Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings"

See other formats











Cle\^land, Ohio, 
seventh session 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 9 : 30 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 318, Federal Courthouse 
Building, Cleveland, Ohio, Hon. Philip B. Perlman, chairman, pre- 

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman and the following Commis- 
sioners : Monsignor John O Grady and Mr. Thomas G. Finucane. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will be in order. Our first witness 
this morning will be Dean Carl Wittke. 


Dean Wittke, I am Carl Frederick Wittke, dean of the Graduate 
School, Western Reserve University, and professor of history and 
chairman of the history department. 

I am appearing here in my individual capacity, representing no one 
except myself as a historical scholar who has been interested in the 
history of immigration for about 35 years. 

Tlie Chairman. The Commission will appreciate anything that you 
may care to say on the subject matter. 

Dean Wititve. Well gentlemen, it seemed to me that I might be of 
the greatest use here if I tried to introduce very briefly historically 
some of the main points in the history of our immigration because it 
seems to me that much of the introduction in recent years has been 
hysterical rather than historical. First of all, down to World War I 
the attitude of the bulk of the American people was that this country 
was a nation where the unhappy and the persecuted of the world could 
find a refuge. There was never a period when there was not opposition 
to that point of view, but in general that was the prevailing attitude. 
The turning point came with World AVar I when tlie United States 
had the unique experience of becoming involved for the first time in a 
great European and world struggle, and after the war as everyone 
knows we began the quota system which we have now followed by the 
National Origins Act. 

It seems to me that the reasons for that change were, first of all, the 
experience during the war with certain immigrant groups; again, if 



we had been more historically minded we would not have been quite so 
surprised. Any nation that consists of so many groups is in the posi- 
tion of a molten mass and when a great crisis occurs in Europe, it is as 
though you blow a cold stream of air over a molten mass and certain 
elements begin to crystallize out. 

The result was that during the war for quite natural reasons Ger- 
mans and Irish-Americans had a point of view with reference to the 
struggle. Czechs and Polish-Americans and so on had another point 
of view. That difference of opinion disappeared completely in 1917 
when the United States entered the war and we had a record of 
complete loyalty, very few exceptions from all these groups, but that 
was one experience. It was focused on the foreign language press also, 
which up to that time had been left practically unsupervised and cer- 
tainly increased. 

A second factor which brought about the change was an economic 
one, the fear that after the war that we would have a period of eco- 
nomic readjustment which would be difficult and that there would be 
millions of Europeans eager to come to America to escape the ravages 
of war. 

Again I think that was greatly exaggerated for the simple reason 
that if you figure up the tonnage that was available to bring these 
so-called millions to America, there wasn't anything like the amount 
necessary to bring them. But that had a direct effect on organized 
labor, particularly, which for economic reasons, began to favor rather 
rigid restrictions. 

Finally there was the general disillusionment after the closing 
of the war and the excitement of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia 
convinced a great many Americans of a great intrigue against Ameri- 
can institutions and something had to be done to close the doors. As 
a result of that attitude which was new in this country on any large 
scale after World War I, was the enactment of the several quota laws, 
the national origins was brought in and I think also, the law preced- 
ing the present law which your Commission is considering. 

Now I want to just for historical perspective point out first of all 
that there is no question in the minds of historians that immigration 
throughout the nineteenth century was a tremendous factor in the 
development of the United States. It was a tremendous factor in our 
economic and industrial life and it was a tremendous factor in enrich- 
ing the whole cultural life of the American people. Immigrants from 
Europe made their contributions to American music, to the American 
theater, to various customs and habits of life and certainly we de- 
veloped into a nation of political unity but based on a very rich cul- 
tural diversity which I think has helped to make America the unique 
democracy it is today. 

I could illustrate that in dozens of ways. Speaking for the moment 
only about the economic situation, everybody knows that more than a 
century ago it was the Irish innnigration which helped us to complete 
rapidly the many public works, the building of the canals, the building 
of railroads, the construction of all kinds of public works, the Irish- 
men in the mines of Pennsylvania, and later in the copper mines of the 
West, the German artisan who had a rich contribution to make, having 
been trained in the strict guild system of Europe. The German and 
Scandinavian farmer helping to open up the rich lands for agricul- 
tural work. 


In the same way the newer immi<?rants so-called — and they are only 
newer in the sense of chronological order — took up some of those 
burdens. As the Irishmen mov^ed up in the scale the Italian and 
Slovenian took up the shovel and in public works activities filled in 
the millions of towns and so on. 

Here in Cleveland, for instance, we got the first contingent of Poles 
when about 1,800 of them were imported directly to break uj) a strike 
in the steel mills. Two years later they themselves staged one of the 
greatest strikes that Cleveland ever had in a demand for better work- 
ing conditions and higher wages, and I could go on giving many other 
examples of just what immigration meant in the speeding up of the 
economic development and the industrial progress of the United 

Now, the other point I want to make before my time is up is that 
many of the things that were said in later years in criticism of the 
Italian, the Pole, the Czech and so on, on the ground that they were 
an unassimilable group and represented a very foreign custom and 
ideology, they were all said a hundred years ago about these so-called 
representatives of the older immigration group. 

Let me again pick the Irishmen, by way of example, because I think 
of no immigrants who more quickly became a 100 percent or 300 per- 
cent American than the Irishmen, but in the 1850's and 1860's, if you 
read the newspaper comments and all the literature, you will find that 
the Irish immigration which came in such terrific volume alarmed the 
old-time Americans; the Irishmen spoke a peculiar brogue, and he had 
a peculiar dress. He was forced to live in the slum tenements, in the 
garrets and in the cellars, and the Irish shanty towns developed in all 
our big cities. He was charged with being intemperate and loving 
liquor too much, of being a kind of boisterous, riotous person. He 
was depressing the labor standards of the average American. 

Among them were paupers and therefore were adding to the tax- 
payers' burdens in maintaining almshouses and so forth. He had 
very large families and people were beginning to wonder how soon the 
bulk of America would be Irish instead of Yankee, and a newspaper 
ad in the 1850's and 1860's can be found to say "No Irishmen need 
apply." In other words, I could go on and on. They were members 
of a so-called foreign church, owing allegiance to a foreign potentate 
and therefore the question was raised whether they did not represent 
a European point of view rather than an American point of view. 
Every Irishman throughout the nineteenth century had a quite bitter 
hostility to England for historic reasons, and we had curious out- 
bursts of Irish demonstrations a.oainst England, the most notable the 
Finnian raids right after the Civil War when thousands of Irish- 
men actually took up arms to invade Canada with which we were alt 
peace, in order to twist the tail of the British lion in Canada for th(i 
sake of Irishmen abroad. A lot of the Americans said here we have an 
unassimilable group here in America, more interested in the homeland, 
in its foreign church and so on, than it is in becoming good Americans,, 

I select that simply to indicate that within a short time these Irish- 
men who came out of the garrets and the cellars and the slums rose up 
in the scale socially, economically, politically, to become as enthusiastic 
lind patriotic Americans as any native Yankee who had come ovei 
on tlie iNIa^^fiower. The whole political situation was introduced a 
hundred years ago, much as you have heard it introduced today. 


The Irisli and Germans, let's say, became quickly organized polit- 
ically by American political bosses, and remember that our voting 
laws and registration laws a century ago were terribly lax, and it was 
possible to repeat and possible to vote people who came in the morning 
at the docks of New York before the day was over. 

My whole point in saying these things is to emphasize the fact that 
if you take the broad historical point of view, I have heard nothing 
said by way of criticism of more recent immigrants that cannot be 
duplicated from the record as to what has been said about the older 
immigrants of more than a century ago, but who in due course and 
with a proper American attitude toward them became quickly assimi- 
lated and represented an excellent economic and social contribution 
to this developing American. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Dean, as a result of the studies that you have made, 
what do you think the proper immigration policy of the United States 
should be ? 

Dean Wiii'Ke. Well, I think there are others who will speak more 
specifically on that, but you must have gathered from what I have 
said that first of all I think the National Origins Act is absurd. No- 
body can figure out accurately from the census of 1790 and I have 
looked at it, anything that approximates an accurate appraisal of how 
many of these different stocks we had at that time. I do not think we 
will ever again have the completely open door which we had through- 
out most of the nineteenth century. I think world conditions and eco- 
nomic conditions and so forth make that impossible. I do think, 
however, that we have or can have a considerably more generous policy 
than we have now. We could easily let in twice as many a year as we 
do now. I think the quotas might be redistributed so that those un- 
filled could be filled by another group and I personally, of course, 
would take a more liberal attitude in examining the ideology and so 
forth of the immigrants than I think is being taken today in many 
circumstances also. 

In the middle of the nineteenth century there were thousands of 
refugees, political refugees, who came to this country from Germany 
and other countries, but particularly from Germany, let us say. The 
best example is Carl Schurz, Carl Hinsen and so on, who wanted to 
make over the United States as part of their revolutionary ideology; 
wanted to abolish the Senate and make the President directly elective 
and so on. Within 4 or 5 years they settled down in America and 
became respectable citizens and fought bravely for preservation of our 
Union in the Civil War and nobody challenged their contributions. 

In other words, as a historian, I think time is a great factor and I 
think Americanization is a natural outgrowth and not a hothouse 
procedure. You can create in America the conditions which provide 
opportunities for those who come here seeking them and that is the 
best Americanization factor that I think of. 

I have written at least five books and a number of articles in this 
immigration field and that is the reason I have some interest in pre- 
senting it in historical rather than hysterical perspective. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. KosENFiELD. May I ask you a question, Dean : At the outset you 
indicated three factors which I gather you thought were in part the 


basis of the original National Origins and quota system. Do you re- 
gard any of them as valid today in the present scene ? 

Dean WiTTKE. No, I think I mentioned the foreign language press 
as one, did I not ? 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Yes. 

Dean Wittke. That problem is virtually solved. I mean, if the for- 
eign language press does its job ; well, it will be signing its own death 
warrant because that serves as liaison between old and new culture. 

Take the German press, for instance, down to World War I it was 
the largest press we had and today it is almost gone. Now it was 
bitterly attacked during the war just as the Irish- American press was 
in the period of neutrality and yet before the war ended everybody 
from the Secretary of the Treasury and State Department and so 
on down testified that we could not have welded the American popula- 
tion together into a unified whole and interpreted the meaning of the 
war except for the foreign language press. 

Now the foreign language press is practically a dead issue. I mean 
it is not going to be long when even the Polish and Czech and Italian 
press is going to disappear largely, which is the best example of its 
having done the work well. 

Now the economic factor is another one I think that I mentioned, 
the feeling after World AYar I that we would have a flood of Euro- 
peans flooding the American labor market. I don't believe that is as 
acute an issue today as it was 30 years ago or 40 years ago. The other 
issues are acute and we might as well face it. The excitement of 1918 
was about the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution and what that 
meant for the entire meaning of American institutions. Certainly the 
communistic danger is greater today than it was 40 years ago, and that 
factor I think is still an important factor in our thinking, although I 
think it can be easily exaggerated. 

We can have tests for admission wdiich are reasonable and in the 
long run I have faith in the American historical process ; this democ- 
racy which provides opportunity and freedom issue cashes in with 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Is Mr. Freedheim here? 


Mr. Freedheim. I am Eugene H. Freedheim, 2925 Eaton Road, 
Shaker Heights, Ohio. I am an attorney, and a member of the law 
firm of Mooney, Hahn, Loeser, Keough, and Freedheim. 

I am here as an individual, Mr. Chairman, but I happen to be co- 
chairman of the legislative committee of the Welfare Federation of 
Cleveland, and was last year the chairman of that committee's sub- 
committee on immigration and naturalization laws, a branch, and 
therefore I want to give the conclusions that that committee and the 
Welfare Federation reached, although in an official capacity I am not 
speaking for the Welfare Federation. I am speaking really for 

25.S06— 52 30 


I have a prepared statement I should like to read. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Mr. Freedheim. My name is Eugene H. Freedheim. I am co- 
chairman of the legislative committee of the Welfare Federation of 
Cleveland, and last year was chairman of that committee's subcom- 
mittee on immigration and naturalization laws. 

After study of the bills affecting immigration and naturalization 
pending before the Eighty-second Congress, the above-named sub- 
committee made a report disapproving the McCarran-Walter bill and 
approving the Humphrey omnibus bill. That action was approved 
by the board of trustees of the welfare federation itself. After the 
]>assage of the McCarran-Walter bills the trustees took a position in 
favor of the President's veto. Thus the official position of the Wel- 
fare Federation of Cleveland has been expressed in those reports of 
disapproval and approval, but there has been no further action on the 
questions and my appearance here is upon my own responsibility. My 
views on specific issues must be attributed to me alone, as the trus- 
tees have had no meeting to pass upon this statement. 

I recognize that the new law has incorporated certain improvements 
that were much to be desired, and am hopeful that any new legisla- 
tion will adopt and expand them. I refer particularly to the elimi- 
nation of the discriminations based upon sex, and the changes in im- 
migration requirements that more readily permit the reuniting of 
families, as well as the improvements with respect to the immigration 
and naturalization of so-called Asiatic peoples. 

I also believe that the United States is entitled to protect and pre- 
serve its own safety, and do not wish in any way to weaken the legiti- 
mate screening of individuals for reasons of health and security. I 
stress the word "legitimate." 

On the other hand, I am fundamentally opposed to certain of the 
underlying assumptions and theories upon which the present law 
seems to be based, and am very hopeful that new legislation will not 
only adopt an entirely new and more forward-looking concept of im- 
migration and naturalization, but will coincidentally cure tlie numer- 
ous minor and technical defects in the present statutes, which stem 
from fear of the alien, as such. 

My position in substance is the same as that of Senators Lfehman, 
Douglas, and Humphrey. The Humphrey bill, in general theory, 
and in specific applications, would entirely cure the ])resent objections. 
Broadly speaking, these objections were well stated by Walter Bier- 
inger of Boston, president of United Service for New Americans, who 
said at its last annual meeting: 

The immigration law is racist in concept and racist in application. Tlie so- 
called quota system, based on old United States census figures showing coun- 
tries of origin of our population, is sinjply a means of excluding immigrants 
from many countries. It is an ignorant denial of the accepted fact that the 
strength of America was built by individuals representing every race and every 
creed. It is the antithesis of our democratic beliefs. 

Every person in this room, unless he should happen to be a North 
American Indian, is either an immigrant or the descendant of an 
immigrant. It ill becomes us, who are so lucky as to find ourselves 
here, to adopt exclusionary policies based upon race, color, or national 

Thus, I specifically oppose : 


1. The whole national origin basis of the quota system, which 
admittedly was designed to restrict immigration from southern and 
eastern Europe, and which provides huge unused annual quotas for 
English and other immigration, while severely limiting the number 
admissible from countries where the problem of refuge and popu- 
lation are the most pressing. It is particularly unfair to continue to 
base the quotas upon the 1920 census, which obviously is antiquated, 
instead of using the 1950 census. 

2. The annual cut-off of each quota. The existing law continued 
the old system, instead of permitting the pooling or carry-over of 
quotas, which would have given a bit more flexibility to our rigid 
quota system. In this connection is it not fair to contrast the policy 
of the Congress with respect to income taxes, in which a 1-year carry- 
back and a 5-3^ear carry-forward of losses is allowed? 

3. A ])articularly revealing section of the act refuses to follow the 
usual place of birth criterion for determining the applicable quota. 
This is the section which deals with a person having as much as one- 
half of his ancestry of Asian origin. Such a person might be one-half 
English or Dutch, for example, and might be born in England or 
Holland, yet he must be charged to the tiny Asia-Pacific quota, instead 
of to the English or Dutch quota. This is bare-faced racism, and is 
unv»'orthy of the United States. 

4. Exactly the same objections apply to the exclusion of dependent 
colonies of the Western Hemisphere from the nonquota concept appli- 
cable to South and Central American countries. If such colonies 
must be denied nonquota status, and I think it should be given non- 
status quotas the same as other countries in South and Central 
America, then Congress could have included them in the quotas of 
their mother countries. But, no, the law adopted an arbitrary quota 
of 100 per annum for them. Last year I spent a short time in Port 
of Spain, Trinidad, which has the most variegated population of 
any place I ever have seen, but where these numerous races live and 
work together in excellent amity. It is not worthy of our great ximer- 
ican tradition to adopt a narrow, restrictive, racist policy toward such 
countries and such peoples. 

5. I am extremely doubtful about the validity of the allocation 
of 50 percent of the quotas to the highly skilled. In the first place, the 
method can be used as a restrictive tool. Secondly, and more impor- 
tantly, this theory denies the fundamental democratic concept of the 
worth of the individual. Do we not still concede that the unskilled 
laborer may be as good a citizen as his trained neighbor? And what 
lias become of our concept of this as the land of opportunity, where 
the unskilled may become the skilled ? 

6. A minor but particularly harsh provision of the law requires 
aliens to notify the Immigi-ation. Service within 5 days of any change 
of address, with criminal penalties for failure to comply. 

T. With respect to deportation, the McCarran-Walter Act adopted 
certain innovations which may cause great hardship. The pattern is 
similar to that of the Internal Security Act — no doubt the Commis- 
sion is familiar with the case which arose in Boston last summer, 
where a resident of long standing was arrested for deportation because 
he had been a member of the Communist Party. The evidence showed 
tliat wiien he arrived in this country many j'^ears ago he paid 90 cents 


dues and joined the party on the representation it Avoidd increase his 
wages. He paid no more dues and took no part in the party's activi- 
ties. The United States district judge said he had no discretion: the 
man must be deported. Tlie public outcry was so great, the Attorney 
General ordered the case dropped. The elimination of the o-year 
statute of limitations for deportation on the groinul of insanity, tuber- 
culosis, etc., may result in extreme hardship. If i)ersons who have 
been here 20 or 30 years are still liable for deportation for grounds 
existing at the time of entry, their liA^es can never be secure; and aside 
from the actual danger of deportation this provision opens the door 
to a vicious type of blackmail. 

8. Another objectionable feature of the deportation sections permits 
deportation to any country which will accept the deportee. This harsh 
provision would permit deportation not only to the country of origin 
but to a country where even the language might be unknown to the 

9. With respect to naturalization a great hardship has been im- 
posed, especially on older persons here less than '20 years, by the 
requirement that the prospective citizen must be able to write as well 
as read and understand English. 

I am happy to state that the general views here expressed are shared 
by a broad section of American j^ublic opinion. Among the papers- 
that have expressed these views editorially are the New York Times,, 
the Washington Post, the Des Moines Tribune, the St. Louis Post- 
Dispatch, the New York Herald Tribune, the Bridgeport Sunday Her- 
ald, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, and last, but I hope not least, the 
Harvard Crimson, 

If the immigration laws were revised along the lines here suggested,, 
there probably would be no need for special legislation for displaced 
persons and refugees. However, the two Displaced Persons Acts- 
have expired, and broad revision may not be accomplished. In that 
contingency I.hope the Connnission would reconnnend special legisla- 
tion designed to facilitate the admission of displaced pei*sons and! 

In this connection I speak with some personal experience, as I 
formerly was chairman of the refugee service division of the Jewish 
Family Service Association, and later its president, and was a member- 
of the committee on displaced persons of the AVelfare Federation of 
Cleveland. It lias been my experience, and I think the same is true 
nationally, that the refugees and displaced persons who have come to- 
America in the past 15 years have almost universally become well- 
adjusted, hardworking, and loyal residents and have become citizens- 
as rapidly as permitted by law; that far from displacing American 
labor, they have stimulated and provided additional employment; 
that they have added to our cultural wealth, and have, in almost every 
case, deserved the sanctuary provided by the United States. 

I am hopeful that because of this experience, and because of the 
strong American tradition tliat tliis land should be a refuge for the 
victims of political, religious, and racial persecution and discrimina- 
tion, some special consideration will be given to the jn-oblem by this 

The United States has had a dual [)ersona1ity in the niatter of 
immigration. One tradition welcomes the stranger, and treats hiiui 


on his merits as it treats the native-born; tlie other hates, fears, and 
resents tlie foreigner. One tradition upholds this Nation as a sanc- 
tuary for tlie persecuted and op])ressed; the other slams shut the door. 
One tradition believes in democracy and abhors discrimination based 
on race, color, religion, or national origin. The other, frankly, is 
the advocate of all such distinctions. 

