
college. Many of them have already graduated from college and are working 
at their chosen professions. Many of them have gone into industry and busi- 
ness as workers. Obviously, on the basis of the facts, they have made a ready 
ad.iustnient to American life. 

All of this work has lieen approved by the general Community Fund of Chicago, 
though, except for a slight degree of financial aid one year, it has been necessary 
for the Federation to provide the necessary additional funds. 

Our Jewish community and its central organizations, as well as its individual 
institutions, have thus viewed the entire problem of dealing with the dislocation 
■of the Jewish people and, indeed, of other people, as a problem to which, as 
Americans as well as Jews, we have in a practical fashion responded, both 
•overseas and here at home in our own city. The facts are that a majority of 
the immigrants of whom we have had knowledge have, through friends and 
relatives, made their own and very rapid adjustment ; that, as a private organi- 
zation, we have stood ready for 52 years to help those who needed help ; that 
since 1936, we have on this special problem spent approximately $3,355,275 on 
those children and families that have come to us ; that vocationally, and from 
the standpoint of housing, and from the standpoint of adjustment to American 
customs and the life of our city, a very rapid adjustment has been made by prac- 
tically all of these people : that our private Jewish medical institutions and 
agencies have stood ready and do stand ready to serve such people in their time 
of need, as we serve other members of the Jewish community and, in our medical 
organizations, other members of the general community. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. George T. Foster here ? 


Mr. Foster. I am George T. Foster, and I am here as a representa- 
tive of Constitutional iVmericans, 6286 North Louise Avenue, Chicago. 

The membership of the organization is roughly about 5,000 or 6,000, 
some in Chicago, some outside of Chicago in the environs. It is also 
representative of the thought of a lot of groups affiliated by kinship 
in spirit and thought. 

Now, I am going to make this very brief, Mr. Chairman. To begin 
with, I am very much in favor of the McCarran-Walter Act. There 
is only one complaint that I have to make about it : I feel that it is 
far too liberal. I think it is time we call a halt to this business of 
dumping people in here, and that we would better spend om- time try- 
ing to Americanize some of those people that are not fully assimilated. 
Prior to this act there was the Stratton bill, as I recall. Bill Stratton 
was then Congi-essman down in Washington, and he gave his name 
to that Displaced Persons Act, I believe it was— the 400,000 Displaced 
Persons Act. 

Now, at that particular time there was a lot of feeling for these 
refugees, so-called, but, particularly, what I think was a small seg- 
ment of these refugees. There was a great deal of propaganda that 
had gone on— much of it falls to the effect that 6,000,000 Jews had 
been killed by Hitler. That, of course, if it were true, would be 
reprehensible'; but, obviously, it was not true. However, it touched 
the hearts of the people, and made them receptive to this act that was 
brought in by Mr. Stratton. I recall that distinctU- at the time. Prior 


to that time Mr. Stratton was not in the favor of this particular 
minority. He had been denounced by this minority as being an isola- 
tionist. Since he brought in that particular bill he has been a fair- 
haired boy of this particular group, and today we find him running 
for Governor of the great State of Illinois, with a good chance of 
being elected. 

Now, there was no provision in that Stratton bill to take care of the 
some 12 or 15 million refugees that were ethnic Germans, these poor ' 
people that had been driven before the forces of this Communist 
cause. Many of them were driven into Dresden. Dresden, as I recall, 
at that time was an undefended city. While they were pouring into 
Dresden, the railways filled, the people of the streets walking that 
city, it was a city of their own kind, their own nation, there was a 
devastating air raid, a bombing raid took place ; in fact, there was a 
series of three within a period of 10 hours, and I understand there 
were 100,000 people killed during those raids. The total was consid- 
ered even greater than that of the dropping of the atomic bomb on 

Now, many of those victims were these ethnic Germans who had 
been fleeing before the Communists. We made all those things pos- 
sible, and, still, we did not make provision for these ethnic Germans. 

I recall having made a trip down to Washington at one time, and I 
talked to Senator Paul Douglas, and he proceeded to tell me that the 
IRO, the International Refugee Organization, refused to process these 
ethnic Germans, and there would have to be some other provision 
made. I consider that a very sad state of affairs, because I figured 
that all should be treated equally just. 

I go back further to a period back before 1943. We had been in- 
clined to classify according to race, the racial antecedents. In 1943, 
Mr. Earl Harrison, who was the Commissioner of Immigration, had 
that ruling eliminated. Prior to that time, if a man was a Hebrew or 
a Jew he was brought in under the classification of a Hebrew. Mr. 
Harrison had that eliminated, and since that time in 1913 there has 
been no record whatsoever kept of the number of Jewish immigrants 
coming into this country. 

It has been stated at some time or another by Senator McCarran, 
as I recall — it was considered that there were possibly 5,000,000 of 
these refugees that came into this country illegally. I recall also 
having heard a statement by Tom Clark, who at that time was Attor- 
ney General, to the effect that there were 1,000 illegal entries into this 

Nov7, as far as immigration is concerned in a general sense, I feel 
it is time to eliminate it entirely for a period that we take inventory ; 
we proceed to Americanize these unassimilated people, and then after 
much sober thought — that could go on over a period of a number of 
years — and after much sober thought given to the subject that we go 
to work and set up a new immigration act. 