It is my hope that the immigration and naturalization laws will 
reflect the first type of tradition, which, in my opinion, is or should 
be the true American belief. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We appreciate your 

Is Mr. Steinfirst here ? 


Mr. Hteixfirst, I am Donald S. Steinfirst, 14G3 Beechwood Boule- 
A'ard, Pittsburgh, Pa. My occupation is that of manufacturer. 

I am one of the founders and chairman of the Joint Committee on 
Service to New Americans, a Jewish sectarian group, organized to 
coordinate all the activities in relationship to the new American in 
Alleghen}^ County. However, I am appearing here as a private citizen 
representing no particular group. 

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

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Steinfirst. Members of the Commission, I appear before you 
as a private citizen representing no particular group or organization. 
I identify myself, however, as one of the founders and chairman of 
the Joint Committee on Service to New Americans, a Jewish sectarian 
group, organized for the purpose of coordinating all the activities in 
relationship to the new American in Allegheny County, his admission 
to the country and his readjustment to the American way of life in 
terms of obtaining citizenship, employment, and social, cultural, and 
economic adjustment. In addition, I have had the opportunity of 
observing and participating in similar matters concerned with the 
non-Jewish new American. I do not appear as an expert in the field 
of immigration, but simply as one fairly familiar with the problem 
of the new American in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pa. 

As I understand it, the President of the United States has appointed 
this special Commission on Immigration and Naturalization to reas- 
sess our immigi-ation policies for humanitarian reasons and he quite 
properly appointed this Commission after the enactment of Public 
Law No. 414, known familiarly as the McCarran-Walter Act. became 
law over his veto. 

As this Commission holds its hearings throughout the country, it 
will hear reoeated over and over again specific, particular objections 
to the law based upon the national origins quota system and I will 
not reiterate in detail these objections, which I am sure will be fairly 
well established by experts in the field of immigration, except to Bay, 
and this should be repeated hour by hour, day after day, that the 
national origins quota system adopted nearly 50 years ago has no 
current basis in fact when due consideration is given to the present-day 
location of those who want to emigrate to the United States. I am 


sure it is not necessary for me to point out to the Commission in any 
♦jreat detail that the present quota system, to quote President Truman, 
"deliberately and intentionally discriminates against many of the 
peoples of the world." and that any attempt to support this theory 
is simply rationalization of a now outmoded idea. 

It seems to me incredible that the McCarran-Walter Act was ever 
enacted arid passed over the Presidential veto. True, we need, and 
still do need, a codification of the mumbo-jumbo of immigration laws 
that were on our books and in this respect Public Law No. 414 has 
provided some measure of relief. I cannot believe, however, that the 
lawmakers who enacted the act and the American citizen to whom 
it applies realize that its mere enactment is in so many ways contrary 
to the American democratic system; that it provides the Attorney 
General with powers that do not accrue to any other United States 
official; that the act puts into jeopardy the freedom of thousands of 
new Americans, including even those who have become citizens and 
their families. I will not take the Commission's time to go into detail, 
but it is necessary that I point out several of the glaring miscarriages 
of justice which appear to me to exist in the current law. 

i wonder, for example, if all of the lawmakers, and certainly many 
American citizens, realize that under the law an immigration official 
now has the right to question "an}' alien or person believed to be an 
alien" as to his right to be or to remain in the United States and what 
is more, and this is even more shocking, it is mandatory upon the At- 
torney General to conduct a "home investigation." The term "home 
investigation" calls for some thinking. 

It means, if I interpret the wording of the law correctly, that the 
Attorney General or his deputies are required to go into a home of any 
person, citizen or not, without a warrant and conduct an investigation 
as to whether or not that person is an alien or believed to be an alien. 
Under the term "home investigation," the Attorney General might 
conceivably question the neighbors and, gossip being what it is, might 
w^ell jeopardize the rights of citizens by this investigation. This is 
contrary to all of our concepts of protective law. 

If it were not so tragic, it might be humorous to consider another 
right of deportation granted the Attorney General which reads, "The 
Attorney Gericral may de])ort an alien if it appears to the satisfaction 
of the Attorney General that he or she has failed or refused to fulfill 
his or her marital agreement." 

Under the current law the mere showing of misrepresentation of 
any part of the naturalization proceedings may be the basis for revo- 
cation. Previously, revocation could occur where naturalization was 
obtained by fraud or illegally. Now there is a possibility of mere mis- 
understanding being interpreted as misinterpretation ; thus exposing 
a naturalized American to jeopardy of his citizenship. 

Under the nev/ law. the so-called good-moral-character clause is nc^ 
longer limited to the 5-year period, but it is now extended to acts which 
occurred prior to 5 years. In other words, the court may, as it wants, 
delve far back into a citizen's life and find some act which it could 
call immoral (and this in itself is subject to interpretation) and re- 
voke citizenship even though that act may have been committed and 
atoned for many years since. 

These are simply three or four flaring miscarriages of justice that 
appear to have been spread upon our books by the passage of Public^ 


Law 414, and which the incoming Congress, I hope, will eliminate. 

I am more concerned, however, today with the opportunity of telling 
the Commission something about the new American in Pittsburgh: 
His numbers, his reception, his adjustment, his achievements, and even 
his failures and shortcomings, I think it is not necessary for me to 
point out to the Commission that Pittsburgh, perhaps more than any 
other place in the United States, has by its very nature become a melt- 
ing pot in the Zangwill concept of that term. Pittsburgh is one of the 
great industrial centers of the world. Its diverse economic and busi- 
ness life has been built with the brains, skill, and labor of its immigrant 
pojnilation. In Pittsburgh you will find nationality groups from every 
region of the world building the heavy industry as well as commercial 
life of the city. If there were any dislocation or any maladjustment 
among the new Americans, such would show up immediately in 

The contrary is true. Since the enactment of the first DP Act in 
1948 and even before, under the Presidential directive of December 23, 
1945, new Americans have come to Pittsburgh in increasing numbers. 
What has been their economic adjustment in the city; what has been 
their social adjustment; how have they been received in Pittsburgh; 
how have the}^ reacted to Pittsburgh? 

The figures are astounding. Since 1948, it is safe to say, in round 
figures, that 6,000 individuals have come into Pittsburgh under the 
DP Acts. Everyone who is eligible for citizenship has become a citi- 
zen or has taken the first steps toward obtaining citizenship. 

In Pennsylvania the public-assistance law provides that public 
assistance may be obtained after 5 years and after citizenship has been 
obtained. I know of no case in which public assistance is now being 
granted. In other words, these people have become self-sufficient and 
self-supporting. They have integrated into business and commercial 
life of the community. Critical labor shortages have existed in 
Pittsburgh many times off and on in the last 4 years. The new Ameri- 
cans have filled jobs in such industries without depriving any other 
American citizen of employment. 

During the last 4 years they have added to the national economy 
the sum of $3,300,000, which is a conservative estimate of the sum 
of their earnings. 

The United Vocational and Employment Service, a placement serv- 
ice, has stated that during the 4-year period from 1948 through 1951, 
624 new Americans came for help in securing employment bringing 
with tliem vital skills, craftsmanship, and know-how from other coun- 
tries. Of these 624 who came asking for help and seeking employ- 
ment all, and I repeat, all of the 624 are productive workers in Pitts- 
burgh, are earniiig their own livelihood, supporting their families, 
buying goods, and contributing materially to tlie welfare of the com- 
munity. The only ones not employed as of this date are 18 and these 
are considered unemployable because of total physical handicap. 
Even the partially handicapped are making contributions to connnu- 
nity living under a well-worked-out, sheltered, workshop plan at no 
expense to the public treasuries. 

I submit to the members of the Commission that this is an indica- 
tion of the way in which the new American has been integrated into 
the community from the purelv materialistic side. 


I call your attention to one provision in the law which tends to 
limit new innni<>Tation in the fnture to the highly skilled. AVhatever 
reason this provision was put into the law for, we can all be thankful 
it wasn't in previous laws. Had it been, such immigrants as the Scots- 
man, Andrew Carnegie, who founded the steel industry; the Irish- 
man, Thomas Mellon, who founded the first modern banking network; 
or the Swiss, Henry C. Frick, who opened America's coal and iron 
to the world, would not have been admitted to this country because 
not one of these three men, or hundreds of others I could name, was a 
skilled workman. 

These new Americans have not insisted in obtaining employment 
utilizing their previous experience and skills; they have accepted 
all kinds of business and employment offers. Let me point out just 
a few of these: The Lutheran Service Society of Western Pennsyl- 
vania w^hich has maintained a forward-looking, progressive service 
to newcomers of the Lutheran faith have had over 700 newcomers 
since the adoption of the first DP Act. Many of these, of course, had 
to have financial support from the society until they became self- 
supporting and now the Lutheran Service Society can look with great 
pride upon outstanding achievements in terms of successful employ- 
ment. The former dean of the Medical School of the University of 
Riga, Latvia, is now teaching anatomy in the Medical School of the 
University of Pittsburgh. Many have continued their careers, in- 
cluding a ninnber of physicians who came to Pittsburgh but could not 
practice of the requirements set up by the Pennsylvania 
Medical Society and who worked in hospitals as technicians until they 
learned the English names of medicines and went to other States to 

Among the Jewish group employment has been secured in every 
field of heavy manufacturing and commerce and in the arts. One 
musician, prominent in his own country, worked at odd jobs until 
lie finally achieved his pi'oper position as a member of the Pittsburgh 
Symphon}^ Orchestra. One baker, the head of a large establishment 
in Europe, came to Pittsburgh as a displaced person and worked as a 
l)aker's assistant gradually rising in the scale until he now has two 
shops of his own employing over 50 people and giving work to other 
new Americans. 

And I could go on for hours repeating over and over again the re- 
adjustment on an economic basis of these whom we have taken into 
our community in the past 5 years. Many young men are now in the 
military service of the United States, and I call your attention to the 
fact that there has not been one case of draft dodging among this 

One aspect of the IVIcCarran-Walter Act which must seem amazing 
to anyone who has read the act. is this : The act seems to imply that 
present American citizens are unwilling to accept many new Ameri- 
cans. This could not be farther from the truth. Americans all over 
the country have opened w^ide their arms to receive the new American, 
to guide him to citizenship, to help him to readjust in a foreign land, 
to help him understand our language, our customs, and our modes. 

In Pittsburgh, for example, there is one institution or group, as 
I am sure there must be in every other city in the country, which 
lielps the new Americans become old Americans. The City Council 



of the City of Pittsburgh established a civic unity council whose 
purpose it is to promote amicable and cooperative relations among the 
various cultural, national, economic, social, and religious groups in 
order that conditions which cause tensions might be eliminated. 

The American Service Institute works through the entire structure 
of the community to bring about integration of all persons, particu- 
larly new Americans, into communal life serving as an organizer and 
consultant on problems of cultural and intergroup relations. 

In short, American citizens want to help. I submit that the new 
law thwarts that wnsh and substitutes suspicion for the new American 
in place of the helping hand. 

How have the newcomers admitted since 19-18 beliaved in relation 
to American laws ? Have they been troublemakers ? Have they vio- 
lated our laws? How do they compare with the citizens who pre- 
ceded them to this country or were native-born ? 

There has not been one case in Pittsburgh of any new American 
deported as a subversive, for health reasons, or for any criminal or 
delinquent act. 

Let me say just a few words about the cultural integration of these 
new Americans into Pittsburgh communal, cultural life. Pittsburgh 
has long been a city of national groups who, on the one hand, embrace 
American citizenship opportunities and freedoms and, on the other 
hand, retain the cultures of their native lands. Pittsburgh has bene- 
fited tremendously from its new Americans. The new Americans 
have taken part in the long lists of activities, concerts, lectures, forums, 
exhibits, artcraft, and dramatics. Fifty percent of the personnel of 
the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra is made up of foreign-born 
musicians, several of them from the new American group. 

One of the implications to be derived from the McCarran-Walter 
Act is that its purpose is to keep out of the United States subversives 
and those who can do harm to our democracy. No one questions the 
wisdom of this concept. One only questions the method adopted to 
achieve this concept. If kept on the books unchanged, the McCarran- 
Walter Act will prevent the entrance into the United States of many 
who deserve such an opportunity. 

Doesn't it stand to reason that those who have experienced the 
terrors of totalitarianism will be those likely to embrace with fervor 
the opportunities afforded by a democracy? 

Doesn't it stand to reason that the new American achieving a chance 
for a free and untrammeled life under a democratic regime will be 
even more proud and zealous to protect that opportunity than many 
of us who take democracy for granted ? 

I realize, members of the Commission, that statistics are necessary 
for you in order to carry out the President's mandate to the Commis- 
sion. But statistics are c old ; philosophies are often nebulous. I 
wonder if America, as the home of freedom, has changed very much 
since the days when it welcomed the newcomer to its shores — those 
newcomers who have provided the sinews and strengths by which we 
have become the Nation that we have. Perhaps the lawmakers should 
read again the simple words which appear on the Statue of Liberty : 

* * * Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses, yearning to breatlie free. 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 

Send tliese, the homeless, tempest tost, to me, 

I lift my lamp beside the golden door ! 


It" tliis nefarious Isnv, undemocratic, uni-easonable, un-American, 
unprinci})le(l. and. in many cases, unworkable, is to remain on our 
statutes, perhajis these words should be changed, and, in no spirit of 
levity or smart-aleckness, maybe we should say on the Statue of 
Liberty: "Give me your tired (but not all of them), your poor (but 
only if they are skilled workers), your huddled masses yearning to 
breathe free (but only after they have been imprisoned for a few 
more years), the Avretched refuse of your teeming shores (but only 
if those shores happen to be in certain localities in Europe) : I lift my 
lamp beside the golden door." So long as this act remains on the 
statutes unchanged, the lamp will not be lifted quite so high and the 
golden door will be tarnished. I hope. Commissioners, your report 
to the President and his recommendations to the next Congress T^dll 
again lift that lamp and brighten the golden door. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Monsignor Doyle is our next witness. 


Monsignor Doyle. I am Msgr. Michael J. Doyle, director of Toledo 
Catholic Charities, Toledo, Ohio. 

I have a prepared statement which I wish to read. 

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

Monsignor Doyle. As a son of immigrant parents, I am deeply 
grateful for the opjwrtunity of appearing before this Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization appointed by the President of the 
United States to evaluate problems of immigration policies now in 
force, or soon to be enforced, in this country. My interest in these 
problems stems principally from the fact that I have had considerable 
experience as a diocesan resettlement director in relocating displaced 
persons and displaced familities in the Catholic diocese of Toledo. 
My dissatisfaction with existing immigration polices stems from the 
fact that as an Amercan citizen I cherish tlie democratic and Chris- 
tian ideals that have made American great. Our position of world 
leadership, I believe, derives from the fact that peoples of various 
national origins, composing the greater part of our population, have 
been readily assimilable to the American way of life and who and 
whose offspring are the very strength and sinew of American 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is by no means wholly 
objectionable. It confers certain benefits such as the elimination of 
sex discrimination, citizen wives under the act having the same privi- 
leges as citizen husbands. Special priorities and preferences are given 
to keep families together. It eliminates discrimination against all 
persons of Asian background for naturalization and, for a limited 
niunber, opens up immigration of Asians, but tlie law retains the racist 
concept by insisting that regardless of where a person is born, if as 
much as one-half of his ancestry is Asian, he is chargeable to the Asia- 
Pacific quota instead of the country of his birth, exemptions being 
made only for the Asiatic spouse and children of American citizens. 
This is a peculiar mixture of concern for the family and a restrictive 
measure bound to work extreme hardship on many. 


One of the most objectionable features of the hiw, to my way of 
thinking, is the retaining of the racist and restrictive philosophy of 
the national-origin system with its limitation on immigration of per- 
sons born in Southern and Eastern Europe, and giving a wide margin 
of preferential status to persons born in England and Ireland. This 
part of the act reflects a distrust of the Southern and Eastern Euro- 
pean and a fear that such aliens are potential subversives. This re- 
striction is particularly hard to accept at a time when the immigrants 
most in need of the opportunity to emigrate and most desirous of 
coming to America as a haven of security and an asylum against politi- 
cal persecution are persons born in limited quota areas, such as Italians 
and escapees from the iron-curtain countries. Congress must have 
been well awai'e of this need since it was familiar with the movement 
of hundreds of thousands of displaced persons from these areas during 
the last 4 years but, nevertheless, it rejected any change in the basic 
•quota structure continuing to base that quota on the 1920 census, even 
though the 1940 and 1950 censuses were available. Congress further 
laid itself wide open to the accusation of prejudice against such peo- 
ples by refusing to listen to liberal Members, such as Senator Lehman, 
who pleaded for a pooling of quotas which would have permitted the 
use of unused quotas of such countries as England and Ireland by 
•countries of smaller quotas. 

The entire system of allocation of quotas has been changed in the 
1952 act to introduce a system of selective immigration by giving 
■^'special prefei-ence to skilled aliens urgently needed in this country." 
This belittles the contribution the common man can make to the country 
of his adoption. It involves the use of specific contracts which cannot 
always be fulfilled with the uncertainty of status resulting therefrom. 
In the opinion of many, this particular clause of the act is so worded 
that it is extremely doubtful whether jnany persons can qualify under 
its restrictive limitations. 

Eligibility requirements should be restudied with a view to making 
them less severe. The same is true for the process of deportation, 
•exclusion, and denaturalization. A new scientific formula should be 
evolved to take the place of the national-origins formula, which so 
obviously discriminates against the southern and eastern European. 
Tens of thousands of these nationals have been resettled in this country 
by virtue of the DP xVct of 1948, amended in 1950. I have personally 
dii'ected the resettlement of 720 of such persons in and about the city 
of Toledo. I am happy to state that, without exception, all are adjust- 
ing to their new environment, taking out first papers of citizenship, 
and rapidly becoming integrated into the political, industrial, religious, 
■BJid social life of their community. Reports from Europe tell us of 
the ever-increasing hardships brought about by surplus populations, 
repatriation, and the constant stream of peoples from behind the iron 
■curtain adding an intolerable burden to the economy of the countries 
where they seek refuge. Much needs to be done in this area if the 
United States of America is to continue to enjoy the proud distinction 
of being the friend of the poor and the distressed and of reaching out 
the hand of assistance to our needy brethren everywhere. 

Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic leaders of my community are most 
ianxious to continue their collaboration in servicing refugees from 
Europe. We strongly advocate that Congress pass special legislation 


authorizing the immigration of several hundred thousand more up- 
rooted Eui'opeans to our shores. We cannot understand why a coun- 
try of such vast resources and almost unlimited opportunities should 
turn its hack on the deserving, stateless peoples of Europe, who still, 
to the tune of hundreds of thousands, need that encouragement, that 
friendly interest, and that opportunity that America above every 
other country can give. Let us ever keep meaningful those proud 
words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty : 

* * * Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your liudclled masses, yearning to breathe free, 

The wretclied refuse of your teeming shore. 
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost, to me, 

I lift my lamp beside the golden door. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Monsignor. The Commis- 
sion appreciates your coming before it. 

The Chairman. Is Monsignor INIohan here? 


Monsignor Mohan. I am Msgr. Frederick G. Mohan, Diocese of 
Catholic Charities of the Catholic Kesettlement Council, Cleveland, 
Ohio. I have no prepared statement but I would like to make some 
remarks in support of the statement made by Monsignor Doyle. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you. 

Monsignor Moiiax. The thing I would like to say is that we have 
settled more than 6,500 DP's in and about Cleveland, and that we 
have foimd that in practicall}^ every situation they have adjusted 
well. We have had an office staff here which has taken care of those 
cases where thei-e was necessity for some little help in adjusting, but 
they have become active working people here in our community and 
certainly have helped in the programs that we have been carrying on, 
particularly for our defense. 

I had a cliat with a few of the personnel people who have hired these 
people and they have been well satisfied with them and they would 
hire more of them, they say, if they were available. So, I think we 
ought in consideration of our immigration policies in this country, 
consider these people who have come here, the European, southern 
Europeans, in the light of the fact that the new immigration law 
does make it impossible for any more of those people coming here 
because the quotas are so highly mortgaged. 

Some of the nationalities will not be able to come here for many, 
many years because of these quotas being so highly mortgaged. 

Now, these people who we ought to recognize, who have suffered 
the ravages of tyranny, who have suffered the ravages of war, have 
proved themselves by their representatives here in this country as 
people who we should be interested in. 

Now, we are trying to teach democracy to all the peoples of the 
world. We are taking the leadership now and we ought to consider 
the conditions of the world when Ave draw up an immigration law 
and our immigration policies, and that policy should reflect our leader- 
ship in the world and that we will take into consideration the over- 


populated sections of the world and that we can, if we are going to 
teach these people democracy and if we are going to show them we 
are the leaders and that we' w^ant them to follow on our examples, 
that we will be interested in all of them; and give help and give them 
all an opportunity, particularly giving them an opportunity to come 
to this country. 

We, I think, ought to, in formulating the immigration policy, con- 
sider the vast experience of the displaced-persons program and give 
a great deal of thought to all of the information that was acquired 
and was used by Displaced Persons Commission. 

The Chairman. Monsignor, do you think that such a policy is em- 
bodied in existing law, or would you recommend changes in the exist- 
ing law ? 

Monsignor jMoiiax. I think there needs to be a change in the exist- 
ing law as the national origins basis of our accepting of immigrants 
immediately disqualifies many of these people who are central and 
southeastern Europeans. 

The Chairman. Are j^ou saying you are opposed to the national 
origins basis as a policy ? 

Monsignor Mohax. Yes; because that immediately sets up dis- 

Commissioner Fixucane. Monsignor, may I ask a question : You 
mention that quite a few of these DP's have gone into industry in 
this area. Could you let us know broadly some of the industries that 
absorb these DP'si' 

Monsignor Moiiax. Yes, particularly the steel industry. I might 
mention that Republic Steel has a number of these people. The 
Cleveland Twist Drill Co. is another of the companies that has quite 
a few. Well, offhand I can't think of any more. 

I would like to submit — now I apologize to the committee that I 
am making an oral statement but I have just returned to the city — I 
would like to submit a statement along this line to the committee, tell- 
ing them of some industries and specific instances of adjustments of 
DP's in this city. 

Commissioner Fixucaxe. Do you know whether these industries 
can al)sorb more workers ? 

Monsignor Mohan. That is my understanding, that they could 
absorb more. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Can you tell us what the attitude of indus- 
try is toMard accepting and absorbing more escapees and refugees 
from various countries ? 

Monsignor Mohax. Well, you understand the program just came 
to a conclusion as of January 1, but there were a lot of people coming 
in from the early months of this year, and we have been particularly 
busy trying to get all of these people settled. But we have been in- 
terested in what is happening to these people and we are making a 
survey at this particular moment to really find out what we have done. 

The CiiAiRMAx. How long will it take before the survey is over? 

Monsignor Mohan. We are hopeful it won't take more than a 
month or G weeks more. 

Mr. R()Sp:xfii:ld. You will let us have the results of that? 

Monsignor ^NIouax. Yes, I will be glad to send you the results of 


The Chairman. Thank you very much, Moiisignor. 

The Chairman. Our next Avitness will ho Rahl)i Al)l)a Hillel Silver, 


Rabbi Silver. I am Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, rabbi of the Temple^ 
Cleveland, Ohio. 

I am appearing in behalf of the Jewish Connnunit^' Federation of 
Clevehmd, as well as for the organized JeAvish Conununities of Pitts- 
burgh, BulTalo, Akron, Toledo, and Cincinnati. 

I should like to read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Rabbi Silver. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Commission, I 
appreciate this opportunity to express my opinion with reference to 
the vital and important subject of our immigration and nationality 

To establish at the outset a frame of reference, I should like to de- 
fine the broad objectives at which legislation on this subject shoidd 
aim. I believe our imigration and nationality laws should be just and 
humane, in keeping with our democratic heritage, our international 
commitments, and the moral values wdiich w^e hold dear. Our immigra- 
tion policies need, I believe, remodeling in accordance with thes& 

First, we should eliminate the provisions in our imigration laws 
which discriminate against individuals because of their race or na- 
tional origin. Public LaAV 414 — the McCarran-AValters Immigration 
and Nationality Act — not only preserves the dead weight of the na- 
tional-origins theory, but it adopts a new discrimination in that it sets 
up a separate quota for the British West Indies, which will be re- 
stricted to 100. Our present quota system based upon the long out- 
dated national origins of our population in 1920, largely favors Great 
Britain and Ireland in the annual allocation, Avhereas these countries 
did not utilize in the years between 1930 and 1948 the quotas allowed 
them, and the unused quotas were not reallocated to other countries. 
The countries of southern and eastern Europe are allowed small quotas 
in pursuance of the national-origins system. Asiatic countries receive- 
token quotas of about 100. Although the underlying theory of the 
national-origins system is to determine quotas by place of birth, quotas 
for orientals are determined on the basis of race, no matter where they 
are born. 

I believe that it is morally wrong to differentiate between individuals 
on the basis of race or national origin. Such discrimination is clearly 
not based upon the inherent Avorth of the individual, nor upon equal 
justice to all men. Our quota system and the racial discriminations in 
our new immigration laAvs as Avell as those of the 1920's Avere founded 
on the doctrine that Nordic culture was somehow superior to all others^ 
and that certain nationalities and races were by nature inferior to 
others. This doctrine has absolutely no scientific basis. There are na 
superior races. There are no races endoAved by nature Avith superior 
qualities of mind and character. There are races more fa\'ored than 


others by circumstances, by environment, by geographic position, by 
the fertility of the soil, or by unusual wealth underneath the soil. 
There are differences between races, but no biologic gradation. The 
doctrine of racial superiority was used by the Nazis and the Fascists 
as a cover for their vicious motives in the last World War. Racial con- 
ceits and pretensions have frequently been used by the forces of priv- 
ilege, darkness, and reaction — and the great religions of mankind have 
always warned mankind against them. "God created only one Adam," 
declared a Jewish sage, "in order that in the future no man shall be 
warranted in saying : 'I come from better stock than you do.' " And 
Paul declared in a magnificent sinnmary of the Judeo-Christian tradi- 
tion on the subject of race : "The God that made the world and all na- 
tions therein * * "^^ hath made of one blood all nature and men to 
dwell on the face of the whole earth." 

Most of us had hoped that political racial mythology died with the 
defeat of the Nazis and Fascists in the last war. Unfortunately, that 
has not been the case — and even in our free democracy, grounded as it 
is in human equality, the ghost of that mj^th still rises to haunt us 
whenever we look at the new immigration and nationality law of 
1952. - 

The national origins system and all racial discrimination should be 
dropped from our statute books for yet another reason. Racial dis- 
crimination creates disunity at home and resentment abroad. It in- 
terferes witli our foreign relations and the role of international lead- 
ership which destiny has thrust upon us in recent years. It is one of 
the fundamentals of our political philosophy and an essential part of 
our foreign policy to treat all peoples alike, regardless of race or 
origin. We stand committed to the principle of fundamental human 
rights for all men alike. We gave expression to it time and again at 
United Nations conferences, in our very participation and acceptance 
of the Charter of the United Nations, in our activity in behalf of the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Draft Covenant 
on Human Rights. We cannot press for international acceptance of 
these principles and at the same time offend nations and races by dis- 
criminating against them in our own immigration laws. The time has 
come for the sake of principles, consistency, and leadership to scrap 
the anachronism of the national origin theory. Limit immigration to 
154,000 annually, if you must — and personally I do not favor such a 
ceiling, for I believe that we can and should make a larger contribu- 
tion to the solution of the world's pressing immigration and surplus 
population problem — but distribute 154,000 quota numbers to those 
who are worthy to receive them without distinction as to race, sex, na- 
tionality, language, or religion. 

Secondly, we should remove arbitrary and harsh provisions which 
are founded on suspicion of immigrants as such. I can only point to a 
few examples. 

The new law expands the grounds for deportation and exclusion. It 
permits deportation and exclusion for vague and unidentified reasons, 
and it authorizes procedures based on the opinions of consular ofii- 
cials subject to no review instead of established rules of law. 

Tliese ])rovisions of the law are unfair. They are unfair because they 
vest absolute power in tlie discretion of administrators to deport and 
separate families. Where discretion is so absolute, injustice frequently 


ensues. Our laws should be founded upon humane considerations 
rather than upon suspicion, distrust, undemocratic procedures, and 
arl)itrary discretion. 

Our national experience certainly does not warrant any fear or dis- 
trust of immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. The story of 
immigration to the United States is the story of America itself — a 
story of the rise and growth of one of the greatest and most prosperous 
nations on earth, and of a government which has successfully main- 
tained its democratic character and institutions for more than 175 

Immigrants, coming from all parts of the earth, have made this 
Nation ; by theij labor and genius made it rich and prosperous, and by 
their blood, defended it on the battlefields of war. America has had 
need of the immigrant as much as the immigrant has had need of 
America. And what has been produced in our country of material, 
spiritual, and artistic value is to be attributed not to one or another 
national strain within our composite American life, but to all of 
them. In one way or another, they have all made significant contribu- 
tions to the totality of American life. 

In other regards, too, our immigration laws now upon our statute 
books should be revised. Aliens should not, except as penalty for a 
crime and as punishment imposed by the judicial branch of our Gov- 
ernment, be subjected to arrest, detention, or banishment. Deporta- 
tion is a very serious thing for a man wdio has lived in the United 
States for three or more years. It is even more serious for an alien 
who has lived here since childhood or for one who has married here 
and reared an American family. Deportation deprives them of their 
homes, their families, and sends them, as it were, into exile. Certainly, 
there should be adequate appeals and review procedures in all such 

Each provision of our new^ law should be examined to determine 
whether it is required by pressing public necessity and by moral 
justice. Deportation and exclusion from the United States should be 
weighed with a thorough appreciation of its dreadful consequences. 

Thirdly, our nationality laws should not create a category of second- 
class citizens. Today those who have become citizens through nat- 
uralization are told that they do not have the same freedom to stay 
abroad which is granted to native-born citizens. The naturalized 
citizen cannot return to his native land for more than 3 years, and in 
no event can he go abroad to other countries for mcn-e than 5 years. 
If he does, he loses his citizenship. The native-born citizen may go 
abroad without any restriction. 

Many naturalized citizens who go abroad promote the best interests 
of the United States. They are our ambassadors of good wnll. Some 
promote American trade and commerce. It is certainly not in our best 
interests to revoke their citizenship. 

Finally, we should reexamine the proposed method of selecting im- 
migrants. The application forms should not call for race or ethnic 
classifications in view of the immateriality of this information and 
the possibility that it may be utilized as a basis for discrimination. 
Public Law 414 also fails to grant nonquota status to the parents of 
American citizens, and people in this categor}^ are compelled to wait 
on quota lines before being granted permission to be reunited with 
their children. 


The new law, in addition to making quotas available to aliens with- 
out regard to race and national origin, should also make quotas avail- 
able to them more equitably. The new law makes a very large propor- 
tion of the quotas available to those with special skills, and may be so 
interpreted as to end all other forms of immigration. I believe that 
preferences may well be given to those with special skills, to parents 
of American citizens and to the spouses and children of aliens lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence, and to those fleeing persecution. I 
would grant these three categories a preference to the extent, say, of 
50 percent of the annual quota of 154,000 — if this is to be the quota. 
The remaining 50 percent should be left open for the laborer, the 
mechanic, the farmer, the common man who came to America in the 
past and helped build our bridges, our roads, our factories, our indus- 
tries, and whose children contributed to our culture and our civil- 
ization. Public Law 414, if it remains unmodified, may well cut off 
the immigration of the little fellow, the man of no superior education 
or technical training, who helped America become great. Those who 
today seek our shores carry gifts as great as any that earlier immi- 
grants brought. Our quota system should be kept flexible so that we 
can continue to welcome these immigrants rather than to turn them 

Nearly every great war leaves vast numbers of human beings npr 
rooted, great numbers of people who have lost their families, who have 
no home to return to, no occupation to resume, who for many different 
reasons must seek to rebuild their lives elsewhere. 

There was a time when a person who fled from persecution and 
tyranny in his own country could escape to a new world. Today a 
man who loses his country loses his place in the world, too. As a 
stateless person, he appears to have no status in the world community. 
The United States should take the lead in recognizing the peculiar 
dilemma of these unfortunates and in helping them. 

If we are to be a good neighbor to the rest of the Avorld, we cannot 
maintain the forbidding role cut out for us in Public Law 414. The 
time has come for us to remodel our immigration policy so that it 
conforms not to our fears, but to our hopes, our guiding historic 
principles and our role of leadership in helping mankind toward 
justice, freedom, and peace. 

Commissioner Finucane. You mentioned the fact that you think 
it is morally wrong to differentiate between individuals on the basis 
of race or national origin. It has been testified that the economic 
situation of certain countries in Europe having excess population 
would be greatly improved if some of their ])eople could be accepted 
by this country. On the other hand, it has also been stated that this 
country could not possibly absorb sufficient numbers to relieve the sit- 
uation in the Far East wliere the overpopulation is so much larger tlian 
in Europe. In your judgment, would it be morally wrong to differ- 
entiate between the Far East and Europe in our immigration policy? 

Rabbi Silver. In my judgment it should not be based upon the place 
of origin of these immigrants. 

Commissioner Finucane. The place of origin is, of course, merely a 
matter of identifying them. 

Rabbi Silver. I can fully realize that. It may well be determined 
by a board — an administrative commission, so the absorptive capacity 

25356 — 52 31 


of our country for immigrants can be determined. I am not advocat- 
ing all together unlimited immigration at this time. I think that 
preference should be given first to those who seek reunification with 
their families and, secondly, to those who are victims of persecution, 
and, thirdly, to those who do have special skills and qualifications; but 
after that I think perhaps the best rule would be first-come, first- 

We are trying to win the good will of Asia in our foreign policy. 
We are fighting for the great ideals in the world and we can win those 
peoples of Asia to our point of view if we can persuade them that we 
are not discriminating against them because of race or color. 

It is this very fact of race discrimination being exploited so far as 
it will be, and I am afraid it will be used against us. which is making 
our foregn policy unacceptable to so many peoples especially in Asia, 
where half the world's population resides. 

Commissioner Finucane. Would you take that view, even though by 
accepting immigrants on first-come first-served basis we would not in 
any real sense help the internal condition of the Far East, India, and 
Pakistan and China, whereas if we gave our attention more to Euro- 
pean countries, to Netherlands, or to (ireece, for instance, we might 
very materially help the internal conditions there? 

Rabbi Silver. Well, we would be helping there and, on the other 
hand, would probably be helping the situation in Asia. We will never 
be able to completely solve the surplus population problem of either 
Europe or Asia by our immigration exclusively to the United States, 

The Chairman. Under your proposal, would you make the residue 
available to everybody in the world, without regard to whether it was 
Europe or Asia ? 

Rabbi Silver. That is right, giving these preliminary preferences 
to those categories which I have indicated. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 


Mr. Andrica. I am Theodore Andrica, nationalities editor of the 
Cleveland Press for the past 25 years. 

I am supposed to write articles concerning and about the 45 na- 
tionality groups existing in Cleveland, and whatever I say is based 
on 25 years of experience with the nationality groups and immigrants. 
During the past 25 years I also traveled 15 years, every j^ear from 4 
to 6 months in Euroj)e, visiting the homelands of these people. What 
I say about immigration legislation is also based on experience in the 
old country too. 

The (Chairman. AVhat nationalities here in Cle\'eland have been 
involved in your writings? 

Mr. Andrica. Before 1948, before the iron curtain fell totally, the 
nationalities iuA^olved in Cleveland Avere Polish, Jewish, if you call it 
nationality, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Rumanians, Serbs, Croa- 
tians, Slovenes, Austrians, Germans, Lithuanians, Greeks, Italians, 
Irish, mostly. On a secondary par, as far as numbers were reflected 
in Cleveland, they were the Scandinavian people, the French, Bel- 
gium, Dutch, and the smaller states like the Swiss. 


I believe that there should be no unlimited immigration to America 
but that the total number of immigrants lawfully to be admitted 
should be at least twice or three times the present number. The coun- 
try not only can absorb them economically, but what is more im- 
portant, the' United States needs the immigrants. All past experience 
shows that the immigrants have usually and normally large families, 
and I shall bring forth a thought which has not been so far presented; 
namely, that during the past 75 years, since we have had immigration 
on a verj', very large scale, these immigrants, and their very numerous 
oft's])ring, have contributed most vitally to the raising of the largest 
armies the world has seen as far as America is concerned. What the 
inunigrants did, and are doing for the development of the United 
States, I believe, is no matter of controversy any more. They have 
built the cities of America, and one way of dramatically illustrating 
what the immigrants and their children do for any industrial city in 
America is the following theory: Assuming that tomorrow morning 
all iuimigrants, and their children, but not grandchildren, don't go 
to M'oi'k in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, New York City, Buffalo, Toledo, 
Chicago, Canton, Ohio; Youngstown, Ohio; Birmingham, Ala.; 
Texas, California — if you can imagine a picture that no immigrant 
will go to work in the plants of America tomorrow, and in industrial 
establishments, you can very well see what they contribute even today 
to the development of America. Contrary to the fears expressed by 
people opposed to immigration in the past, the immigrants did not 
constitute a burden to this country. Public records, not only in Cleve- 
land but everywhere, show that the immigrants have been — and this 
is not theory — and are among the most ardent believers and practi- 
tioners of home ownership, which is one of the most basic tenets of 
our American life. Throughout all the wars which were fought by 
this country, the immigrants, starting with the Civil War, have 
proven — again, it is not a theory only — that they have been thorough- 
ly loyal, both politically, militarily, and spiritually to this country. 

I believe that the quota sj'stem should be changed because the figures 
on which the quotas are based are not only unfair but are definitely 
wrong; and this wrong has been perpetuated for 30 years now. Since 
1872 or whatever year the law is based on, the world has changed. For 
instance, the Poles cannot bring their people to this country because 
at that time Poland was not Poland. All the peoples of the Austrian 
and Hungarian Empire, the Slovaks, the Rumanians, the Croatians, 
many Serbs, many Italians, many Slovenes, cannot have a just quota 
because they were not born in what was Slovenia, Roumania, Slovakia, 
Croatia — tliey were born in Hungary or in Austria. The only quota, 
that could be said to be correct, from eastern and central Europe, 
would be the Italian quota. Not ever the Greek quota is correct because 
most of the Greeks who came here are from Turkey, from Turkish- 
dominated islands. So in that respect too, America has committed a 
gi-eat Avrong — proclaiming by law to the entire world that the Ameri- 
can Government does believe in discrimination is no good from the 
point of view of foreign policy. We are supposed to be the champions 
of liberty and justice to the entire world, and we are specifically talking 
now to eastern Europe, which is under the iron curtain. But here at 
home we are telling our people of Polish, Hungarian, Slovak, Czech 
descent that they are not as good as the Irish, Scandinavians, the 


Britisli, or the French — we are not intimating, we are telling them 
by law. An American soldier born in Cleveland, Ohio, of Slovak, 
Hungarian, or Polish descent does risk and often sacrifices his life on 
the battlefield for America, but he cannot bring his cousin from Poland, 
Hungary, as fast, or never, as does his comrade who happens to stem 
by sheer accident from Scandinavia. Another thing which we forget, 
and I believe, is that from the point of view of practical propaganda 
we cannot tell the iron-curtain countries, whether through the Voice 
of America, or Radio for Europe, or other means, that we sincerely 
desire their liberation from the yoke of the Soviets, when the Soviets 
can very rightfully come back at us and say: "What kind of justice 
is this in America, when you Poles, you Slovaks, you Eumanians in 
America, with citizenship in your pockets cannot exercise the same 
rights as somebody born or descended from Ireland, Scandinavia, 
France, and Belgium." It is powerful propaganda, and those of us 
who are familiar with it — from the first standpoint of view, we know 
that it is an almost unbeatable propaganda. The same thing goes for 
the Asiatic countries. 

I want to resume again what I was trying to say: I believe in 
doubling the immigration — I believe in eradicating the national origins 
quotas, they are unfair, unjust, and completely incorrect. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Andrica, in connection with your observations 
about the way people in Europe feel about the immigration law, would 
you be able to provide the Commission with some documentation on 
that subject on the basis of your trips overseas; that is, the way people 
actually feel, as expressed either in their official documentation, or in 
their newspapers, or in other ways that may have come to your atten- 
tion ? 