In the meantime, I would say that the McCarran-Walter bill is 
eminently fair and has been very considerate of all elements con- 
cerned. I have taken particular note of the fact that the objectors to 
the McCarran-Walter Act in large measure have been the so-called 
liberals; among them, Senator Lehman, of New York; Senator 
Humphrey, of Minnesota; and then there was Frances Bolton, of 
Ohio. These people have been yapping at the immigration forces, and 


they have been yappinof at tlie State Department, because of some 
of the provisions of the McCarran- Walter Act that have ah-eacly been 

One particuLar provision involved the designation of the race of an 
individual when they made application for a visa, and these so-called 
liberals felt that that was very, very unjust, and under these circum- 
stances if a man was a Jew, and he put down there that he was of 
the Jewish race, that it would discriminate against him, and it w^ould 
provoke and be a potential for anti-Semitism. However, I do not 
agree with their viewpoint, because by the same token if a man 
were a German that same discrimination could be used against him, or 
if he were an Arab, or if he were a Swede, or an Irishman, or a Greek, 
or an Italian, or one of any other nationality. Certainly, there is 
nothing inappropriate about designating the race of an individual. 

Now^, in conclusion, gentlemen, I feel that it is time, as I say — I 
repeat myself — I feel that it is time to take inventory and in the best 
interests of this country that we appraise the circumstances that exist 
here before we dump any more of these people into our country. 

In the past, there have been a lot of refugees loaded in here. Pro- 
visions seem to have been made for them; they got jobs, they found a 
place to live, when our returning soldiers couldn't find a place to live. 
I have seen instances where our returning soldiers couldn't get an 
apartment for love nor money, and these refugees could get an apart- 

Now, don't forget, I have great feeling for a lot of these people that 
have been dispossessed. I feel that many of them have been dealt with 
very unjustly, and through forces beyond the control of themselves 
they have been pushed about and made wanderers over the world. 
But, however, I don't believe that thought should be employed with 
one particular group. I think we should embrace the whole. And, as 
I say, when it comes to making any of these quotas, considerations 
should be taken of all of these refugees, so-called, and, on the other 
hand, in the meantime I would say that we should not have any im- 
migration whatsoever for the time being, and that we should set 
about to assimilate these people that have come into our midst, these 
recent arrivals. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I request that the Chicago 
record remain open at this point for the insertion of statements sub- 
mitted by persons unable to appear as individuals or as representatives 
of organizations, or who could not be scheduled due to insufficient 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

This concludes the hearings in Chicago. The Commission will be 
adjonrned until we reconvene in St. Paul, Minn., at 9 : 30 a. m., October 
10, 1952. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 07 p. m., the Commission was adjourned to re- 
convene at 9:30 a. m., October 10, 1952, at St. Paul, Minn.) 

(Those submitted statements follow :) 



The Chkistian Advocate, 
Chicago, III., Septemlyer 26, 1952. 
Mr. Harky N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, Commission on Immigration and Naturalizatiton, 
Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Rosenfield: I am sorry that I shall not be in Chicago on October 
8 and 9 and therefore shall be unable to attend the hearing on immigration and 
naturalization. I am enclosing, however, a statement which I should be glad 
to have made a part of the record if it is in accordance with your plans. 
Very truly yours, 

T. Otto Naix, Editor. 


The churchman, given to idealistic thinking and humanitarian activities, can 
list many reasons why refugees from Nazi, Fascist, and Communist tyranny 
should be admitted to the United States. These newcomers come because they 
want to regain the freedoms they have lost ; they seek to reestablish their lives 
under conditions of ijeace and promise. And here they exchange hopelessness 
for hopefulness, homelessness for the blessed state of being at home. Helping 
them and welcoming them is one of the prime opportunities of Christian citizens. 

But there are sterner and probably more selfish reasons why we believe that 
the United States ought to adopt not only a policy of justice and mercy but one 
of cooperation in a program of mutual assistance through immigration. Our 
own political and economic security is dependent on the well-being of the whole 
world. Enlightened self-interest demands tliat we have a consistent and for- 
ward-looking policy of cooperation with other nations in meeting the needs of 
d-splaced persons, refugees, and surplus populations. 

Therefore, any action by Congi'ess that would hinder or diminish the work 
of international agencies, or United States participation in them, should be 
opposed. On the other hand, the adoption of immigration and naturalization 
laws that take into account existing conditions in a world that is overpopulated 
in some parts and underpopulated in others is destined to benefit us economically 
as well as adding to our moral stature in the eyes of other nations. We have 
had enough of temporary, emergency legislation. We need a consistent, care- 
fully wrought policy that takes account of our best interests in the long years 

I would favor making the quota system more flexible so that those quotas not 
used or little used could be pooled with others, making it possible for families to 
be reunited, for immigrants to come witli the skills we need, for asylum to be 
offered to more victims of totalitarian regimes. 

Furthermore, it seems to me incumbent on Congress to abolish, within the 
quota system, not some but all discriminatory provisions based on color, race, 
or sex. 

Congress should establish a plan and program for hearings and appeals con- 
cerning the issuance of visas and deportation proceedings. Obviously, precau- 
tionary measures are necessary. We must keep out of our country those who 
would destroy its principles and undermine its institutions. But there is no 
excuse for compromise with the un-American methods of suspicion and distrust 
and injustice. 

The proposals for a representative commission of outstanding Americans to 
study and survey the basic assumptions of our immigration policy, the quota 



system, and the effect of present immigration and nationality laws seems to me 
sound and promising, especially wlu-n the commission is bipartisan and con- 
stituted of members from private as well as public life. 


Grace Lutheran Church, 
Rirer Forest, IIL, September 26, 1952. 
President's Commission on Immigration and Nati'ralization, 
Executive Office, Washington, D. C. 

(Attention: Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, executive director.) 
JIy Dear Mk. Rosenfield: This is to thank you and the members of your 
committee for your gracious invitation to appear before you at your Chicago 
hearings on either the 8th or 9th of October. 

While I am not familiar with all of the technical problems involved in the 
matters pertaining to immigration and therefore would not be likely to present 
new angles which would be helpful to your committee, I do want to lend my 
support to the very worthy humanitarian cause of providing a new home and 
new hope for some of the poor people who have lost their homes and become 
displaced persons. 

It seems to me that, from an economic, a political, and most particularly a 
moral and spiritual point of view, it is imperative that America should share 
its great treasures in all three areas with those who are quite completely desti- 
tute, and that we should not permit mere greed and selfishness to rob our country 
of a great opportunity for well-doing, which it now has. As one who believes in 
the overruling power of God, I cannot but feel that we would be inviting divine 
blessing for America for the days of our children and children's children if we 
were now to open our doors to the homeless to the largest possible degree con- 
sistent with the welfare of those now constituting our citizenry. 
Wishing you and your committee well, I am, 
Respectfully yours, 

O. A. Geiseman. 


The Cooperative League of the United States of America, 

Chicago, III., October 1, 1952. 
Mr. Harri' N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, President's Commission on Immigvntion and 'Naturali- 
zation. Washington. D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : This is in answer to your letter of September 27 and 
is necessarily an expression of the writer's opinions rather than those of this 
organization since I have not had an opportunity to clear the matter with my 
board of directors, and will not have until after your hearings have taken place. 
I shall only, therefore, state some" very general views about our immigration 
program. I feel, in general, that it is necessary that there be some reasonable 
limitations on immigration into this country. I believe, however, that the 
present law is much too severe and much too restrictive with respect to immi- 
gration from the very parts of the world which have the greatest need to send 
a reasonable number of new citizens to this country. 

Pai'ticularly do I feel that there should be some consideration given to the 
plight of people who have escaped from behind the iron curtain and thus risked 
their lives to try to get out from under Communist domination and into the free 
world. I feel that our whole program of trying to build the strength of the 
forces of freedom around the world depends upon a sensible, reasonable immi- 
gration program along the lines I have generally indicated. 
Sincerely yours, 

Jerry Voorhis, Executive Director. 



East Chicago, Ind., October 7, 1952. 
Hon. Harry N. Rosenfield and Philip B. Perlman, 

Executive Directors, President's Commission on Immigration and Natural- 
ization, Chicago, III. 

T)ear Messrs. Rosenfield and Perlman : No doubt you have been advised 
that I repre.seut the American Hungarian Federation, witla offices in Wasliing- 
ton, D. C, and that I am also representing the Americans of Hungarian descent 
in submitting to you on behalf of said federation and the Americans of Hun- 
garian descent our observation, ob.iections, and suggestions with respect to the 
immigration policy, lav7, and procedure to be enacted for consideration by the 
Congress with respect to appealing or amending the McCarran-Walter immi- 
gration law. 

May I respectfully request the perusal of the attached and enclosed corre- 
spondence and observations in the matter of the application of one George 
Ko.stka to be admitted to the United States as a displaced person, concerning 
which I have had correspondence with our Congressman, Mr. Ray Madden, and he 
with Mr. H. J. L'Heureux, Chief, Visa Division, file No. VD 150, Kostka, George, 
dated August 26, 1952. The copy of the letter to Congressman Madden speaks 
for itself, which I am attaching as an exhibit. 

May I respectfully offer the following with reference to the admission of 
immigrants into this country: 

1. The same should be stri<^tly scrutinized as to connection with either mem- 
bership in the Communist Party with respect to membership and/or relationship 
with Communists. 

2. The admission of immigrants into this country in the light of our present 
and prospective economic and social conditions. 

3. The change of policy wherein the consul should not have the final decision 
as to the admission or re.1ection of the applicants for admission. 

4. The applicants of Hungarian descent should be classed and have the same 
privilege of the applicants of any other nationality, including the nationals of 
Great Britain and of w^estern European countries for each of the following 
i-easons to wit : See the attached ob.iections, observations, and suggestions. 