Mr. Andrica. I shall be very much able. I shall point out to you 
that devoted friends of America have been asking me repeatedly in 
many countries, if we are such champions of America why they cannot 
go to America. We can go to Poland — I am not talking only about 
Poland — we can go to Europe, anywhere, by showing a green passport 
which can be obtained for $11 from any post office here, but they cannot 
even come on a visit to America. It is a statement which I cannot ever 
dispute — it is true. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. In your trips to Europe, have you observed any 
reaction on the part of the people there as a result of the communica- 
tions and letters from people of foreign extraction in the United States, 
urging them to espouse democracy and to oppose communism? 

Mr. Andrica. Well, the best example of that is the Italian elections. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Has it extended beyond the Italian elections? 
Wliat other countries ? 

Mr. Andrica. Greece, Yugoslavia, and until the mills were shut 
down about 2 months ago, to Rumania, to Hungary. I am not too 
familiar with Poland, but Yugoslavia is definitely in that sphere that 
Rumania was. Now the mills are shut down. Not technically, but 
you realize that you have to have special post offices in those countries 
from which you can mail also to America. So that thing is a little 
bit over, but until about 2 months ago there was a tremendous influ- 
ence from America in homey letters telling them how life is in 
America, if nothins eA^o. 


Commissioner O'Grady. Have you observed any indication from 
foreign-born groups in this country that they believe the immigration 
law is dicriminatory against them ? 

Mr. Andrica. They understand it. They appreciate it. The only 
difficulty is that they are not as vocal as they should be, and that is 
again stemming from the fact that throughout this 30 years, they were 
gradually and permanently given the impression that they are some- 
what second-class citizens. And if they are not vocal in this respect, 
it is because we have been able, or at least some people have been able, 
to tell them even by law, and I come back to that again, gentlemen of 
the Commission, that by law we tell them that they are not as good as 
somebody else. If you don't hear more from them, it is because they 
are not as vocal as some other people are, but deep down in their hearts 
they feel it very, very much. Maybe they can't express it as well as 
they should but they do feel it. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. How soon can you as- 
semble your information ? 

Mr. Andrica. In a week. 

The Chairman. Please send it to us in Washington just as soon as 
you can. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Mr. Charles P. Lucas. 


Mr. Lucas. I am Charles P. Lucas, 7811 Cedar Avenue, Cleveland. 
I am appearing as executive secretary, Cleveland branch, of the Na- 
tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 

I have a prepared statement I should like to read. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, members of the Special Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization, I wish to applaud the President of 
the United States for his wisdom in establishing the special Commis- 
sion. You, the members of the Commission richly deserve the appre- 
ciation of thousands of Americans and would-be Americans for your 
patience in tediously pursuing a fact-finding course covering many 
regions of our great country. 

To expedite time, I am assuming you have been thoroughly in- 
formed, through your own careful study and by expert technical tes- 
timony of the racially restrictive discriminatory features of Public 
Law 414. With the authority and on behalf of colored citizens in this 
region, I would like to address my brief remarks to section 202 (c) 
of the McCarran-Walter immigration and naturalization bill passed 
by the Eighty-second Congress over a Presidential veto. 

Before, and after passage of Public Law 414, reverberating reac- 
tions in this region immediately sensed the effect of section 202 (c) 
on continued immigration from the West Indies. I have had the 
privilege of living association wth colored peoples from many sec- 
tons of the Caribbean area who have made satisfactory citizenship 
adjustments in and around Cleveland, Ohio. 

I had the direct opportunity to know and work with Bishops Joseph 
Comez and D. Ormond Walker of the AME Church, both beino- ele- 


vated to the bishopric from the city of Cleveland. It is the proud 
knowledge of Clevelanders in general that immigrants from the West 
Indies have made notable contributions to the total living pattern of 
our city. One heads a large and thriving Christian community center, 
another served as councilman in the city of Cleveland, still another 
established and operates one of the largest floral shops in the city. 
A reputable weekly newspaper here is owned and edited by a distin- 
guished West Indian. The clergy and medical and teaching profes- 
sion are liberally sprinkled with representation from the islands. I 
could recite in rather lengthy detail nearly a half-hundred names of 
individuals who have made noteworthy achievements in this and the 
surrounding communities of Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Columbus, 
Cincinnati, and Toledo, but time vron't permit. 

In this region, we have been the recipients of scores of solid citizens 
from Jamaica, Trinidad, and the colonies of the British West Indies, 
lieducing the flow of this element of the world's population is a serious 
blow to them and to us. 

Cleveland has had a West Indian club for many years which had 
assisted in the urbanization and relocation of many of their country- 
men. This community has received these new citizens with open arms 
and has welcomed the skills which they bring. Their quest for finished 
educational opportunities coupled with their desire for worthy home 
membership certainly qualifies them for the blessings of our growing 

At present, there is a widespread interpretation that under the Mc- 
Carran-Walter bill, there will be a reduction by about 90 percent from 
the West Indies. It is also understood that instead of eliminating 
racial discrimination with regard to the admission of colored peoples 
that the bill perpetuates the restrictive features of the 1924 Immigra- 
tion Act. This is naturally vieAved with alarm in our community. 
Cleveland's total then, would be practically negligible imder the pres- 
ent features of the bill. Therefore, this fertilization of our colored 
population in business, law, medicine, religion, government and the 
press Avould suffer a definite set-back if present standards on immi- 
gration are maintained. 

The ability of these new citizens to make commendable adjustments 
in health, religion, employment, education and the political life of 
our commimity is truly amazing and inspiring. It is therefore hoped 
by a large majority of colored people in this area that your commis- 
sion will find convincing evidence to present to the Eighty-third Con- 
gress of the United States which will provide a complete revision of 
Public Law 414 and especially section 202c. 

The Chairman. Thank yoii, Mr. Lucas. We appreciate your com- 
ing before the Commission. 


Mr. NoGRADi. I am Bela Nogradi, editor of Szabadsag, a Hunga- 
rian daily, 1736 East Twenty-second Street, Cleveland, Ohio. I am 
also representing the publisher of Szabadsag, Mr. Zolten Gombos. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I imagine that the 
shortcomings of the McCarran-Walter Act have been elucidated from 


many poi)its of view, so I just want to read a very brief statement 
calling your attention to one special viewpoint, which should be taken 
into consideration in the light of the cold war. It may have avoided 
general attention that the law hits hardest those East and Central 
European countries which are under Communist rule at the present 

The CiiAiRMAx. We shall be glad to hear your statement. 

Mr. NoGRADi. Since we are engaged to strengthen the anti-Com- 
munist world it would certainly be a loss to exclude the thousands of 
men and women who are refugees from the Communist regimes in 
their countries. Surely there can be no more reliable element in the 
anti-Communist world than the refugees of communism. 

Mere anticomnnmism, however, should not be considered sufficient 
moral passport to this country. We, the first generation of Ameri- 
cans of Hungarian descent are witnesses that after the Second World 
War there was an influx of Hungarians to this country who are tainted 
with totalitarian ideas, and I am sure a similar situation prevails 
among other nationalities. 

This unhappy situation is due mostly to the inexperience of the 
American consular services. Through routine "investigation" it is 
almost impossible for an American official abroad to identify an ex- 
Nazi or ex-Fascist unless he was an exposed individual. 

To remedy this situation, I believe, it would be a healthy idea to 
establish some sort of citizens immigration committee which may act 
in an advisory capacity to immigration authorities. This committee, 
consisting of prominent citizens beyond reproach in each nationality 
group, is apt to know more about the background of persons to be 
admitted to this country. 

I request your committee to take these remarks into consideration 
and include them in its report to the President. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Do you have any recent reliable information as 
to the number of Hungarian escapees that are crossing into Western 
Europe ? 

Mr. NoGRADi. No, I have no special information, but I would esti- 
mate that, let's say, in the last 18 months, since the border inspection 
is more severe — I would estimate that no more than maybe 200 to 300 
persons escaped. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. From Hungary ? 

Mr. NoGRADi. Yes. It is a terrible risk, you know, and probably 
more than a thousand persons have tried it and lost their lives, or their 

Mr. RosENFiELD. What has happened to the ones who have gotten 
across, do you know ? 

Mr. NoGRADi. They live mostly in Austria, in Vienna, and Salzburg, 
and very few of them, a negligible amount came to this country and 
other places, mostly prominent people, who by their prominence can 
assure a visa to this country — artists and so forth — that's a handful. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Havc they gone anywhere else ? 

Mr. NoGRADi. Some of them went to Italy, a handful of them went 
to Australia, South America, but you can estimate them only by the 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Are any of them being used by Radio Free Europe 
in broadcasting ? 


Mr. NoGRADi. I don't know if they are. But usually when they es- 
cape they use them in making a statement, making a broadcast, but 
that is not as a livelihood. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Thank you very much. 


Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce into the record at 
this point a statement submitted to the Commission by Albert Zimmer 
for the American Banater Relief Society of Cincinnati, Ohio. They 
have asked that this be submitted instead of appearing orally. 

The Chairman. That may be admitted. 

(The statement submitted by Mr. Albert Zimmer, representing the 
Ainerican Banater Relief, is as follows :) 

October 6, 1952. 
To the Honoraile President's Commission of Immigration and Naturalization: 

(a) The immigration laws in regards of qualifying any immigrant shall re- 
main about the same in general as are for admission at the present. 

Naturalization shall remain about the same as is now. In order to give every 
future naturalized citizen an opportunity to familiarize himself with all angles 
of American political life. The same shall go for denaturalization and deporta- 
tion. No man shall be deprived of his citizenship unless it is proven through our 
courts that he obtained the same through fraud and that he believes in changing 
our form of Government by force. 

(b) All immigrants are being quickly absorbed into the American way of life ; 
and under the present economy, they also will be in the future. No one knows 
what the future holds in store, nevertheless we are convinced that immigration 
is a great help to the country now and in the future. 

(c) In effect our present immigration laws are antiquated and were made for 
peacetime when people lived in their ancestral homes and do not take care for 
the present needs 

As for the national origin quota if changed to the population of the United 
States as of 1910 it would be more justly distributed than at present and for 
the present emergency of overpopulation in certain areas and similar cases there 
should be a law permitting 100,000 uprooted people who may be called refugees, 
expellees, escapees, or whatever new name may be found for them, to come to our 
shores regardless of national origin or religious belief. These people shall be 
permitted from such areas as is recommended by the President on the advice 
or recommendation of the State Department and religious and charitable 

Comment. — We are convinced that changing the present quota of national 
origin of the composition of the population in the United States to 1910 plus 
the 100,000 per year of people who lost their former homes would go a long way 
to relieve the population problems in Europe and would not even be noticed in 
the United States or change the present composition of population it would easily 
be absorbed into the American way of life. 
Yours very respectfully, 

(Signed) Albert Zimmer. 

The Chairman. Father Gabor Takacs. 

Mrs. Stibran. Father Gabor Takacs does not speak English, and I 
shall interpret for him. He is representing the American-Hungarian 
Catholic Newspaper, and I am representing that also, so may I inter- 
pret for him ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 



Mrs. Stibran. I am Mrs. Theresa A. Stibran, 18133 Lomond Boule- 
vard, Shaker Heights, Cleveland. I represent the American-Hun- 
garian Catholic Newspaper, but before making my statement wish to 
interpret for Father Takacs, who also wishes to testify. 

The Chairman. You may proceed to interpret for Father Takacs. 

Mrs. Stibran. The Keve^-end Father Gabor Takacs, 4160 Lorain 
Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, is here as chief editor of the Hungarian 
Catholic Sunday. 

Mrs. Stibran (interpreting for Rev. Takacs). The Eeverend Fa- 
ther Gabor Takacs arrived in the United States in 1940 as a displaced 
person who had lived in a clisplaced-person camp in Italy. He is now 
100 percent familiar with the English language, and he is very much 
concerned that an additional displaced-person law should be enacted 
somewhat similar, or very much like the 1940 displaced person law 
that we have had. In other words, he would like a companion bill to 
the McCarran bill which was passed by Congress. Father Takacs is 
very greatly concerned about this new, additional displaced-person 
law because he seems to feel that our job was not quite finished when 
the 1948 — Public Law No. 774, I believe it was — was ended. 

He feels that a great many of our refugees came into the United 
States leaving members of their families — in some cases husbands 
and wives, and in some cases mother and children left in a displaced- 
persons camp. He also seems to feel, as I myself advocate, that in 
1948, or beginning 1948, in that law there was a deadline given which 
let people into the United States inclusive of a certain date from 1944 
to 1947. Later on that was changed — those that left the iron curtain 
countries in 1948 could also come to the United States. He continu- 
ously kept writing and asking that this deadline should be changed — 
perhaps to 1944, because during the interval between the Allies and 
the enemy there were a great many refugees entering Western Europe 
that were equally eligible, shoulcl have been equally eligible to enter 
the United States as those that arrived there a year later. A great 
many of the refugees did not register at IRO because they were not 
informed to do so immediately after their arrival to AVestern Europe, 
so, therefore, they were not eligible to enter the United States. 

Father Takacs is also asking me to mention that if we shall be suc- 
cessful to have a new displaced persons law in the future that we 
should include, perhaps, those refugees who went to countries other 
than to the United States, and those who have served in the foreign 
legions. I think it was a 5-year period they were supposed to serve, 
and then they are through with their 5 years, but they are not eligible 
ever to enter the United States. Father Takacs seems to feel that this 
should be eliminated and some provision made in the new law that 
these people perhaps could enter together with those that might enter 
from Western Europe; that left the iron curtain countries. Father 
Gabor Takacs claims that there are about 30,000 that were serving in a 
foreign legion, and served their 5 years that are scattered all over the 
world, many of them in India, China, Australia, England, even 
France. These are all the points that he has. 


The ^HAiKMAN. What foreio^n legion are you refeirinir to? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). The Foreign Legion of France in 
Indochina, and some of Enghmd's foreign legions. He claims that 
most of them escaped in 1044 and 1945 and, therefore, tliey already 
have served their 5 years, which they had promised to serve when they 
joined these foreign legion armies. 

The Chairman. Did they serve in armies of the United States? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). No. But they were refugees in 
Western Europe, and they signed up to fight communism in these for- 
eign legion armies — to serve the French, and, of course, perhaps with 
the English Government, but at the same time they were serving on 
the same front where we are fighting evidently. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Did you say some of them fought in Indochina? 

Mrs. Stibran. Yes. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Are they in England or Indochina or 
where ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). They were trained in those coun- 
tries and they were sent to fight on other fronts wherever the English 
are holding the line, and the French are holding the line — as French 

Hs claims we are corresponding with them, the newspaper is being 
delivered to them, we are constantl}^ in touch with these people. Of 
course, they are refugees from the iron-curtain countries. 

The Chairman. Does Father Takacs say there are 30,000 Hun- 
garians alone ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). He means that would be inclusive 
of all from the old Austrian-Hungarian territory. That would in- 
clude Czechs, and Rumanians, and all those that came from the iron- 
curtain countries — he means all of them inclusive. 

The Chair3Ian. Does he mean 30,000 people who were behind what 
we now call the iron curtain, that fought on the side of the Allies — 
fought in the French Armies or the English Armies? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). Yes. They would be very thrilled 
and glad to assign themselves to the United States Army if that was 
provided for them — that's wdiat they want in the first place. 

The Chairman. Have the 30,000 finished the 5 years they agreed to 
serve ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). The father claims they have 

The Chairman. Are some of them still serving ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). Some of them are still serving; 
some of them have served only as much as 2 years, and they have 3 
years left. We are concerned about the ones that have served the 5 
years and are reporting themselves that they would like to come to the 
United States. 

The Chairman. Now, when they have finished their terms in what- 
ever army they happen to be in, then, has he got any idea as to where 
fhey are or what becomes of them ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). They, no doubt, have an idea, and 
I have an idea myself, that if they served in the French Army for 5 
years that the French Government, perhaps, would provide them with 
some citizenship maybe, or they would be eligible to be citizens of 
those countries, but, of course, if there is a quota system it would have 
to be considered. 


The Chairman. How many of the 30,000 does he think would want 
to come to the United States? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). The father claims that there may 
be approximately about 5,000 to 10,000 that would be very anxious 
to come to the States directly — some of them made connections, and 
got jobs, and some of them, perhaps, died of that number, or are ill 
of that number, and would not be eligible. But he believes that about 
6,000 or 10,000 would be anxious to come. 

The Chairman. And does he think that there are as many as 5,000 
or 10,000 in that class that have already finished serving their 5 years? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). Yes, yes, that's what he means. 

The Chairman. Is it 30,000 that have finished serving their 5 years, 
or is part of the 30,000 still serving? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). He thinks that 30,000 registered, 
but he doesn't have a full report of how many of those have fallen in 
those armies by accident or by war casualty — he does not know that 

The Chairman. Are some of the 30,000 casualties ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). That must be so. 

The Chairman. And some of them are still in the army ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation) . Most of them, the majority of them, 
are out — at least he seems to feel that there are about 30,000 that are 
through serving or have been there for 5 years. 

The Chairman. And of that number, he believes 5,000 or 10,000 
would want to come to the United States ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). That's right. 

The Chairman. Are they now located in England or France or 
wherever they may be settled ? 

Mrs. Stibran (interpretation). Yes, and in the posts fighting. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Now you may testify. 


Mrs. Stibran. I am representing the American-Hungarian Catholic 

For myself, I was advocating that within the American-Hungarian 
Federation — that in 1948 I was working very much for Public Law 
774, but after, and before it was adopted, I continually asked to change 
the deadline on that, and I thought it was somewhat discriminatory 
because it did not include the refugees that entered Western Europe 
directly in 1944 during the war, and I worked continuously for a new 
law after that ended, and the McCarran-Walter bill when it was in 
the Senate. I was corresponding and asking the Judiciary Committee 
to pass the law, but at the same time I asked that the quota numbers 
be revised because I did not feel that they were correct. 

Here I want to mention that I agree with Mr. Andrica very much 
that the quota numbers were based on the 1920 race and nationality 
statute and it was not correct because many of those people were born 
in old Austria, Hungary, and, as he stated, were never eligible to 
follow him in that hnv. 

I liave jotted down a few notes here that I might read about the 
McCarran-Walter inunigration bill. I believe it is discriminatory 


only insofar as every law is discriminatory against somebody. The 
quota numbers given to each country should be revised because we 
have many limitations. I am against such a free-for-all law as the 
Humplirey-Lehman bill suggests. A new law should be provided 
within which additional numbers of refugees could enter from West- 
ern Europe and other countries. Our job there is not finished. 

I am suggesting that a temporary emergency immigration legisla- 
tion be enacted to admit at least an additional 300,000 immigrants to 
this country over a 3-year period. This should include those persons 
wdio served the 5-year period in foreign legions. We are under moral 

I also wash to say that I am convinced that the Hungarian immi- 
grants entering the United States in 1948 or after, those that came in 
recently, are quickly adjusting themselves, and we haven't had any 
occasion to find that any of them behaved in such a way that we 
would wish to send them back. They are all anxious to become citi- 
zens, the same as I was when I came to the United States 30 years ago. 
I came in at 6 o'clock one evening, and the next morning I was carry- 
ing my citizenship application paper, and I am a citizen for 24 years, 
and love to be here, and I wish it could be made so that others could 
come in and try to work for the United States of America. 

The Chairman. Will you tell us why you are opposed to legisla- 
tion such as that embodied in the Humphrey-Lehman bill ? 

Mrs. Stibran. Well, I was reasoning that it is true that it is dis- 
criminatory if we don't open the gates in the Far East as much as 
we open the gates, say, to Western European refugees ; debating about 
that, I can see that it could he easily called discriminatory. As I 
said, any laAv would be that. Of course, I always have said our facili- 
ties are limited. We can bring in so many, our personnel can take 
care of only so many, our boats can bring so many, we can assimilate 
them putting them to work — we have the facilities, but it takes time, 
and I feel if it was open all around- the world it would require so 
many bureaus, so many examinations, so many people have to be placed 
in those parts to screen them, bring them in, examine them. If there 
is such a law as the Lehman bill provides, it perhaps should be a 
long-term law. Of course, the McCarran bill is a long-term law. As 
I stated, the quota basis, it seems to me, is all right except that the 
provision should have been revised while they were working on it. 

The Chairman. Are you in favor of the quota? 

Mrs. Stibran. I am in favor of the quota system. 

The Chairman. Are you in favor of the national origins quota 
system ? 

Mrs. Stibran. Yes. But, as I said, now I am not against giving 
England so much more than other countries, but I am saying that we 
have seen that not as many people come in as the quota that is given 
to them, so, therefore, I believe that it should be revised and given 
to those countries not on racial origins, but on population number now, 
because people left those countries ancl are migrating all over Europe, 
and we cannot very well go and find out who was born in what country, 
and place them on quota according to their origin of birth. 

The Chairman. Do you advocate using the most recent census, the 
1950 census? 

Mrs. Stibran. Yes ; I would take that. 


The Chairman. And would you have a quota based on that census? 

Mrs. Sttbran. Yes. For instance, the Italian quota corresponding 
to that should be higher, or the central European-Hungarian or 
Czechoslovakian, Rumanian, those quotas should be adjusted to today's 
numbers of citizens. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Would that still not be considered discrim- 
inatory against some countries ? 

Mrs. Stibran. As I said, in spite of all the arrangements we make, 
it is still discriminatory against someone else. I think that we have a 
moral obligation because they are refugees, they are homeless, they are 
without any future at all. That's the only reason that I am asking for 
a provision in the new law, like the 1948 displaced persons law was. 

The Chairman. Are you advocating that we have a general immi- 
gration policy based on quotas, and that quota system based on 1950 
census ? 

Mrs. Stibran. That's right. 

The Chairman. And that, you say, would still involve discrimi- 

Mrs. Stibran. Well, if you look for discrimination you would find 
it in that equally. 

The Chairman. And in addition do you think that we ought to have 
what you call a companion law ? 

Mrs. Stibran. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, something like the Celler bill, a 
temporary law ? 

Mrs. Stibran. That's right. 

The Chairman. In addition to temporary legislation to meet an 
emergency situation, would you also recommend that the permanent 
policy of the United States be based on a quota ? 

Mrs. Stibran. That's right. 

The Chairman. Based on what census? 

Mrs. StibrzVn. It should be brought up to date, based on the 1950 

The Chairman. In taking the 1950 census figures, would you also 
appl}^ that method to the countries as they exist today, and not as they 
existed at tlie time that the quota system was originally adopted, in 
order to provide for these countries that were then in some otlier 
empire ? 

Mrs. Stibran. That's right. 

I entered under a Czechoslovakian quota in 1922, but when I entered 
as a Czechoslovakian our quota was higher than the Hungarian quota. 
If I had had to wait for the Hungarian quota corresponding to my 
birth, I would, perhaps, have had to wait another 2 years, but because 
it was not according to my birth I came in on the Czechoslovakian 
quota. You see, that's the old census of 1920. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

(There follows a written statement submitted later by Mrs. 

October 9, 1952. 
Mr. Philip Peblman, 

Chairman, PresulenVs Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I consider it a great privilege to have the opportunity 
to be heard by the distinguished members of the Commission. 


When I expressed the wish that legislation would be enacted to admit an 
additional 300,000 immigrants to this country over a 3-year period, as an emer- 
gency measure. I am convinced that I have spoken for the great majority of 
Americans of Hungarian origin. 

I also stated that, with some reservations, I am a supporter of the McCarran 
Public Law 414, wliich is based on the quota system. I stated that the quota 
numbers based on the 1920 census was wrong. It is wrong because in the newly 
created central European states at that time, the majority of the people could 
not, for various reasons, admit their origin of birth ; ratlier, they claimed citizen- 
ship in a new country on the basis of merely being able to talk the required 
language. Fearing second-grade citizenship they tried to act as of a race, 
rather than of a country. Furthermore, many families were in a process of 
moving, trying to be united with their relatives. 

To a question — my answer was that the basis of the quota should be based on 
a more recent, preferably on the 1950, census. That is a large order, and I hope 
that the following remarks will help clarify what I was thinking, and why I 
believe that too many mistakes were made in the past. 

Mr. Theodore Andrica, nationality editor of the Cleveland Press, mentioned 
the fact that on the territory which the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire, 
where the nonhomogeneous population consisted of Hungarians, Germans, 
Croatians, Slovaks, Serlnans, Rumanians, Czechs, Ruthenians, and some smaller 
groups of lesser known elements, the birthright as a basis for citizenship was 
impractical. As to the above statement I am in agreement with Mr. Andrica. I 
further said that I came to the United States within the Czechoslovak quota. I 
was very fortunate indeed, that I was born on the territory which was given to 
Czechoslovakia in Trianon. My mother, who was born only a few miles on the 
Hungarian side of the newly created demarcation line, was not so fortunate. She 
could never establish her status to be eligible to come to the United States on 
the Czech quota. While Mr. Andrica made his statements, I felt that my case 
could serve as a living example why we are having the difficult problems with 
which we are confronted when we are seeking to help enact a United States 
law, whicli would be tl"e least discriminatory to the largest number of homeless 
refugees, who are scattered all over the world. 

The great majority of refugees now staying in western European countries 
originate from the Russian satellite, and from the Balkan countries. These 
refugees, in their confusion hardly know what to answer when they are asked 
the question: What country are you from? They only know one thing, tliat 
they speak one or two of the many languages. That fact, and not what country 
they came from, should be used as a basis of classifying them, if we must. We 
cannot now get an accurate census from iron-curtain countries, therefore, we 
should not differentiate between these peoples, they are all from small countries 
where the migration of the peoples is in process for the last 30 years. The fibove 
is the reason why I believe that an emergency companion bill to the McCarran 
bill would be necessary to help free Western Europe of its refugee problems. 
Here is where we should feel morally obligated, because our foreign policy 
was such as it was, it helped to force the migration of these peoples toward the 

As to the quota numbers of the McCarran immigration law, and considering 
it as a long-range program, which applies to all European countries and others, 
there is a great advantage not to be overlooked, is the fact, that within the quota 
American citizens can furnish their relatives with a supporting guaranty of 
an affidavit, and by paying for their own passage, they are not a direct burden 
on tb.e American taxpayer. I would not suggest to take away unused quota 
numbers, for instance, from England, but I would raise the quota numbers of 
the countries whose quota is a mere token number. In other words, a more 
liberal quota is wl'Ht ought to be given within the McCarran law. The security 
of the United States of America should be considered first and always. 

We in America are humanitarians ; we feel the suffering and Imager of the 
Asiatics, as well as the Europeans. To be hungry in your own country, and in 
your home, is more bearable than to be both hungry and homeless ; therefore, 
somihow, we should have preference in giving help where it is more urgently 
needed. We will never escape the possibility that someone, or a group, mght 
attempt to stamp our laws as- discriminatory. P>ecaufe our limitations are many, 
we cannot be hosts to the whole world. Resettlement of the immigrants is a dif- 
ficult tas-k. I am most familiar with the problem of finding shelter for a large 
family just arriving from another country, and this problem is on this end of 
the line, is minor in comparison. 


It may be a little far-fetched to imagine a situation by which we would create 
a new Hungarian state out of Clevelands own Buckeye Road and of its 
vicinity, which is seemingly all Hungarian. You would immediately have dozens 
of iiomeless groups of peoples of diiTerent race and nationality, who would not 
wish to live there. You see, what happened in Hungary in 1919 is similar. The 
many nationalities living in the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire for many years, 
in a comparatively peaceful atmosphere, were never forced or asked to be other 
than what they preferred to be. All arguments as to the falseness of the above 
statement has been settled by the very existence of those peoples. Tlie newly 
created states were as nonhomogeneous as the old empire. That fact was 
further proven by Czechoslovakia's mass deportations of the Hungarians and 
Germans after World War I, and after a whole new generation later. To some 
"brilliant" idealists, Austria-Hungary did not look Hungarian enough, using 
that as an excuse they demanded that the empire be broken up in small states, 
and thereby did away with a great economical and political unity. 

The peacemakers of Trianon, after World War I, which war was to end all 
wars (the second war, I believe, was fought to save democracy), were quite 
happy with their newly created states. We Americans, sensing that something 
was not exactly right, offered our idea of "self-determination." 

Nothing, or no one covild separate or divide those peoples, and now in their 
homelessness they still share the same fate. We will sadly fail them again if 
we will treat the immigration problems on the basis of the mistakes made in 
Trianon. Let lis at last give them self-determination, accept their statement 
that they are homeless, and let us try to be equally generous to them all. 
Respectfully and sincerely, 

Therksa Stibran, 
Mrs. John Stibran, 
Shaker Heights 22, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Mr. Zygmunt B. Dybowski. 


Mr. Dybowski. My name is Zygmunt B. Dybowski. My address is 
5513 Stickny Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio. I have been editor of the 
Polish Daily News for the last 30 years. I have been State adjutant 
of the Polish Legion of American Veterans, and now I am the presi- 
dent of the Polish-American Congress, Department of Ohio. 

I am speaking on behalf of the Polish-American Congress chiefly, 
but I am also representing the two other parties. 

I have a statement I wish to read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Dybowski. The Polish-American Congress, Department of 
Ohio, representing over 300,000 citizens of Polish birth or descent, 
desires to voice its opinion on the question of the McCarran-Walter 
Immigration Act of June 27, 1952. 

In our considered opinion, the act should be amended and purged 
of un-American and discriminatory provisions. In the first place, 
we would like to indicate that in the Immigration Act of 1924 there 
already was discrimination against the people from southern and 
eastern Europe in general and against the Poles in particular. There 
was an assumption unworthy of Americans which gave an impression 
that people from these areas made less worthy Americans than, for 
instance, the western and northern Europeans. 

We do not wish to speak for other peoples, because they can speak 
for themselves, but as far as the Americans of Polish birth or descent 


are concerned we feel that the Poles made as large a contribution 
to the American life, proportionately to its numbers, as any other 
gi'oup did. 

The Polish group participated in the building of this country. Four 
hundred Poles came to America in 1609-10 and were engaged in the 
making of tar, glass, and bricks. They did pioneering work in this 
country, and one of them, Jakob Sadowski, founded the town of 
Sandusky, in the State of Ohio. 

Gen. Thaddeus Kosciusko, Gen. Casimir Pulaski, and 150 other 
Poles have fought under Washington during the Revolutionary War, 
and General Pulaski sacrificed his life at the Battle of Savaimah on 
October 11, 1779. 

During the Civil War, 7,000 Poles fought on the side of the Union, 
under General Krzyzanowski, General Karge, and others, and General 
Krzyzanowski was the first Governor of Alaska when this Territory 
was purchased from Russia, after the Civil War. 

In the First World War 300,000 boys of Polish birth or extraction 
served under the Stars and Stripes, and during the Second World War 
almost 700,000 of them. 

Now, in Korea, there are many men of Polish descent fighting, and 
Colonel Gabreski is the ace who shot down the largest number of 
Russian Migs in Korea. 

Poles have also made a tremendous contribution to American life 
in all other fields of human achievement and were the first to stand 
up against Hitler and also against Soviet Russia. 

Therefore, we feel that they siiould not be discriminated against, 
and the discriminatory provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act should 
be so amended that a larger number of Poles could be admitted to 
the United States, and not a mere 5,900 a year, as the present law 

The Polish-American Congress, Department of Ohio, is of the opin- 
ion that the Immigration Act should be so amended that it would be 
based on the census of 1920 or 1930, or on the last census, and not on 
the basis of 1890, which was arbitrarily set up for the purpose of 
discrimination against the Poles and other eastern and southern 

Hoping that the work of this Commission will set aright the injus- 
tice done to the worthy people of Poland, we wish your Commission 
the best of success. 

Now, I want to add to the statement I just read, and say that over 
a million Poles were forcibly taken out from Poland during the Sec- 
ond World War by Hitler, and were put in conceijtration camps, and 
when the war was over these people could not go back to Poland be- 
cause Poland under the Yalta agreement was given to Russia, as 
we all know, and they were forced to scatter throughout the world. 
They were hoping that they would be allowed to come to the United 
States, but only a small number of them were allowed to come here. 
The rest of them scattered throughout the world, and there still are 
70,000 Poles in (xei'inany who have no place to go because no one would 
take them. They are mostly older men that cannot work, or women 
that have been experimented on by Hitler, and his cohorts, and, con- 
sequently, there is no place for them to go. And we feel that these 
70,000 Poles that are in Germiiu}^ should, under some provision, be 


admitted to the United States, since Poland was the first country 
to fight Hitler, and was the first country to fight Soviet Russia. 
There were also •200,000 Poles defending England during the Second 
World War. They fought at Tobruk in Africa, in Sicily, and Monte 
Cassino, and then when the war was over they could not go back to 
Poland because if they would have gone there they would all have 
been hanged by Soviet Russia. They also scattered, and Senator 
Lodge, of ]Massachusetts, submitted a law that 18,000 of them be ad- 
mitted to the United States; unfortunately, only 11,000 came and 
not even this little quota was filled for some reason that I really 
don't know, and the rest of them went to Canada, to Australia, to 
New Zealand, and still a larger amount of them is still in England, 
and they also would love to come to America. That is about all that 
I want to say. 

Thank you. 

The CiiAiKMAx. Thank you. 

Mr. Charles Posner. 


Mr. PosNEK. I am Charles Posner, director, Jewish Community 
Relations Committee, Cincinnati, Ohio, which I represent. I am also 
appearing on behalf of the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of 
Cincinnati, the Council of Churches of Greater Cincinnati, and the 
Citizenship Council of Cincinnati. 

I have two letters addressed to the Commission, one from the Catho- 
lic Charities of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, the other from the 
Council of Churches of Greater Cincinnati, which I should like to 
read into the record. 

The Chairma^t. Please do so. 

(The letter from Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Cin- 
cinnati, read by JNIr. Charles Posner, is as follows :) 

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, October 2, 1952. 
To the President's Commission- on Iniinigration and N aturalization : 

As one of the several agencies in Cincinnati working in tlie resettlement pro- 
gram of displaced persons, our records indicate that, to date, we have resettled 
163 family units (comprised of a total of 487 individuals) and 200 single persons. 
This makes a grand total of 687 persons (men, women, and children) resettled 
through our agency. 

With the termination of the Displaced Persons Act, we find in our files a 
sizable number of assurances from sponsors still unfilled and, weekly, we reject 
recpiests to file applications for .sponsorship of displaced persons to come to the 
United States. 

Our contacts with the persons already resettled indicate an excellent adjust- 
ment on the part of the vast majority, both in the homes and on the jobs which 
they have tilled. This would seem to be reliable evidence that they are becoming 
well adjusted and i-esponsible citizens of our country. 

Msgr. August J. KRA^[ER, Director. 

25356—52 32 


(The letter from the Council of Churches of Greater Cincinnati, 
read by Mr. Charles Posner, is as follows:) 

The Council of Chukches of Greater Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, October 2, 1952. 
President's Commission on Immigration and VatnraUzatio7i. 

(To be delivered in person by Cbarles Posner at the Commission's C1pv<»- 
land hearing.) 
Gentlemen : Our Council of Churches has cooperated with Church World 
Service since the beginning of its DP resettlement program. Nearly 200 indi- 
viduals in some 70 family units have been integrated into American society 
through the effort of our member churches and friends. 

We are extremely disappointed that no more DP's or Volkesdeutsche can come 
into our country. Our Displaced Persons Commission had sent in another 
blanket a^^surance for some 10 families early this year, and only 1 family has 
come through on it. Thus our faith and hope, plus that of the sponsors we had 
arranged for these nine other families, has been crushed. The embarrassment 
to all concerned has been considerable. 

May we testify to the fact that the great majority of these new immigrants 
who have come through our office have made excellent adjustments. They are 
now well acclimated and are taking on a new lease on life in this environment 
of freedom and prosperity. 

Hoping that these matters may be of help to you, I remain 
Sincerely yours, 

B. Bruce AVhittemore, 

Executive Secretary. 

Mr. Posner. I would like to say, first, that the opinions and feelings 
of the Jewish Community Council of Cincinnati have been well ex- 
pressed by Eabbi Silver, who spoke earlier; so, I won't take time 
again to express the same sentiments. 

Mr. John G. Olmstead, the director of the Citizenship Council of 
Cincinnati, asked me last: night before I left to express some of his 
views; and, although he did not have time to prepare a statement, 
he gave some things to me over the telephone. He said that he was 
not familiar enough with Public Law 414 to express himself in the 
disapproval of all of its sections, but he did very definitely disapprove 
of section 202 of Public Law 414, which classifies a person who has 
as much as one-half his ancestry for people indigenous to the Asia- 
Pacific triangle as chargeable to that quota, regardless of where born. 

He also feels that countries like Japan, China, and Australia should 
have a much greater quota than the minimum quota now set at 100. 
The Citizenship Council of Cincinnati, Ohio, Mr. John G. Olmstead, 
the director, gave me that statement to make. He believes that we 
should admit the 75,000 DP's processed but left stranded as of De- 
cember 31, 1951, and 100,000 expellees a year. He thought that per- 
haps this might be necessary through some emergency legislation. 
He urged that we should remove the 50-percent mortgages placed on 
the quotas of many countries by the DP Act, and he stated that a 
legally entered immigrant should not be deported — and he italicized 
the next statement — except under extreme circumstances., but they 
must have every legal right to protect themselves from deportation. 

That was the statement made by the Citizenship Council. 

That is all that I have. Thank you. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Posner, may I ask, has there been any gen- 
eral expression of view, either to yourself or among the various groups 
you have spoken for, concerning other than the emergency legisla- 
tion which was last referred to in your two communication? ? 


Mr. PosNER. There has been considerable feeling; in the discussions 
that we have had that there must be new legislation. Oar general 
feeling has been that it should be on a well-thought-out plan, rather 
than a piecemeal plan, which was expressed by Rabbi Silver earlier. 
I think the general feeling in the group that has discussed the feel- 
ings about immigration is that they should think this thing out on 
an over-all basis rather than a piecemeal job now and then, and finally 
end up with Avhat we have now. 

Commissioner O'Gkady. Does that represent pretty much the think- 
ing of all the groups in Cincinntai that have been discussing it ? 

Mr. PosNER. Periodically, we have had meetings regarding the 
problems as they came along. I won't say that represents totally the 
entire opinion. But the general consensus of groups, I think, has 
been that there are too many problems within the McCarran bill, 
certainly too many criticisms and everything, and that there should 
be well-thought-out new legislation which would cover all the prob- 
lems without the discrimination that we now face in our legislation. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Are you making a distinction between that 
and emergency legislation ? 

Mr. PosNER. There have been both sides presented, and yet I think 
the consensus has been generally that we ought to have over-all legis- 
lation, rather than a lot of emergency legislation. 

The Chairman. What kind of over-all legislation ? 

Mr. PosNER. A well-mapped-out immigration bill, which would give 
priority to certain expellees and certain other groups. But, rather 
than having it set up as a side issue, it ought to be brought into the 
total immigration picture. 

The Chairman. What was their point of view with respect to the 
national-origins quota system ? 

Mr. Posner. They are completely opposed to the national origins 
and the racial concept of our present immigration. 

Mr. EosENFiELD. When you say "they," do you mean all these 
groups ? 

Mr. Posner. These groups ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If they are opposed to that, do they recommend 
anything in its place? 

Mr. Posner. Well, I don't think that we have gotten into actually 
thinking about the general type of legislation that would be neces- 
sary, but, certainly, a more equitable legislation that would allow all 
groups to have an equal opportunity as individuals rather than de- 
pending upon what part of the world you happen to arrive in when 
jou are born, or where you happen to come from. There may be 
certain priorities, and I don't know just how you would set those 
up — for parents or other things — but, generally, the people should 
have an equal opportunity as men and women, rather than 100 to 
Chinese, and 1,000 to somebody else. It is the brotherhood of men 
actually — that all men have equal opportunity. 

The Chairman. Are you saying that, whatever numb?r of indi- 
viduals be admitted, they be admitted subject to certain priorities or 
tests, without regard to national origin or place of birth 

Mr. Posner. Tliat's correct, sir; if there had to be a quota set, that 
it would be set with a fairness to all concerned. 


The Chairman. And, after the priorities are exhausted, would you 
then make the bahmce available to individuals regardless of where they 
came from, provided they qualify under health, security, require- 
ments, and so on ? 

Mr. PosNER. That's correct. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do the groups you represent intend to 
have any more discussions on this subject? 

Mr. PosNER. Yes. Certainly we will have more discussions be- 
cause I will have to report back on my appearance here. 

The Chairman. The Commission would like to learn the views of 
as many groups throughout the country as possible, as well as those 
of individuals, and we will be pleased to receive anything more from 
the organizations for which you appear that you may wish to furnish. 