Thanking you to give this your kind consideration and requesting your indul- 
gence to personally file this because of my inability to be present, as I have a 
jury trial in which I am engaged at Valparaiso, Ind., which makes it impossible, 
much to my regret, to have the pleasure of meeting you. 
Very sincerely yours, 

William A. Fuzy, Attomeij. 

East Chicago, Ind., Septem'ber 5, 1952. 
In re VD 150 Kostka, George. 
Hon. Rat J. Madden, 

Member of Congress, 

Federal Building, Hammond, Ind. 
My Dbur Con(tressman Madden (Ray) : It goes without saying that I was 
keenly disappointed at the contents of your August 29 letter which contained 
the enclosure of Mr. H. L'Heureux, Chief, Visa Division, in the above matter. 
Knowing that you have considerable influence in the State Department, and 
that possibly we have not fully explained the status of the applicant, George 
Kostka, to be admitted to the United States, permit me to give you a r6sum§ of 
the facts, viz : 

(a) Mr. Kostka was forced to flee from his home to Austria together with his 
parents because of his political faith ; therefore, he became a displaced person. 
Arriving in that part of Austria under our (American) jurisdiction. 

(b) While under the American jurisdiction he claimed protection but for 
some unknown reason the authorities surrendered him to the Russians who re- 
turned him to Hungary with intentions of deporting him to Russia. 

(c) That he escaped from the train bearing him to Russia and through devious 
ways and means arrived in Austria but in that section held by the French who 
protected him on condition that he join the Foreign Legion, and was permitted 
to enter France. Meantime his parents were enabled to and did get passage to 
America and of course are now domiciled here. 


(d) After serving in the French Army and before he entered the service he 
made application for a preferential visa as a displaced person from the Ameri- 
can consul in I'aris. The mere fact that he couldn't prove his eligibility for 
consideration under the Displaced Persons Act should surely not be such a cavise 
to bar him from the benelits thereof. How could the Embassy expect him to 
prove his status. You, dear Kay, surely agree with me that the Embassy could 
have cliecked his statements made to them very easily if they were not convinced. 

(e) Tlie mere fact that Mr. Kostka is an engineer and was an exporter, to- 
gether with his father, of fruits to different countries in Europe should in our 
evaluation of persons be a credit and not a determent which would be the case 
of the Russians. 

I would respectfully ask that with these added facts, you would please bring 
your personal influence to bear on these matters. Thanking you on behalf of. 
myself and on belialf of tiie anxious parents of the applicant, I am, as ever, 
Sincerely yours, 

William A. Puzy, Attorney. 

Observatiotms, Objections, and Suggestions 

1. Applications of imniifirants to be strictly scrutinized 

Every applicant should prove by satisfactory evidence to be permitted to- 
obtain visa and entry to the United States that besides being of good moral 
character and having no physical disability making liis support questionable, 
that applicant sliould not have direct or indirect connections with any party 
whose principles are opposed to the form of our government, these the United 
States of America. 

2. Admission to be subject to our country's economic and social conditions 

The applicant should be able to furnish a more strict aflidavit of support to* 
which a bond sufficient to indemnify the United States and/or its subdivisions, 
viz : State, county, and township, in case the immigrant should become a public 

3. Amending the authority of consul as to poiver of decision 

If the application of immigration is denied by consul a board of appeals should 
bo established in Washington to which the applicant or the representative could 
rightfully appeal the decision of the consul. 

Jf. Eunyarian nationalists immigrants to have equal rights with others 

The Hungarians have always been a liberty-loving race as is evidenced by 
their Golden Bulla, their written constitution, the bill of rights, the oldest on 
Continental Europe signed in 1922, only 7 years after the Magna Carta, and 
may I respectfully state that the Golden Bulla was not forced from the ruling, 
house but it was voluntarily granted. The continuous warfare of the Hungarians 
are also witnesses to their love of freedom as for instance their 150-year war 
against the Turks wherein they saved Christianity which was acknowledged by 
Pope Calixtus .July 22, 1450, by the ringing of all Catholic Church bells, even to 
th.s date. Of course, you know that some 200 years previous they first saved 
Christianity when they crushed the Tatar invasion led by the terrible Genghis 
Khan. The struggle with the Turks ^o weakened the nation that it was forced 
to invite the peoples of the neighboring countries to settle the country as the 
Hungarians were decimated. In addition their continuous warfare against the 
greatest autocratic power in Europe, the Hapsburgs, which forced so many 
thousand of Hungarians to flee the country in 1711, emigrating with Bercseny to 
France with their magnificent cavalry formations, the Hussars. It is these same 
cavalry formations of the Hungarians known as the Hussars in Hungarian, that 
we have this day and erroneously credit the French with. No doubt you know 
that many of the descendents of these Hungarians joined Lafayette and partook 
in our Revolutionary War of 1776, and undoubtedly know that one of the most 
able and trusted officers of General Washington was Colonel Kovacs, who sacri- 
ficed his all in the defense of Charleston, S. C, May 11, 1779. 

After the magnificent struggle for freedom by the Hungarians against the" 
Hapsburgs in 1848, which struggle was brought to a close by the joining of t\i& 
greatest tyrannical powers of the age, viz : the Austrians and the Russians, many 
of the Hungarians including their great leader Louis Kossuth emigrated to the- 
United States. Kossuth's farewell prayer equals in beauty of language and; 
depth of our great martyr Abraliam Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Permit 


me to respectfully draw your attention to the fact that the immigration of 
Hungarians to America began by the Kossuth exiles, and that the Congress of 
the I'nited States offered to Kossuth and his followers, no doubt with the expecta- 
tion that they would settle here permanently, a new home. Kossuth's letter ad- 
dressed to President Tyler and Secretary Clayton was indeed an utterance of 
a real patriot, when he wrote; as follows : "It is in the free soil of North America 
in which I would wish to rest in eternal peace, if my bones could not mingle 
with the soil of my beloved homeland." 

When the Civil War broke out in 1861 there were approximately 3,000 Hun- 
garians in the United States and their love of freedom was so great that they 
were not willing to settle in slave States. The only exception was the slave 
State of Missouri which in the Civil War fought on the northern side, and it 
was in St. Louis that in January 1S61 the organization of the National Guard 
was liegun by two sons of a former director of a munitions factory in Nagyvarad, 
Hungary, and former officers in the war of Independence of Hungary viz : Robert 
and Roderick Rombauer. In addition to the exploits of the Rombauers who 
has not heard of Charles Zaganyi, major of the Fremont Body Guards and his 
death ride at Springfield, Mo., on October 25, 1861. Because there were not 
very many Hungarians in America, it was not possible to form separate regi- 
ments, yet we find that Gabriel Koprony became colonel of the Twenty-eighth 
Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry Regiment and in a letter to Secretary Crittenden, 
in 1858 offered the services of 100 hand-picked men in the coming struggle. We 
lind further that the Twenty-fourth Illinois Volunteer Regiment w^as led by a 
Hungarian, Geza Mihalotzy, and it was at the latter's request for permission 
that the said regiment later became known as the Lincoln Riflemen in which 
regiment many Hungarians served and died. 

It is also common knowledge that in addition to the foregoing Hungarian lead- 
ers of the Civil W^ar, the comrannder of the Guard of Honor accompanying Presi- 
dent Lincoln to dedicate the battlefield at Gettysburg was no other than Gen. 
Julius Stahel-Szamvald who also gave his service for the cause that the Union 
.should forever stand. For his services he received the (Congressional Medal of 
Honor. Another eminent leader of the Union, Gen. Alexander Asboth was a 
Plungarian whose exploits were mentioned time and time again in tiie cause, 
who was appointed major general by brevet for his meritorious services on March 
13, 1856, and who upon his retirement from active service forced by the injuries 
received in battle, received an official letter of farewell from General Granger. 

In addition to the above and foregoing illustrious jiatriots we find Col. Nicholas 
Perczel organizing the Tenth Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment and becoming 
its first colonel. Another prominent patriot was Brigadier General Pomutz 
helping to organize the Fifteenth Iowa Volunteer Regiment, becoming commander 
of the Third Brigade under General Sherman, being wounded a numlier of times 
and was deservedly called tlie most popular oflScer in his regiment. 

I do not want to unduly extend the exploits of Hungarians in the Civil War 
as there were numerous Hungarian officers and men who gave their services and 
lives in order for the Union to stand. 

May I here state that the Hungarians gave more manpower to the Union than 
any other nationality (per ratio). 

I shall, in addition, recite a few names who gave greatly to and made valu- 
able contributions to civilization as a whole. 

We have some data to prove that George Torok Kalmar was one of the 
earliest explorers to the North American Continent in the year 1638. 

Sandor Korosi-Csoma explored Thibit and was the writer of the first diction- 
ary of that language. Ignac Goldzhier earned world fame with studies in 
Islamic theology and philology. Aurel Stein and Armin Cambery rank high 
among the explorers of Asia. One of the living Hungarian Nobel prize winners 
is Albert Szent-Gyorgi receiving his highest scientific distinction for his vitamin 
research. In the field of inventions we have such names as Janos Irinyi, in- 
ventor of the phosphorus match. Anyos Jedlik constructing the first electric mo- 
tor in 1827. Next invention was the dynamo, both were constructed before those 
of Siemen. Jozsef Koszta constructed the first machine gun. Kalma Kando 
inventions in machinery. Dr. Ignac Semniel-weis, the benefactor of mothers. 

In the field of literature we find that the Hungarians in the earliest days 
wrote in the Latin but that the nineteenth century is the golden age of Hungarian 
literature where we find such names as Kolcsey, Katona whose greatest work is 
■"Tragedy of Bank Bon". Arany, the epic post of Hungary. Petofii, one of the 
greatest lyric poets of the world. Imre Madach, master work being "The Trag- 
edy of Man". Jokai and Mikszath, two novelists of world fame. Endre Ady, 


one of the greatest modern Hungarian jwets. Gardony, Herczeg, Zilaliy, and 
Ferenc Molnar, geniuses of the drama today. 