Mr. PosNER. I shall be glad to report that back and suggest that. 

The Chairman. The hearing will be recessed now, and will resume 
at 1 : 30 o'clock this afternoon. 

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





eighth session 

Cle^^land, Ohio. 

The President's Coinniission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 1 : 30 p. m., pursuant to recess, in room 318, Federal Courthouse 
Building, Cleveland, Ohio, Hon. Philip B. Perlman (chairman) pre- 

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman and the following Commis- 
sioners: Monsignor John O'Grady and Mr. Thomas G. Finucane. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. This after- 
noon our first witness will be Mr. Sam Sponseller. 


Mr. Sponseller. I am Sam Sponseller, regional director of the 
Congress of Industrial Organizations for the Cleveland area, which I 
represent here. 

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

Mr. Sponseller. I should like to say, first of all, that I appreciate 
the opportunit}^ to be here and to speak for what I consider to be the 
thinking of the organization nationally and locally. I think the 
Commission has, or perhaps w'ill before it is through, hear from our 
national organization and, as I understand it, our position nationally 
is perhaps ever expanding as things now stand on immigration. We 
have not, to my knowledge, in the CIO ever been for limiting further — 
indeed, I think you will find that we have been for constantly raising 
the quotas and so on, both in numbers and perhaps maybe juggling 
some so that we might let more nationalities in. 

Our experience, I presume, has been perhaps as profound as any 
other groups, maybe more so. Most of the immigrants have come, 
as you know, into industry. We know them not only to be good union 
members, we know them to be good workers and to be good citizens. 
Our organization has, I think, at the immigrants' own request, estab- 
lished some helpful procedures in naturalization so that we might 
not only encourage them but help them to become naturalized citizens. 

We, I suppose, owe, as industry itself does — and I think we view 
it that way — a certain amount of our organizational success definitely 



to tlie aid and assistance of immigi'ant citizens. We know that they 
have helped tremendously in industry. We know the jobs they have 
done and we know that they have helped in our own organization. 
We know something about the communities they live in and how they 
have helped to sort of develop their own communities. 

I suppose that the best contribution I might make to the Commis- 
sion's record and thinking here today would be to tell you that, in 
addition to what our national policy and our experience has been, 
here in Cleveland we, the CIO, take a very active part in community 
affairs, welfare and otherwise. I happen to serve on the executive 
committee of the Occupational Planning Committee of the Cleve- 
land Welfare Federation. The Occupational Planning Committee 
attempts to sort of ascertain what is ahead in the field of occupation. 
It is to give employers some idea of what the labor market will be 
like. It is to help advise students coming out of school. It is to 
help advise people who might be wanting to change their occupation 
from time to time. 

The Occupational Planning Committee has made some pretty 
thorough and complete surveys in the past. They have recently set 
up a committee to study what the next 10 years will be like. One 
of the things we already know is that there is, because of the so-called 
great depression here in America when the birth rate got so low, a 
shortage of people coming into the labor market now. There is a 
shortage of people coming into the schools and colleges. That is 
particularly true in the higher grades. The elementary schools are 
pretty well overloaded now. That is because the birth rates have 
picked up. It seems to me, if my memory serves me right, there are 
about 17 students now where there would normally be about 30. That 
is the proportion, a little over or not quite 50 percent shy. 

The students, according to the studies of the Occupational Planning 
Committee, are being attracted away from school. In other words, 
not nearly so many are finishing as would be finishing and not nearly 
so many are entering as would ordinarily be entering. The Occu- 
pational Planning Committee, I gather — at least, this is my deduction 
and my own feeling — feels that we might very well wake up in a few 
years hence and find ourselves in a highly developed, technical society 
where we need technically trained people and not have them available. 
It would appear to me that immigration ought to provide an answer 
presently, and I don't know what it means in revision of quotas and 
so on, but surely we ought to take this pretty seriously. Our economy 
just can't live without the technically trained peo])le we need. It 
ought to provide enough immigrants to help us man our operation 
presently so that the youngsters might sta}' in school and get the 
training they need for the future. Moreover, because our schools are 
available and about half empty, it would appear to me that we might 
very well relax our immigration quotas and make it possible for 
students with qualifications to come in to finish school here so that 
they might be able to serve us in our own society. That is aside from 
all our moral duties. That is thinking sort of selfishly and to help 
the rest of the world to get along in the same way as we are. I think 
plenty of other people are speaking to that and I need not labor that 

I think I ought to say to you that it has been my thought and 
probably my experience — I have been in the labor movement for 30 


years. I began in the Railroad Brotlierliood and came up with AFL 
and have been with the CIO since its inception. I think there was a 
time when the labor movement as such had bitter views and frowned 
on immigration as such. I think they have now learned that we have 
a sort of blessed, as it were, situation and that immigration has been 
a blessing to us rather than any real hindrance. And I believe that 
the act as it presently stands — and I don't know all about it — ought 
to be certainly reviewed. My own feeling is that all in all — and I 
don't know how difficult it will be — immigration ought to be opened 
immediately if not sooner. 

I should like to say one more thing. I had an opportunity to serve 
here in Cleveland on the so-called refugee committee, and I doubt 
that anyone in Cleveland has experienced other than very beneficial 
results from our part in the refugee program. 

I should like to say one more thing. I understand that the refugee 
program is supposedly over, but I would hope that, because I think 
it has been so successful from the standpoint of integration, if we 
have cleaned up the refugee situation, we would reach out and open 
up in our ordinary quotas an opportunity for more people to come 
to America. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Sponseller, could you make available to the 
Commission the reports of this Occupational Planning Committee? 

]\Ir. Sponseller. Yes. I am authorized to say so, because I have 
asked them — I wanted one of their more able spokesmen to be here, 
because I think it is very important — that the progress report and the 
final report of the survej^ of the connnittee will be available to the 
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, if they 
desire to receive it. Some of it is com^deted now, I take it, but they 
would be happy to furnish it when completely finished. I tried to 
get one of them to come over and make a personal appearance, but 
unfortunately there was a death in the family of the Secretary. How- 
ever, they will make their survey and their data, as it were, available 
to your Connnission. If I may, I will inform them that you would 
be interested in receiving it. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. We would be very grateful if you would have it 
sent to our Washington headquarters. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Does this survey take into account the 
labor needs of industries? 

Mr. Sponseller. Yes, as I understand it. I was on the committee, 
but this was done by technical people, not by myself. As I under- 
stand it, they took the Cleveland area as a whole and they broke it 
down not only by industry but by occupation. For example, there 
are engineers in this, that and the other place, you see, and they tried to 
be in a position to advise employers as well as students, and also 
people who were looking for jobs, as to what they could expect and 
who was needed here and so on. So, it is broken down by industries, 
and then there is an overlapping of occupations so that if you find a 
peculiar occupation in a industry you would not find that overlap- 
ping, but, where you find occupations which are identical or very 
similar or related, then you will get both that industry's need plus 
the total need of all such occupations in the conuiiunity, and I think 
it is quite accurate. 


Mr. RosENFiF.LD. To tlie extent tliat the survey lias been completed, 
does it forecast that the labor supply in this area is going to be 
inadequate to fulfill the labor demand of the Cleveland area ? 

Mr. Sponseller. That is correct and that is particularly true, if I 
may add, of the people who need college training, so to speak. You 
have now — as I said before, I am just searching my memory — about 
17 students in college where ordinarily you woidd have had a few years 
ago about ?>0 students. Now, those 30 students were going out to the 
various industries — and, of course, that was one thing — but when the 
various industries come to Detroit to get 80 out of 17, you can see what 
is happening. Actually, what is happening is that they are going in 
and grabbing students before they have completed their college 
courses, and that is making it even worse. It is robbing the market. It 
is preventing the students going on and getting what it seems to me to 
be awfully important: the fuel of our system of society. It is the 
training they need to be finished college students. One of these days 
they are going to have unfinished college students and there are going 
to be a whole lot of jobs where there is nobody with the kind of skill 
and technical training needed. 

Now, the gap is being filled to some extent, and again I think the 
survey may show you this better than I can explain it, by these com- 
panies making available time for the students to go on and finish 
their college training. 

The Chairman. What is the situation regarding unskilled labor? 

Mr. Sponseller. Well, it appears to me that the unskilled labor 
situation there is about the same thing. I think you will find it that 
way. Again, I would rather you look at the survey. I think you 
will find the unskilled labor all up through semiskilled and highly 
skilled and so on, to suffer to about the same extent. 

Another thing to be recognized is that there are a great many 
jobs nowadays which used to be considered just a highly skilled job, 
which has a great smattering of engineering in it; so that 3"ou will 
find, in order to fill those jobs in our society and to perform them 
properly, you have got to have a college-trained or partially trained 

The Chairman. I understand that, but numerically are they as 
great as those in the unskilled or semiskilled occupations ? I am really 
interested in finding out what your conclusions are as to that. 

Mr. Sponseller. According to my knowledge — and again I refer 
you to the survey, because I think tlie answer will be there — the pic- 
ture is about the same all the way through. Actually, no doubt now 
you have a great many people working without much training in so- 
called semiskilled jobs who have been quickly upgraded because there 
is a dearth of them. Even then, if you will pick up the paper here in 
Cleveland, you will find out there is no end of ads for the trained 
machinists, the boring-machine operators, and this, that, and the other. 
So. I think you will find just that all down along the way. 

Frankly, my plea is that we ought to have an immigi-ation pro- 
cedure which would leave in school the student who could qualify for 
further training, perhaps with a degree of training where he came 
from. It would leave room for persons who had no particular skill, 
the common laborer. It would leave room for semiskilled, and so 
on. If you must have quotas — and I assume you will always have 


them — it would appear to me the quotas ought to be geared to our 
over-all need; so that you would let in people unskilled and semi- 
skilled, and those partly college trained, and those who have finished 
and want to go on and on. 

The Chairman, Is Mr. Davey here ? 


Mr, Davey. I am Albert O. Davey, Jr., representing the Cleveland 
Federation of Labor, of the American Federation of Labor, of which 
I am vice president. I am also editor of the Cleveland Citizen. My 
business address is 6724 Carnegie Avenue. 

I followed Mr. Sponseller's remarks with some interest, I find, 
however, that my feeling relative to the approach of the labor move- 
ment to immigration as such seems to be in two definite categories. 
There is the top leadership, for the simple reason that they recognize 
the humanitarian aspect of the thing and then there is a great gap 
in between until we get to that portion of the labor movement that is 
directly and perhaps selfishly involved in the releasing of tlie limita- 
tions. I am talking about Americans who have relatives in foreign 
lands. And then this great gap in between that has not become too 
interested because of the fact that they have not become involved 

However, that is not to say that the top AFL men have been pushed 
in these positions. I honestly believe they have led the way despite 
too little interest in too many areas. But also I think at the same 
time they are aware of the difficulties that arose some years back when 
there was the great influx of unskilled labor which was used as a 
competitive item to American labor. I think that the general stand 
of both the American Federation of Labor and the CIO were that in 
the back of their minds they were for the lifting of quotas or liberaliz- 
ing them. I think that is a pretty sound comment on the fact that they 
are thinking beyond the minor confines of the labor movement as such. 

I don't know whether this is involved with this group, this Com- 
mission, or not, but I do think that far more stringent policing should 
be instituted on our southern and southwestern borders. The importa- 
tion of what is referred to as wetback labor has not as yet had any 
direct influence on our area here. 

However, in the over-all picture it seems to me that we are limiting 
ourselves by the refusal to accept into this country the portion of 
those people who must go some place. We are, to a certain extent, 
feeding and clothing and perhaps furnishing munitions overseas to 
the extent that, in certain instances, we are going to have well-fed 
and well-clothed slaves; that it behooves us to go beyond the furnish- 
ing of dollars and supply havens of rescue to human beings, not as sta- 
tistics, and to accept into our industry and into our educational system, 
not as units of production but merely as living human beings; and 
I think to a great extent that has been the approach of a good many 
of the people in the labor movement who have become involved and 
interested in this business of the definite restriction of how many we 
shall take in. 


It is certain that the labor movement is interested in health stand- 
ards and restrictions and that they be maintained and, if the need 
be so, even stressed more full}-. However, it is just as certain that we, 
of course, cannot do the world-wide job and all the job ourselves, 
but it is contrary to everything this Nation stands for not as labor 
or management or anything of the sort but just as Americans, to turn 
our back to anybody before we have done everything we can to give 
them a chance as human beings. It is a philosophical approach that 
still recognizes the practical aspects to our economy, to our industrial 

Mr. KosENFiELD. Tliis afternoon two great labor organizations, the 
CIO and your organization, the AFL, have indicated that whatever 
competitive aspects immigration may cause in the labor market, they 
nevertheless point out the significance of immigration to ximerica in 
broader terms. However, how do you account for the fact that some 
witnesses who advocate a strict limitation on immigration have testi- 
fied that one of the things they are worried about is the effect on the 
labor market ? 

Mr. Davey. Well, I think the labor movement is very definitely con- 
cerned in that and recognizes that danger. Yet, we have met that 
danger before and have risen above it, and I believe there are a great 
many people thinking in terms of over-all perspective rather than a 
restricted area, even though that small area be the United States. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Are you saying that even though labor's immediate 
feeling is their own selfish interest, the United States requires a non- 
restricted immigration law? 

Mr. Davey. Yes. 

The Chairman. Labor organizations themselves have said they are 
not afraid of immigration — I don't mean unrestricted immigration — 
and they have told us that when we did have unrestricted immigra- 
tion, those who came into our country joined the organizations and be- 
came very active and valuable members of the labor organization. 
What is your opinion on that ? 

Mr. Davey. That is very true. These historically were windmills 
and have gotten us far too incensed over things that solved themselves 
because of national development of our Nation. I think there are a 
great many leaders in the labor movement, both CIO and AFL, who 
recognize that very fact. 

The Chairman. Would you say that today they are not afraid of 
any of the problems that have been made? 

Mr. Davey. You say "not afraid." I would say we will not make 
an issue of it. They have their guard up. There is still the constant 
feeling that this might become completely unrestricted to the point 
of its just being mass immigration. 

The Chairman. A good many ideas have been expressed by wit- 
nesses as to how, under the limitation of a ceiling, the total number 
authorized should be issued. But no one who has yet testified has 
advocated unlimited immigration. Do you think that the labor organ- 
izations are worried about such a situation arising? 

Mr. Davey. I have heard it expressed by some leaders in the labor 
movement that the present shortage of students in the higher branches 
of education, for instance in colleges, will be taken up by the higher 
birth rate that Mr. Sponseller told about, taking care of the young- 


sters. Adding to that, there is a fear that we would come up to meet 
a situation that exists today and finding that the growth of these 
youngsters is going to take care of that, and we might be working at 
the same problem from two ends, coming to meet it with our own chil- 
dren and at the same time bringing in more. That is one of the fears 
that is still not major enough to cause opposition. 

Tlie Chairmax. Tlie studies that are made, are not all those factors 
taken into consideration? 

Mr. Davey. That is right. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

We will hear Professor Schroeder next. 


Professor Schroeder. I am Oliver Schroeder, assistant professor of 
constitutional and world law, Western Reserve University. I am here 
witli Dr. W. Terry Osborne, associate general secretary, Cleveland 
YMCA ; Rev. George Kuechle, St. Mark's Missouri Lutheran Church, 
Cleveland ; Rev. Oliver C. Grotef end, Hope Lutheran Church, Cleve- 
land; Mrs. M. F. Bixler, cochairman, and Mrs. F. C. Loweth, co- 
chairman, Department of Christian World Relations, Cleveland Coun- 
cil of Church Women. All of us jointly represent the Protestant Fed- 
eration of Cleveland and the Cleveland Church Federation. 

We deeply appreciate tlie honor of being invited to present our 
views. None of us are authorities on this very complicated problem. 
I think all of us are aware that Congress, which has taken many months 
to pass this last immigration bill, has gone into it very deeply. There 
are some convictions we have that we should like to express, and the 
folks who have attended here, the six of us, are very considerably con- 
cerned in this problem which our country faces. It is my task to 
present some general observations on this and then to briefly men- 
tion the four or five specific points which we have adopted. 

I think it must be obvious that in the 19th century we practiced 
political international isolationism, and our immigration followed 
that. We welcomed to our shores the people who wanted to leave the 
old country and they came here. They came here in most instances 
servering their whole tie with the old country, except those relatives 
they brought over later. It was a part of our political international 

After World War I and II, I think we are cognizant that we are no 
longer alone in the world. We have now placed many restrictions on 
immigration. We cannot say with anv definity here now the number 
that should be admitted, 154,000 or 250,000 or 500,000; we are not 
capable of doing that. But what we do- say is that the immigration 
policy of the United States is and has been one segment of over-all 
policy of America in international affairs. We may speak a great 
deal about the brotherhood of man, but if we do not carry out the 
brotherhood of a man in the immigration policies it has a sour note 
when we seek to sell America overseas. 


It is for that reason we as Protestants are very keenly aware of any 
discrimination that might come about in our immigration on the basis 
of race, color, or national origin; that we,feel is not a fair way of de- 
termining who should be admitted to our country. 

I would also like to call your attention to some of the things on 
which my associates and I are very specific : 

1. Congress should enact legislation providing for the admission, 
on a nonquota basis, of those persons who were processed under the 
Displaced Persons Act but for whom visas were not available on 
December 31, 1951. 

2. Legislation should also be enacted by Congress covering our 
fair share, in cooperation with other nations and under proper safe- 
guards, of those who have escaped from behind the iron curtain sub- 
sequent to January 1, 1949, the cut-off date specified under the dis- 
placed persons legislation. 

I want to call your attention to two very, very innocuous ideas but 
very difficult ideas. One is fair share. A great deal of thought is 
going to have to go in it, and I don't think that any one of us will be 
able to determine what is our fair share of handling these poor un- 
fortunate souls who have been able to escape from totalitarian states, 
but that is a goal to which we should proceed. We believe it can be 
worked out as all our problems are worked out, with the representative 
way, in our conscience. 

The second is this problem of safeguards. There are instances and 
we do not know how broad, when we feel it may be wise for the Con- 
gress to determine rather specifically what safeguards are to be set up. 
We have had some indication that safeguards are required to secure 
us from infiltration by persons not willing to become citizens of our 
country, but interested in undermining our country. There must be 
safeguards against that. 

There is a great desire when you see human suffering across the seas 
to admit those persons. Human sympathy goes all out, and human 
sympathy is great. In order to acquire those safeguards much more 
has to be done than to rely on human sympathy. We are not aware 
of how it should be done. We feel there should be a resolution to 
which Congress should address themselves. 

3. The Congress should make the quota system more flexible. 
Serious consideration should be given to the pooling or adjusting of 
unused quotas in order to facilitate family reunion, to provide skills 
needed in our country, and to offer asylum to persecuted victims of 
totalitarian regimes. 

Once again you get into one of those devilish words. Your idea of 
"flexible"' and mine are probably greatly different. We do believe 
that too stiff, too much of a stratification is not good, for by very astute 
flexibility we may be able to alleviate the problem in one area where it 
is greatest. I like to think of the flexibility. I know of some of the 
questions asked about the great amount of money expended overseas 
for supplying military supplies. I have a sneaking suspicion that 
American foreign policy got its shot in the arm very astutely in 
Lebanon, when the State Department arranged for a lot of transport 
planes to get the Moslems to Mecca. You can spend all the money 
you Avant to arm the Moslems, but they are great spiritual people. I 
think with the same kind of astute flexibility, with the same people of 


Christian faith and Hebrew faith we will be able to award those per- 
sons with that spiritual help that they need. 

4. The Cong'ress, while it should approve such precautionary meas- 
ures as may be required to ensure our Nation against the infiltration 
of individuals hostile to the basic principles of the Constitution anrl 
institutions of the United States, should establish a system of fair 
hearings and appeals respecting the issuance of visas and deportation 

I am very, very concerned about the possibilities of persons who 
have come to this coimtry, who have expressed their desire for citizen- 
ship, who have become citizens, who now may lose their citizsnship 
as a result of some misdeed in the past, and that forms also a basis for 
deporting them. 

We have in this city of Cleveland in our Protestant community 
many persons who have not yet taken out citizenship. I, as a born 
American, can be punished by law or get punishment, but I can never 
be deported from the United States. Now, if you allow persons who 
have been naturalized citizens to go through the same process and 
deport them after stripping from them their protection of American 
citizenship, j^ou are setting up a two-class system of American citizen- 
ship and saying that only those born in the United States have this full 

It is very, very important, it seems to me, that that be considered in 
any new suggested legislation. Also, that if there be a necessity for 
deporting aliens, that the basic hearings are required which we require 
in criminal procedures. That should be required so that it will 
not be up to the whim of one or more administrative officials, but under 
the full protection of what we like to call the common law of justice, 
which will be afforded these individuals. 

I realize that some unscrupulous characters were the targpfs of 
these new deportation provisions, and it may be that the city of Cleve- 
land may be relieved of some police characters who are now going 
through denaturalization and deportation ; but our way is not for pun- 
ishing the wicked, and it was for protecting the innocent. That is 
the primary importance. 

Many aliens in the city of Cleveland are in danger if a misdeed be 
the basis for deportation. 

I would like to conclude by stating tliat this problem of surplus 
population is one that we cannot solve ourselves. I do a lot of speak- 
ing in the interest of international affairs. I also run up against a 
problem of solution. If you cooperate too much all the Cliinese will 
want to come live in the United States. I have a strong suspicion 
the Chinese love the homeland as much as we do. Surplus population 
is not a problem of the United States but a problem of carrying the 
weapons, which we liave found the best, equality of man, and to estab- 
lish within the great surplus population areas of this world an oppor- 
tunity for them to solve their own problems. What share we should 
do in eliminating the problem we cannot decide, but the primar}'^ 
responsibility we feel rests in the nations where the surplus popula- 
tion occurs, and with our help. The point 4 program has been one 
means by which we have been able to do some effective good in that 

May I conclude by saying we believe that is not a problem to be 
solved in this year and this decade alone. It is a continuing problem. 


And the immigration policies of this country slionld be nnder continu- 
ous scrutiny and should not be frozen by one act or one bill but should 
be nnder constant study to see where our foi-ei<>n policy, with one arm 
of immigration, can be eli'ective for our world community, and where 
all men can live in peace. 

]Mr. RosENFiELD. Professor, would you give us your judgment, as a 
professor of constitutional and world law at the miiversity, as to the 
effect of American immigration policy in our laws upon the laws of 
other countries and the policies they assume, and ^yhether there is any 
relationship that you have observed between those two? 

Professor Sciiroedek. I think there cei'tainly has been a relationship 
if not in the — well, I would say in the laws. 1 have a very strong 
feeling that the unholy terror that has o])ened up in the Orient has 
been one direct result of our unfortunate Chinese Exclusion Act, which 
you will recall was an act of Congress following some years after the 
United States-Chinese Treaty of 1868. In that treaty we extended 
to the Chinese the same friendship that they were to extend 
to us, the same right to become citizens ; and tlien the Congress of the 
United States passed a Chinese Exclusion Act, and we had the familiar 
Supreme Court case which upheld the later act of Congress and super- 
seded the treaty and the Exclusion Act treated the Chinese as a special 
group and took away from them the friendship which they had with 
the treaty the United States gave them. It took away the citizenship. 
There is no question in my mind as to the hatred many Chinese have 
today, and hatred built up in Japan being directly influenced by our 
immigration law. 

It was my ]:)i'ivilege to serve in the Navy during the war, and I was 
associated a lot with the Japanese. You can't learn to speak the lan- 
guage and learn their customs and come into contact with the Japanese 
w^ithout learning something of the way they think. The most potent 
weapon in China and fighting us was Asia for the Asiatics, throw the 
white man out. I found one of the reasons why many of our men who 
were captured found mistreatment at the hands of Japanese students 
and Chinese persons who had gone over to the Japanese side who had 
studied in the United States. I have heard the same thing from 
personal friends of mine, too. I ran into a certain Japanese officer 
who spoke perfect English. He said : 

When I was at the University of Chicago the restrictions placed upon me by the 
white people, the inamigration restrictions placed upon my people, taught me to 
believe that the United States sets themselves up as God, and now we are showing 
you that we are God. 

That had a tremendous impact on the Orient. 

The only thing that I can see which can save ns in the Orient is the 
hope of such great institutions as the Roman Catholic and Protestant 
missions that cari'y the message of Christianity, and seeing how well 
that seed is planted. I have the firm belief that that seed will bring 
the Chinese back to us as our friends. There is no denying that the 
Chinese exclusion in the innnigration laws made a tremendous impact. 
If we do the same in the black races, we are going to reap the same 
holocaust in years to come, it seems to me. 

The Chairman. Dr. W. Terry Osborne, you may testify next. 



Dr. Osborne. I am Dr. W. Terry Osborne, associate general secre- 
tary, Cleveland YMCA. I am here with Professor Schroeder and 
some others, all of us representing the Cleveland Church Federation 
and the Protestant Federation of Cleveland. 

Professor Schroeder has presented the picture as to certain agreed- 
upon procedures of policy. My experience has been somewhat dif- 
ferent. I have been in Europe quite a good deal in the last 25 years. 
I was in the DP camps, not as a DP but representing the world-wide 
YMCA. I was directing YIMCA activities in Germany in the 1945 
and 1946 period. I have great sympathy and have developed a great 
feeling for people who have been displaced. I was there again this 
summer and I was amazed at what has taken place in that part of the 
world. I am of the opinion — and this is merely an opinion of mine 
and does not represent anyone else's — that we are, as Professor 
Schroeder said, not going to solve all the problems, but I think we 
can be very helpful in opening up opportunities for more people. 
And I think the screening should be very fair in every way. There 
have been and there j^robably always will be people getting into the 
country by devious means who do not represent the best interests 
of the United States. It may be a ci-oss section of some country 
or some people, but I rather doubt that we want the complete lower 
cross section who have oppositioii in tlieir basic philosophy against 
this form of government. 

I think we can do something else in these countries on a long-term 
basis wliere they are overcrowded. We can continually, through per- 
sonnel and through other means, assist in finding outlets for the peo- 
ple who are in areas where it is overcrowded, but I don't think we 
can move everybody. I don't think escape is the total answer to the 
problem. Escape is a psychological normal thing that takes place 
with all of us. We want to get away from things we are doing, but 
to me that is not the solution and is only one of the procedures. 

I think I would rather answer question^ than to speak so some of 
the others with me can speak at this time. 

The Chairman. What do you consider to be the solution ? 

Dr. Osborne. I think that that is the problem that none of us have 
been able to answer and had we been able to easily answer it, it would 
have been easy to do. The solution has not been found and that is 
wliy you are here and we are here to try to work out some kind of 
tilings in the thinking. I think one of the things that will help is 
for all this country to look at this thing squarely and open up oppor- 
tunities for the people around the world from these overpopulated 
areas. Just taking these people from behind the iron curtain and 
sending them to some other place is not solving the problem. I think 
that is only half of it. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Did you find in Germany that all the ex- 
pellees wanted to emigrate here ? 

Dr. Osborne, ^[o ; I don't think so. I don't think that is true. 


I have a deep feeling that the people who are on the move want 
to get to some place where they can establish a home and in the early 
days directly after the war the feeling was, "What is going to happen 
to me, my family, my people ? How are we going to get settled and 
where are we going?" Many times during that period these people 
said they didn't mind all the rest of this. They had gone over the 
hurdle of having their papers processed and that was a satisfaction 
and then they come to this country. Maybe they are happy and maybe 
they are unhappy here. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Reverend George Kuechle will be heard from next. 


Eeverend Kuechle. I am Rev. George Kuechle, pastor of St. Mark's 
Missouri Lutheran Church, Cleveland, and formerly was a missionary 
to India. 

I am also here with Prof. Schroeder's group, representing the 
Cleveland Church Federation and the Protestant Federation of 

Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and starting with 
where Prof. Schroeder left off, having worked in India quite a few 
years, I remember how that Exclusion Act also was passed to include 
people who wanted to become citizens from northern India, who have 
red blood the same as you and I. That created bad blood in India. 
That, of course, was quite a few years ago. However, I recently came 
back from Europe. I attended the Lutheran World Federation meet- 
ing which also had a very long report on the fine work which the world 
service department of the Lutheran World Federation has been doing 
for over 5 years, with headquarters in Geneva. These folks have 
brought over to our shores about 35,000 people, and to Canada about 
as many, and to Australia not quite as many, and to South American 
countries, let us say possibly from 20,000 to 25,000. 

I visited the camps both in the British zone, and one in the vicinity 
of Bremen, and another one right near the Elbe River, and the Elbe 
River there forms the boundary of the iron curtain. I spent a few 
days in Berlin, mostly in the American sector. I spent a few hours 
in the Russian sector and I spoke to dozens of pastors who had come 
in for a meeting and also with a number of laymen in particular, also 
with a widow in Saxony whom I had been supporting for a number 
of years — and now I can understand why this good lady could not 
write me various things which I had asked lier, but she poured out 
her heart to me. Now she is not interested in emigrating. As a matter 
of fact, so far as the church people are concerned we are encoui'aging 
our brothers in the faith to stay tliere and to testify and fortify them- 
selves with their faith in God and with prayer; but the pressure is 
increasing over there— I don't have to mention by whom — and in this 
one camp I remember now I spoke to some young men who had been 


in the organization which is the police force organized by the Com- 
munists. It is a front for the army which the Communists are organ- 
izing in the German zone. Well, these young men came across the 
zone of death and brought a few others with them, and of course they 
want to come over, and they look to us as liberators. They ask, "When 
are you coming to free us?" I heard that question 10 times a day and 
oftener, and so, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I am 
wondering whether we shouldn't return more again to the basic philos- 
ophy of our country in the past century, when America was an asylum. 
I would like to sum it up in those beautiful words which are inscribed 
on the Statue of Liberty : 

* * * Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shores. 

Send these, the homeless, temptest-tost to me, 

I lift my lamp beside the golden door. 

I realize we have to be realistic in this matter ; that there has to be 
restrictions and limitations; that we can't just let in everybody. 

But we have been thrust into a position of leadership. Now, I am 
just wondering whether we cannot exercise this position much better 
by practicing common, ordinary humanitarianism, by letting our warm 
American heart beat out there in those areas rather than throwing our 
weight around. 

Now, I know we have to use military power and we have to use men. 
But I remember a well-known cartoon which appeared just at that time 
in a local paper, and it depicted a poor little underdog looking at 
Uncle Sam ; looking at Uncle Sam and saying, "That is all you have 
got is men." If America is concerned only about its own security it 
will fall, I believe, under the judgment of Christ, who said : "He that 
findeth his life by a selfish policy of security is looking to lose it." 

I think America will have to get back again to that basic philosophy. 
Now, as to practical problems. 

Well, I certainly support these wholeheartedly. Namely, that we 
open up the pipeline. I spoke to some of those people who are in the 
pipeline and others it cut short, who have been waiting for months — 
in fact, years ; and then we hear it from our sponsors over here too. 

Let me say, since a representative of labor was here, many of these 
expellees or refugees from behind the iron curtain so far as the Euro- 
pean zone of Germany is concerned, are dirt lovers. Farmers wouldn't 
want to live in the cities ; they want to go out on the land. Certainly, 
it seems to me, we have enough spaces to accommodate them or to 
accommodate many of these people. They lived on the land out there. 
They farmed and they want to come over here. 

Canada is doing it. Australia is doing it. Venezuela, Brazil, and 
Chile are doing it. Why can't we do it? I'm afraid America at the 
present time is not pulling its weight and so, gentlemen, as a church- 
man and a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, I think this new act 
should be realistic, it should in some which way reflect the Christian 
philosophy upon which our whole life here in America is based ; that 
we become again more an asylum for the oppressed, the distressed, and 
persecuted, and make room for them. 

The Chairman. Rev. Oliver C. Grotefend. 

25356—52 33 



Keverend Grotefend. I am Eev. Oliver C. Grotefend, pastor of the 
Hope Lutheran Church, CleveLand, and president of the Lutheran Re- 
settlement Commission, Ohio. I am likewise a member of the group 
with Professor Schroeder. 

I am not going to review the statement of our views, as given by 
Professor Schroeder. I would like to speak particularly about the 
local problem that we have, and it may be of some assistance in deter- 
mining what is going to happen with immigration. 

In the first place, the Lutheran Church in Ohio has brought over 
approximately 2,000 people, but this has not represented our problem 
in the integrating of immigrant personnel, because we discovered after 
they came in under this program they moved from all over the United 
States and finally came into busy cities. 

For instance, out of 2,000 brought in we have nearly 2,000 in the 
city of Cleveland alone that were sponsored and brought in by the 
Latvian organization. That group they have broken down into ethnic 
groups : 600 Latvians, 300 Estonians, 200 Hungarians, 200 Ethnic Ger- 
mans, 100 miscellaneous, etc., with which we have contact and notice^ 
and these people are ours. 

It might be interesting to notice that so far as we know only one 
single person in this group has received public aid — and he received 
public aid without our knowledge of it, and we immediately tried to 
take care of that case. We feel this program is going to involve a 
measure of personal contact which we try to express in our work. As 
the immigrant is received into any community he is integrated with 
one of our church groups. For his social welfare work he is integrated 
with one of the welfare agencies and will not dare to become a public 

Now in that connection, of course, it is going to be difficult to handle 
if we are not set up for it. We would like to make a plea that the four 
points made by the Cleveland Church Federation be considered very 
carefully and under the first point, particularly, we want to think 
of the Ethnic German program; that it be continued to include all 
those who are at present in the processing, and who have bona fide 
assurances or who have families who are in the United States and 
might be integrated very carefully into our program without too 
much trouble. 

We too feel very keenly that if you attempt to solve the excess 
population of certain countries, you are asking for a problem that 
you camiot solve nor can we solve, and it might just involve a disinte- 
grating program for our own country. 

In other words, we do not have in mind that type of thing. We 
think in terms of the displaced persons who are handled under the 
Displaced Persons Act. We think in terms of the revision of that 
act in which we have the ethnic German groups, and being Lutheran, 
of course, there are a lot of problems for us in there, because a lot of 
those were Lutheran. 


And then we think of the refugee problem which hcas been alhided. 
to liere. The refugee problem in Europe as it was after the war, and 
is now being constituted by escapees. We feel that the Government 
under some wise provisions that they may make ought to permit the 
immigration of some of those peoples into the United States. We feel 
that a relief of the tension and pressures of Europe will probably ad- 
vance the welfare of the world and help us again to gain friends "there 
and ultimately raise the standards of all men. We feel that when some 
people are slaves, all people are subject to be slaves. 

Now I have the caseworker here who actually is the person who has 
done the majority of manual work in connection with these cases, and 
she would be glad to answer any questions you may have, and I would 
be happy to add anything in the line of answers that I may be able to 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : Are you advocating that the 
Government do something about escapees and refugees? 
Reverend Grotefend. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. Should it pay any attention to overpopulation 
problems at all? 

Reverend Grotefend. We feel that the overpopulation problem is 
just too delicate and dangerous a thing for us to handle. AVliat 
constitutes overpopulation ? Hitler said Germany was overpopulated 
and turned around and p-ave a bounty to people to have children. 
Wlien a nation is overpopulated, I don't know. We have some people 
in America saying we are getting overpopulated. I feel if you give 
relief to these countries, it must be under some other name than relief 
of overpopulation. 

Commissioner O'Gilvdy. What groups do you consider to be in need 
of resettlement ? 

Reverend Grotefend. Well, as I see it, the three groups of people 
that are a problem in Europe today, one of them has been greatly 
relieved by the Displaced Persons Act. Those are the people from 
Baltic states, where their countries were given over to Russia and 
they could not go back. That was, as we understand, the displaced 
person; Latvians, Lithuanians, certain Hungarians, and Polish, and 
that group of people. 

Then the refugee people, as we see it, are the group of people who 
were former nationals of Gei^many and her allies who could not come 
to America, but whose homes were completely destroyed and also, they 
escaped from parts of Poland and Austria, Hungary, and those 

Commissioner O'Grady. Would you include the refugees who fled to 
Greece, such as Bulgarians and manj^ other nationalities? 
Reverend Grotefend. That is right. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What about the refugee population in 
Italy, many of whom are from Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Sjo 

Reverend Grotefend. As we think of refugees, they are people from 
outside of the country, that have been driven out by circumstances 
beyond their control and beyond the control of the country itself. 

They, we would agree, would be a subject for legitimate relief. 
Italy was one of the countries, together with Germany, where too many 
people had to go to the army, and then the Government gave bounties 


to parents for having children. We come to the problem of relieving 
them, and how can you. do it? I think it would be very unpopular in 
the minds of a great many of our people to state as a relief problem 
for Europe, the relieving of overpopulation. 

Now when you speak of these expellees, as to whether they are 
refugees, then I believe we have a moral responsibility to them ; and 
when I say "I" most of it is personal, but we have introduced this at 
pastors' conferences and at other places. Then the fellow who escapes 
from behind the iron curtain, the escapee is an individual that I believe 
can have tremendous value to us — that is the only way we get first- 
hand information of what actually goes on, and I think it has a tre- 
mendous effect when some of these displaced persons talk to our 
people and explain to our people what they had, and what was taken 
away from them and now what America means. I believe there is 
good propaganda value in those people. We won't get too many 
people. They can't get away. I think the escapee should be con- 
sidered again with all the screening that all the otliers were put 

The Chairman. Do you think that the problem of overpopulation 
should not enter into any long-range immigration policy for this 
country ? 

Reverend Grotefend. That would be our thinking in that regard. 
That that is that country's problem and not ours. 

By the way, may I state : We are not excluding them. We appreci- 
ate China and India and Japan and those other countries, too. We 
don't want those excluded in our over-all thinking. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Are you interested in them as refugees, 

Reverend Grotefend. You bet they were refugees. We are not try- 
ing to localize. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What is yovir opinion on the national ori- 
gins quota system ? 

Reverend Grotefend. I think we would have to say that the state- 
ment of nationalities has got to be revised in order to be fair all the way 
through. What basis that has to be determined on, wiser heads than 
mine hang, in terms of local pictures rather than the whole national 

Exclusion of nationalities is a dangerous thing, because when you 
get somebody from France they may be French or anything ; somebody 
from America is liable to be anything. I think we ought to be — in our 
restriction — it ought to be in the protection of the United States rather 
the locale from which they come. 

The Chairman. I should like to take up a point made by Professor 
Schroeder recommending a pooling or adjusting of unused quotas, 
with priorities for family reunions, needed skills, and so on. Assum- 
ing there would be a ceiling on the total number authorized, and there 
was an unfilled residue, would you make that residue available to indi- 
viduals from anywhere in the world, regardless of origin or where 
they came from ? 

Reverend Grotefend. That is right. May I put one cautious thought 
in there. This displaced program didn't work out quite the way we 
had anticipated it when we first began to talk about it. If there is 
some way of assuring that those people who come will remain for a 


reasonable length of time in the area from which they were to come — 
I don't mean local area, I mean the occupational area. We brought 
over a number of people who we thought were going to fill a need 
in domestic problems. They came into Cleveland and you can't get a 
domestic out of the whole group. All are working in factories. 

We brought over a gi^oup of farmers who discovered they could look 
out the window and could come in Cleveland and form little ethnic 
groups. Here is where they came and I think at one time, there was an 
Italian and German section, and so on. 

There ought to be some way, if the wisdom of government can do 
it, of restricting for a period of time this terrible movement into con- 
centrated areas. We don't relieve our problem; we increase our 

Commissioner Pinucane. In that regard, what period of time would 
you think would be fair ? 

Reverend Groi'efend. The DP first comes and on the first day his 
eyes pop out. He is in the land of never-never. After 3 months he 
wants to know how to get back. After he is here a year you couldn't 
get him back. In that year's time they have moved once or twice. If 
we get them located somehow happily — maybe the assurance program 
didn't work out the way it was supposed to, or they had too many 
promises in Europe. After they get established they get a telephone, 
they get an automobile and they start by buying their home. In the 
3 3^ears' time we have been taking them into this country I would say 
a good 30 percent of them have their own automobiles and a good 20 
percent are buying their homes. That is pretty good in 3 years' time. 
I would say if we could keep them in for 3 years you will have estab- 
lished some degree of — well, they will find themselves a little better. 

Commissioner Finucane. If they were not permitted to leave for 
3 years, do you think they would then have less desire to move out to 
something else ? 