In the theater we find such names as Alexander Sved, Margit Bokor and Enid 
Szantho, and Enid Szantho, all of the opera. There are numerous talented Hun- 
garian actors, directors and producers of the day (Korda, Michael Kertesz 
Curtiss, Fejos Bolvary, Pasternak, Pascal, Biro). Some of the works of the 
above are "Henry the Eightli," and "Scarlet Pimpernell". 

In the field of music we tind the name of the immortal Liszt, Hubay, world- 
famous teacher of the violin. Bihari, Dohnanyi, composer of the Ruralia Hun- 
garica, the opera Tower of Voyvod and Kalman, who have given us world 
known and delightful operetta. We have the two greatest living composers 
Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly. 

In the field of fine arts we find such names as Albert Durer also of Hun- 
garian parentage. Benczur, a painter of realism and naturalism. The great 
Munkacsy, the best liked and the best paid painter of the eighties in Europe, 
his best known works being "Christ Before Pilate" Eccehomo, "Blind Milton 
Dictating Paradise Lost," etc. In addition there is Laszio Paal, Istvan Csok, 
Joseph Ripple-Ronai. In addition, Hungarian portrait painters became inter- 
nationally famous, Arthur Halmi in the United States, and Phillip Laszio in 

In the field of sculpture we meet with such names as Iszo, Strobel, Lux, Patzai, 

In the field of architecture we find the following names : .Tozsef Vago, builder 
of the palace of the League of Nations, and Mohaly Nagy, Rerrich, Lajtha, etc. 

In the field of religion the Hungarian Diet Torda in 1571 proclaimed the free 
exercise of all religious beliefs before any other nations and gave birth to 
unitarianism, David of Hungary the founder. 

I trust that I have not burdene<l you with the above and foregoing but I do 
hope that I have in a small measure brought to your attention facts that might 
help in the evaluation of the Hungarian nationals applying for entry. 

Requesting the filing of the within, with kindest regards. 

Respectfully submitted. 

William A. Fuzy, 
Representative of Americans of Hungarian Oiif/in in Indiana. 


National Alliance of Czech Catholics, 

Chicago, October 8, 1952. 

The President's Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Executive Office of the President, 

Washington 25, D. C. 

Gentlemen : The executive board of the National Alliance of Czech Catholics 
asks consideration of its following views on the immigration policies as now 
contained in the McCarran bill. 

We consider the bill unfair to the n&tions of central, eastern, and southern 
Europe. The national origin quotas are established on the basis of immigration 
at the end of the last century. However, since then, the complex of the popula- 
tion of the United States is such, that it seems dic^proportionate to us, to keep 
the former basis of assignment for new quotas. 

Furthermore, the quotas assigned to Great Britain and the northern countries 
are not fully used up. In our judgment, no harm would be done to anyone by 
making the surplus of such unused quotas accessible to those nations whose immi- 
gration is restricted so very much. 

In a memorandum addressed to the Judiciary Committee during the hearings 
on the McCarran bill we pleaded that the Czechoslovakian quota be raised in the 
new law to approximately double of the numbers allotted to Czechoslovaks under 
the old arrangement. We respectfully repeat this plea. 

We also would like to add an appeal for a new special le^'islation permitting, 
by way of an exception to the national quotas, new innnlgration from the over- 
populated sections of Europe, such as. Germany, Austria, and Italy, and also, from 
among those refugees who had to flee their fatherland because of religious or 
political persecution. 


We are convinced that overpopulated Europe will be a continuous source of 
trouble not only to themselves, but also to the United States. Our country, by 
relieving the pressure to the limits of her ability, would make a contribution to 
alleviating the sufferings not only of the expellees and the refugees, but also to 
the diplomatic problems of the leaders of interested nations. 

In our opinion, the economy of our country is such, that the additional immi- 
gration would not bring economic difficulties to any of our citizens. 

We again respectfully ask that these few suggestions from us be given thought- 
ful consideration by the members of the President's committee. 
With best wishes, we remain 

Rev. Martin A. Krizka, 

John W. Voller, 

Jeannette F. Kbippner, 



The Chicago Shimpo, 
The Chicago .Japanese American News, 

Chicago 15, III., Novemher 7, 1952. 
Mr. Philip Perlman, 

President's CominUtiion on Iiiimigration, and 'Naturalization, 
Executive Office, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Perlman : May I call your attention to the letter which was printed 
in the September 13 issue of the Chicago Shimpo. The writer of the letter is 
Dr. S. I. Hayakawa, a well-known semanticist. I feel it is significant that the 
letter was written by a Japanese descendant, although Dr. Hayakawa is a 
Canadian citizen. It is also significant that I happen to know several Japanese 
Americans who have expressed a similar opinion toward the McCarran-Walter 
immigration and naturalization law. 

"In a letter to Tahei Matsunaga, chairman of the JACL-ADC fund drive, S. I. 
Hayakawa, well-known author and lecturer in the field of semantics, sharply 
criticized the organization for its support of the recently enacted Walter-Mc- 
Carran immigration and naturalization bill. 

"Hayakawa, who returned to Chicago about a week ago after lecturing at San 
Francisco State College this summer, stated : 

" 'I have been happy to contribute to this fund in the past, but I am not con- 
tributing this year for the following reasons : 

" 'I believe that whatever pressure JACL-ADC exerted to bring about the pas- 
sage of the Walter-McCarran Act and the overriding of the Presidential veto of 
the bill was a profound disservice to all immigrants, second-generation immi- 
grants, and naturalized citizens. To secure the rights to naturalization of Issei 
at the cost of all the questionable and illiberal features of the Walter-McCarran 
bill appears to be an act of unpardonable short-sightedness of cynical opportunism. 

" 'The naturalization of Issei need not have been purchased at this tremendous 
cost. A year and a half ago the House unanimously passed a bill (H. R. 403) 
which would have enabled the naturalization of Issei. This bill was simple and 
straightforward— only 16 lines long. Senator McCarran appears to have bottled 
up this bill and to have permitted its passage only as a part of his measure 
which consisted of 302 pages, of highly controversial and ambiguous material. 

" 'I am afraid the Antidiscrimination Committee has not lived up to its name. 
It has purchased the removal of one small discrimination at the cost of legalizing 
the continuance of many other forms of discrimination, and the creation of a 
number of new forms of discrimination against foreign-born and second-genera- 
tion citizens of all ancestries,' Hayakawa concluded." 
Sincerely yours, 

Ryoichi FtJjn, Editor. 




ETC. : A Review of General Semantics, 

Chicago, III., November 16, 1952. 
Mr. Philip Peelman, 

President's Commission on Immigration and N aturalization. 
Executive Offices, Washington 25, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Perlman : The enclosed is the first half of a long letter I have 
written to the editor of the Chicago SHIMPO in opposition to the position taken 
by the Japanese-American Citizens League on the Walter-McCarran Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act. 

I shall send you the second (and final) installment just as soon as it arrives — 
probably next Saturday. 
Respectfully yours, 

S. I. Hayakawa. 

Letter tO' the Editor — Hayakawa's Response to JACL-ADC Qfficeb 

(Dr. S. I. Hayakawa in a letter to Mr. Tahei Matsungaga, the local chairman of 
the JACL-ADC, refused to contribute to the current ADC fund drive because of 
its support of the McCarran-Walter Immigration and Naturalization Act. This 
letter was originally printed in the September 13 issue of the Chicago Shimpo. 
Mr. Richard Akagi's, associate legislative director in the Washington office of 
the JACL-ADC, answer to Dr. Hayakawa was printed in the October 11 issue of 
this paper. In the present letter of November 10, to be concluded in next week's 
issue, Dr. Hayakawa further clarifies his stand. Because of widespread interest 
these letters have caused, we are devoting more space than usual to this 
column. — Editor.) 

Sirs : The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization has 
now held hearings on repeal or modification of the Walter-McCarran Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act in the principal cities ol the United States. Ninety to 
95 percent of the testimony has been against the act, in whole or in its major 
provisions. Both major political parties in the presidential campaign have 
promised drastic changes in it. General Eisenhower said, "The whole world 
knows that to these shores came oppressed peoples from every land under the 
sun * * * Yet to the Czech, the Pole, the Hungarian who takes his life in 
his hands and crosses the frontier tonight * * * this ideal that beckoned can 
be a mirage because of the McCarran Act * * * The McCarran Immigration 
Act must be rewritten" (New York Times, October 18, 1952). Governor Steven- 
son, during the campaign, pointedly avoided being photographed with Representa- 
tive Francis Walter. President Truman stated, "The discrimination [the McCar- 
ran Act] contained against people from Southern and Eastern Europe alone 
would have been enough to merit a veto. But in addition to that, this bill made 
second-ciass citizens out of those who had been naturalized ; and it established 
cruel and restrictive procedures against them" (New York Times, October 18). 

P"'urthermore, the entire October issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is 
devoted to condemning the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 and the 
McCarran Immigration Act of 1952 ; it criticizes especially the "clauses bearing 
on the entry into the United States offoreign scientists, scholars, and educators" ; 
it charges that the two McCarran Acts "alienate our allies, comiort our enemies, 
enfeeble our free institutions, and traduce the principles of liberty. In later 
testimony, Dr. Vanneval Bush, wartime director of the Office of Scientific Re- 
search and Development, sharply criticized the act as an impediment to inter- 
national scientific cooperation and pleaded f(jr the relaxation of present provi- 
sions (New York Times., October 30). Also on record against the act are the 
National Council of Churches of Christ, the National Lutheran Council, the 
American Friends Service Committee, the Unitarian Service Committee, the 
National Council of Catholic Charities, the CIO, the NAACP, the Order of the 
Sons of Italy in America, the B'nai B'rith, the National Congress of Ameri- 
can Indians, to name only a few. 

Readers ol the Japanese-American press may well wonder why there is all 
this opposition to the McCarran Act in view of the JACL's vehement declarations 
that the act is a milestone of liberal progress. The answer is simple. The 
•.'n8.->G— 52' 54 


Walter-McCarran Act is not what the JACL has described it to be — not even 
with respect to the provision enabling the naturalization of Issei. 

What the McCarran Act does — and this is why there is so much opixtsition to it 
from all quarters — is to change the meaning of naturalization. From now on, 
the naturalized citizen is indeed to be, as Mr. Truman said, a "second-class 
citizen" with new discriminatory provisions against him written into the law. 
These provisions will operate both against those who will be naturalized under 
the new law and against those who already are naturalized under the old. It is 
no wonder that people who have been correctly informed are seriously concerned. 
Let me be specific : 

(1) The McCarran Immigration Act. [sec. 340 (a)l greatly enlarges the 
grounds for denaturalization. Formerly, the main reason for denaturalization 
was fraud in obtaining naturalization — "fraud" being a clearly defined legal 
concept. Under the new law, the basis for denaturalization has been changed 
to "concealment of material fact" or "willful misrepresentation." Decision as 
to what constitutes a violation of these terms is left to administrative discretion ; 
even technical errors on the part of the immigration service in the admission 
of an alien can be made grounds for later denaturalization [sec. 211 (a) (1) 
(2)]. Even the necessary misrepresentations made by a man fleeing for his life 
from religious or political persecution become punishable under these terms 
[sec. 212 (a) (19)]. 

(2) Grounds for deportation have been greatly enlarged and also made retro- 
active [sec. 241]. Persons can be deported for things they haven't yet done if 
in the opinion of the attorney general they have "a purpose to engage" in activi- 
ties "prejudicial to the public interest." Technical defects in entry can also be 
made grounds for deportation, as can membership in a subversive organization, 
even if the individual did not know it was a subversive or even if it was taken 
over by subversive elements without his knowledge after he joined [sec. 241 (a) 
(6) (c) (i-iv) ]. This last provision can be especially rough on Issei who, 20 or 
more years ago, joined Japanese social clubs which were later taken over by pro- 
militarist elements. 

(8) The McCarran Act does not "reinstate the Administrative Procedure 
Act." Mr. Richard Akagi's contentions to the contrary. Indeed, in spite of a 
nod in that direction [sec. 236 (a)], the main effect of the act is to circumvent 
the Administrative Procedure Act by giving legal finality to administrative 

(4) Under the new law, naturalized citizens traveling or residing abroad will 
have fewer protections against denaturalization proceedings taken against them 
in absentia [sec. 342, 360]. It will become possible for a naturalized citizen 
abroad to be deprived of his citizenship without his knowledge. 


As the pioneer country of immigration, the United States has always been a 
leader and guide in this field. 

In my judgment, gentlemen, your study of our immigration and naturalization 
problems constitutes one of the great national problems confronting America 
today. My presence today before you is primarily made in behalf of the Greek 
people who have so valiantly fought and continue to fight the good cause of the 

It is my considered opinion that the most unfair and most discriminatory 
phase of the present law is that section which deals with the national origins 
quota. If this is not altered and the unused quotas are pooled for the benefit 
of the Greek nationals none of these worthy refugees from communism and 
displaced persons will have an opportunity to come to America and begin anew 
a life dedicated to the American way of life. It is therefore imperative that in 
our fight with communism, especially in those countries which are plagued with 
an overpopulation problem, that we overhaul the national origins quota system 
which is based on a discredited racial theory that persons of Anglo-Saxon liirtli 
are superior to other nationalities and therefore better qualified to be admitted 
into the United States and to become Americans. 


Your careful study of this portion of our immigration laws undoubtedly will 
induce you to recommend to the next Congress its speedy revision, allowing a 
more favorable yearly quota for the Greek nationals. Furthermore, the admit- 
tance to America of such able-bodied, honest, and industrious people will alleviate 
our own ever-present shortage of labor. 

Other objectionable phases of the law in its present form, in my opinion, are — 

(1) The lack of a uniform review procedure for the decisions of our 
consular officers. 

(2) The lack of full and adequate appeals and review procedures in ex- 
clusion and deportation cases. 

(3) The intolerable distinctions between native-born and naturalized 
American citizens. 

(4) The application of the penalty of deportation on a retroactive basis. 
Europe is today the most densely populated of all the continents and, with 

exception of Russia, it is almost as thickly settled as India. One of the chal- 
lenges facing us in this postwar world is the relocation of unsettled peoples in 
new homes — refugees, displaced persons, and unemployed nationals alike. In 
Greece, the unemployed, the refugees, and the displaced persons continue to be 
one of the major factors in achieving full postwar recovery. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I urge each and every one of 
you to do your utmost in your recommendations to Congress to eliminate this 
evil by revising our laws so that our fight against communism will bear the fruit 
of labors. I bid you Godspeed in your efforts. 


, Ifillilllllll 

3 9999 06352 477 9