Reverend Grotefend. In my opinion they would have acclimated 
themselves so there wouldn't be this great discontented group looking 
for something better and never understanding what they did have for 
what they did. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mrs. Bixler, we will hear 
you next. 


Mrs. Bixler. I am Mrs. M. F. Bixler, cochairman of the department 
of Christian world relations, Cleveland Council of Church Women. 

I am also a member of the gi^oup with Professor Schroeder. 

I heartily subscribe to the ideas that Professor Schroeder brought to 
you and think that they may help in the solution of this great problem. 
1 think my thoughts are mostly along the lines of the spirit back of this 
whole problem. 

I have a short statement I should like to read. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mrs. Bixler. The Cleveland Council of Church Women, represent- 
ing 30,000 women in Greater Cleveland, is part of the United Church 


Women, a Department of the National Council of Churches in the 
United States of America, which in turn represents 10 to 11 million 
church women. 

We recognize that the problems before the world are today gigantic ; 
that they ai'e not only political and economic, but moral and social and 
need a spiritual solution. We believe these problems must be solved in 
the spirit of justice and good will which must prevail in all relation- 

We also believe that our Nation, founded on the principles of the 
right to life and liberty and opportunity for all, has suddenly come 
into a position of world leadership. Every legislative act of our 
Nation makes an impact for good or evil on the lives of other nations. 
We must not forget that one nation speaks to another nation through 
official acts of government. 

We believe the McCarran-Walter omnibus bill S. 2550, does not 
reflect the best thinking of the American people, when more than 25 
of the largest and strongest religious and legislative organizations in 
our country, after careful consideration, have gone on record as oppos- 
ing this bill. They believe this bill fosters discrimination in regard 
to color and nationality, injustice in regard to quotas and granting 
of visas, and a lack of provision for fair hearings and appeals. 

We believe this document was based on fear and does not truly 
represent the spirit of America. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Alice F. Loweth. 


Mrs. LowETii. I am Mrs. Alice F. Loweth, cochairman of the de- 
partment of Christian world relations, Cleveland Council of Church 

I am also with Professor Schroeder's group, which is representing 
the Cleveland Church Federation and the Protestant Federation of 

I would like to read my statement. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Mrs. LowETii. The chief aim of the department of Christian world 
relations of the Cleveland Council of Church Women, is to help in 
our small way to build a just and lasting peace through information, 
education, and the development of friendly understanding of the 
people of other lands. This aim, one for which our Government is 
striving, is not furthered by inflexible and unjust immigration and 
naturalization laws. Especially inimical to the furtherance of peace 
are stringent, retroactive deportation laws. 

Every inhabitant of this country, excepting the American Indian, 
either is or descends from an immigrant. Our country has prospered 
with the influx of a varied people with fresh ideas. That is how we 
came to be. To continue as a free nation, friendly and welcoming, 
we must have flexible immigration laws, which are fair and just, 
includinji nuotas which are not discriminatory. 

The McCarran-Walter omnibus immigration bill practically stran- 
gles immigration. While it removes certain unfair discriminations 


of the past, it adds others and provides quotas based on 1920, which 
are outgrown and unwise. Furthermore, it does not provide ade- 
quately for the final disposal of displaced-persons business, or for the 
reuniting of families. People of Asiatic blood cannot come in on the 
same basis as Europeans, and now, of all times, we must make friends 
Avith Asia. How can we if we treat her people as inferior to other 
people ? 

Especial attention needs to be paid to our immigration officials in 
other countries. Often they are the only Americans with whom the 
people of those countries come in contact. Therefore they should be 
of superior ability with a high regard for the dignity of every human 
being. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. 

As a representative of the Cleveland Council of Church Women, I 
advocate a thorough reconsideration of this bill. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Robert A. Pollock, you are scheduled next. 


Mr. Pollock. I am Robert A. Pollock, Canton, Ohio, and I am 
representing the Junior Order of United American Mechanics. 

It is a real pleasure to meet before this Commission. This immigra- 
tion problem to me has been a life study. I could take you back and 
tell you just when the immigration bills of this country were passed. 

The first was way back in Grover Cleveland's time and I think he 
vetoed it. We had another bill passed under Roosevelt's administra- 
tion, which he vetoed. Then Taft vetoed one when he was President. 
At that particular time I remember later on when there were a million 
people coming to America each year for a few years, and at the First 
World War they were coming at that time, shortly before it, and then 
the immigration bill was passed under President Wilson's aclministra- 
tion and it was vetoed, passed over the President's veto, and the quota 
was established and from that time up until this present time, with 
that quota of 140,000 to 150,000 people coming to America there isn't 
anybody who can deny or think that we didn't have enough people in 
America to carry on and take care of, not only America but practically 
the whole world in many instances. 

We don't need a change in the administration. Only since I have 
come here I have listened to a number of people talking about the dis- 
crimination of some countries. That is a problem in there that this 
Commission will have to decide, of course. 

I want to say to you that at this particular time in America I have 
listened to these arguments and I just want to talk — because a brief 
has been already established — ^but I represent 50,000 people in this 
State that are members of this organization, and I have listened to 
these arguments here. There isn't any of you here or in this audience 
who think that we need more farmers in America because of what 
happened recently in the destruction of crops and pigs and so on. We 
don't need any more farmers. 

I want to say, too, you talk about your schools. I listened to that 
today. In Ohio there isn't a college that hasn't more pupils today than 
they had a year ago. I was at Ohio State University the last week 


talking to tlie president. We have nearly a thousand more there than 
we liad a year ago. Our public schools are crowded. That is going 
to be a problem at this time. The problem in Ohio and in this Nation 
is what we are going to do with youth in America at this particular 
time. In our State of Ohio in 2 years' time or 3 there will be more 
pupils in the first 6 grades than there are now in the whole 12 grades. 
Then you talk about the number of people coming here. 

One man here said in 65 or more yeai-s, we would have 70,000 of them. 
What would we do with them? Where would we get the money at 
this particular time? That is one of the main issues in our immigra- 
tion problem, is that America is not able to take care of people now 
here who are in need, let alone having any more coming into this 
country of ours. 

Our schools at this particular time, this year, are appropriating 
$268,000,000 for education in our schools. But think about it, sirs,. 
Commission memb«irs, we are appropriating in Ohio for 2 years $274,- 
000,000 for relief. We are spending more for relief in Ohio than we 
are to educate the youth of America. 

There are many things that I would like to talk to you about here 
today on this imra gration problem, but we do believe this organiza- 
tion — we do believe in America at this time — they talk about a labor 
scarcity here. I heard that this afternoon. There isn't any labor 
scarcity in America, and I want to reiterate here now and again that 
our colleges — one of them talked about our colleges not being able to 
take care of them. We have had, as I said, an increase in every college 
in the State of Ohio and our boys and girls are going to school and 
they receive that education to carry on. 

Have you heard of any factory or any place anywhere in America 
that we have not met this issue now to its fullest extent, to supply, to 
supply with our 7 percent more manufactured goods, practically all 
the world? America is prepared. We are taking care of all the 
things that are needed, not only for America, but if the world is going 
to be saved, America is doing it, and we want to take care of the 
people in our cour? ',ry at this particular time, take care of those who 
are in need, and we vill have our hands full. 

You may make a me changes in this discrimination, but I am repre- 
senting this organ zation, and my personal feeling is that we have 
enough people in J .merica to take care of America. And let me say 
this : We talk about them coming here ; but if you men will go over 
the records in the years of our depression, more people left America 
than came into America just because the money is the only thing that 
many of them want. I am glad to see them come, those that are in 
the quota. We have enough in America to take care of all our needs, 
and I am hoping that this Commission, when you make your recom- 
mendations — you may make some changes, but I hope that this Com- 
mission will recommend that this new bill will be given thorough con- 
sideration, voted by the majority of the representatives of the country^ 
even passed over the President's veto ; give it a chance. America will 
take care of itself. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Edwin A. Brown. 



Dr. Brown. I am Dr. Edward A Brown, 740 Superior West, Cleve- 
land. I am pastor of the Westlake Methodist Church and am executive 
director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Cleveland branch, on 
whose behalf I am appearing. 

I have two statements I would like to read to tlie Commission. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear them. 



Dr. Brown. I am happy to present to the President's Commission on 
on Immigration and Naturalization the position of the American 
Civil Liberties Union regarding the issues involved in immigration and 
naturalization. In particular I would like to state why the Ainerican 
Civil Liberties Union objects seriously to some of the provisions of 
the recently passed McCarran-Walter bill. 

Our interest in this problem has to do exclusively with the matter of 
those rights and liberties which are inherently the privilege of all 
citizens of the free world. Over 30 years ago the American Civil 
Liberties Union was founded to champion, in season and out of sea- 
son, the threefold cause of civil liberties as set forth in the Constitu- 
tion and Declaration of Independence : (1) Government by the people, 
grounded on freedom of inquiry and expression — speech, press, as- 
sembly, and religion — for everybody; (2) specific rights guaranteed to 
the people, such as due process and fair trial — for everybody ; and (3) 
equality of all people before the law regardless of race, color, place 
of birth, position, income, political opinions, or religious belief. The 
union is dedicated simply and solely to furthering the actual practice 
of (leinocracy in safeguarding the civil rights of all the people. 

It was the harmony with the deepest convictions we Americans have 
cherished for a century and three quarters that the Congress should 
have opened the doors to some 300,000 displaced persons and made it 
possible for them to find refuge in our country. And the record of 
these persons since their arrival have overwhelmingly validated this 
action and confidence of Congress. Unfortunately, the probleni con- 
tinues in this continual stream of refugees who escape from behind the 
iron curtain and have no place to go. 

The American Civil Liberties Union was organized to work within 
the boundaries of the United States but our convictions regarding 
civil rights root down into the nature of life and the moral universe 
itself. Civil liberties is not merely an American way of life. These 
rights root down into the eternal ordering of things and therefore 
are the privilege of all men — however much they may be denied by 
the circumstances in which they live. These unfortunate thousands 
Avho are even now fleeing the nightmare of life in Connnunist-con- 
trolled lands have a right to these liberties which we Americans cherish 
so highly. Such is the conviction of the Union which I represent. 
But we go beyond that. 

These rights and liberties are not something which we can cherish 
within our own borders and be unconcerned with the plight of needy 
peoples across the world. Concern for the rights of men is not some- 


thing which we can circumscribe, fighting valiantly for those on our 
side of the fence and manifesting no concern for those on the other 
side. Any such allocation of concern would backfire and in the end 
destroy our passion for justice and cut the nerve of our endeavor. 
If we have a valid concern for civil liberties it must be for all men 
in the very nature of the case. In great areas of the world where 
men live in virtual bondage, we are helpless. All we can do for them 
is to demonstrate that here in the United States man can be free 
and use that freedom for the highest ends. But there are some people 
outside our borders whom we can help. These people wlio by the 
thousands refuse to bow the knee to these oppressive dictatorships 
and who have fled to temporary places of refuge have some claim 
upon us and the rest of the free world. In this hour when our demo- 
cratic way of life with its guaranty of civil rights is challenged, how 
better can we demonstrate its validity than to adjust our immigration 
and naturalization policies to the exigencies of the present world 
situation and make it possible for these heroic people to find asylum 
among us? 

It is our understanding that this Commission has been set up to get a 
clearer and more comprehensive picture of what is involved in the 
attempt of multiplied thousands of people across the world to gain 
entrance to the United States. We understand that the Commission 
is concerned with the fashioning of such an immigration policy which 
in every respect will be in accord with those rights and obligations 
which inhere in our Constitution. 

If such is the case, then it is our conviction that the McCarran- 
Walter bill as passed by the last Congress should be radically changed. 
We do not believe that this law as it now stands guarantees those civil 
rights fairly to those seeking admission to this countr}' as they are 
guaranteed to those of us who are citizens. 

This is no place to go into a detailed analysis of the provisions of 
the McCarran- Walter law. The national office of the American Civil 
Liberties Union stated its position on this bill on May the 5th of this 
year, and I assume that this Commission is already acquainted with 
that statement. I merely desire to point out that in the judgment of 
competent counsel the civil rights of those entering tliis country are 
not adequately protected. Such "tremendous discretionary power"^ 
is placed in the hands of the Attorney General that it could easily,, 
under conceivable circumstances, deny civil rights and be "wielded as 
a club of oppression." 

We object to the law because it perpetuates racial discrimination in 
two new ways: "Persons of Asiatic ancestry born in American Re- 
publics are not put in nonquota classes but are assigned to special 
quotas of 100 annually, which are much too small, and persons born 
in Caribbean colonies, for practical purposes Jamaican Negroes, are 
taken out of the larger mother country quotas and assigned to small 
quotas of 100." This type of discrimination is morally indefensible, 
it is undemocratic in character and seriously impairs our standing in 
the eyes of the disinherited millions of the world whom we shall have 
to win for the democratic way of life if the free world is to survive. 

In some of its provisions the McCarran-Walter bill is an improve- 
ment upon the older law but there is enough in it so positively harmful 
that in our judgment it should be radically changed or repealed and 


replaced by a law which guarantees these basic rights which lie at the 
center of our way of life. 



The acceptance of persons from foreign countries, on a nondiscrim- 
inatory basis, and accordance to them of just and fair treatment, is a 
demonstration of belief in human rights which is the foundation of 
democracy. It exhibits a faith in the strength and stability of democ- 
racy to absorb within its boundaries immigrants from many different 
countries — the diversity which has already contributed to America's 

This policy is more than morally right. It is practical. Our coun- 
try, like every nation, has the right to safeguard its security and 
restrict undesirable persons from entry; but it cannot practice unjust 
discrimination in immigration without suffering ill effects. Propa- 
gandists for Communist totalitarianism are watching every action we 
take of a discriminatory or unfair nature to use in the ideological war- 
fare that they wage. When our values, and our sincerity in giving 
13ractical demonstration to them are challenged, it is essential that our 
behavior be in firm accord with our beliefs and traditions. 

The immigration legislation now receiving the attention of Con- 
gress in the form of the McCarran-Walter bill is a mixture of a 
progressive and retrogressive immigration policy. A considerable 
portion of the bill deals with issues outside the scope of the specialized 
interest of the American Civil Liberties Union and our comments are 
therefore directed only to those sections applying to civil liberties. 

In its elimination of much of the present statutory discrimination 
based on race and sex, the bill shows understanding of the principle 
of nondiscrimination. By permitting the entry of former members of 
totalitarian parties if within 5 years they have demonstrated active 
opposition to totalitarian ideology, it relaxes the bitterly harsh pro- 
vision of the McCarran act which forbids immigration of any former 

But these provisions do not make the McCarran- Walter bill a good 
bill. There are many sections which need drastic revision and amend- 
ment before the bill can be presented to the country as the expression 
of a democratic immigration policy. The Humphrey-Lehman bill, 
which has been proposed as a substitute, is more in keeping with 
United States principles of equality and fair treatment. 

The Walter bill, and the McCarran bill in a similar section, places 
in the hands of the Attorney General an enlarged, tremendous dis- 
cretionary power which could be wielded as a club of oppression. 
For example, section 241 (a) (8) permits deportation for anyone who 
has within 5 years of entry become a public charge "in the opinion 
of the Attorney General." Section 241 (c) (2) permits deportation 
when "it appears to the satisfaction of the Attorney General" that 
the marital agreement made for entry has not been fulfilled. The 
ACLU believes that deportation should depend upon a finding of 
objective fact, not on an arbitrary opinion which would be ahnost 
unreviewable by the courts. Similarly in section 244 (a) (1) (2) 
the present provision of undue hardship for suspension of deporta- 


tion would be changed to permit only on the opinion of the Attorney 
General that it wonld result in "exceptional and extremely unusual 
hardship." In addition to placing arbitrary power in the hands of 
the Attorney General, to so stringently restrict suspension of deporta- 
tion for aliens who already have lawful spouses and/or children is 
cruel and unwarranted: at the very least these provisions should be 
merely prospective. 

The placing of such power into the hands of the Attorney General 
is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of due process of law. 
Not only in deportation, but in exclusion cases as well, aliens should 
be entitled to a fair hearing before an independent body. The case 
of the German war-bride, Ellen I^auff , who was excluded for 3 years, 
dramatically describes this lack in the procedures of the Immigra- 
tion Service. It was only after a hearing, bitterly opposed by the 
l3epartment of Justice officials who control the Immigration Service 
in these matters, that the charges against Mrs. Knauff could be aired 
and disproved. Certainly aliens who came to our shores voluntarily 
and are allegedly instilled with the principles of American democ- 
racy are entitled to the same treatment accorded a citizen — a fair 
hearing. The McCarran-Walter bill should be amended to make ap- 
plicable the Administrative Procedures Act, the best guaranty yet 
devised by Congress of fair procedures. There is no reason to fail 
to apply to human beings what is already being applied to property. 

Section 212 (a) (28), on admission of former totalitarians, as 
stated above, is an improvement over the restrictive McCarran Act, 
But the phrase "actively opposed to the [totalitarian] ideology" is 
vague, and may still restrict entry of genuine antitotalitarians who 
have not had the opportunity to be active in expressing their opposi- 
tion. This section should be broadened to permit the entry of former 
totalitarians, who repudiate the ideology under oath. The bill is 
restrictive, too, in requiring the deportation of any alien who, at any 
time after admission, had been active in Communist or totalitarian 
political causes. This is regardless of whether such a mistake was 
acknowledged and the association terminated. The same criticism 
should be leveled at the section which renders deportable any alien 
who once was associated with activities "prejudicial to the public 
interest," even if such actions had long since ceased and frequently 
even if such associations were innocently made. Fear and lack of 
understanding of the principles of change, both in history and human 
life, is characterized by the section disqualifying from citizenship any 
person who was once affiliated with the "direct predecessor" of a Com- 
munist or totalitarian organization, despite the fact that the original 
groups may have been democratic in nature and the individual had. 
resigned in protest when it was captured by Communist forces. 

As Senator Estes Kefauver points out in his minority report on 
Senator McCarran's bill : 

Such rules are unrealistic, inequitable, contrary to the American tradition, and 
dangerous to American unity and security. We judge a man for what he is, not 
for what he may have seemed or may have touched. We would give aid and 
comfort to our worst enemies if we arbitrarily thrust from our doorstep, for 
offenses long since forgotten, or for imagined contaminations, men and women 
who can add strength to our Republic. 

The third major area of the bill which needs revision is the section 
dealing with race discrimination. While the Oriental Exclusion Act 


of 1924 is eliminated^ the McCarrMii-Walter bill unfortimately per- 
petuates discrimination in two new ways: (1) Persons of Asiatic 
ancestry born in American Republics are not put in nonquota classes 
and are assigned to special quotas of 100 annually, which are much 
too small, and (2) persons born in Caribbean colonies, for practical 
purposes Jamaican Negroes, are taken out of the larger mother 
country quotas and assigned to small quotas of 100. The elimination 
of race, in some respect, is coupled in this bill w-ith this new racial 
discrimination which is morally indefensible, undemocratic in char- 
acter, and harmful to United States interests which demand that the 
principle of equality should be given full expression. 

There are several other provisions of the bill, noted below% which 
are violative of civil liberties and need to be amended before the 
McCarran-Walter bill can be acceptable. 

1. Statute of limitations: Those provisions eliminating the opera- 
tion of the statute of limitations (operative previously to grounds for 
deportation which would have been grounds for exclusion) violate 
civil liberties. The ACLU opposes the failure to continue — and 
broaden — the coverage of the statute of limitations. 

2. Arrests and interrogations: Section 287, insofar as it merely 
permits searches of moving autos wuthout warrants, does not present a 
civil liberties issue; but subsection (a) (1), permitting interrogation 
of any alien or person believed to be an alien, should be opposed, 
because it is so obscure as to ])ossibly permit arrest or detention 
without warrant or witliout probable cause. 

3. Revocation of naturalization : The present law- permits such revo- 
cation for fraud; section 340 (a) permits it for "concealment of a 
material fact or by willful misrepresentation." The broadening is 
improper because it is retroactive instead of merely prospective. 

4. Proceeding for declaration of nationality : While a citizen abroad 
whose nationality is questioned may now come to the United States 
and sue for a certificate of nationality and is at large pending deter- 
mination of the suit, section 360 would treat him as alien, subject to 
exclusion or admission on terms laid down by the Attorney General. 
This provision violates civil liberties as it would mean exclusion of 
possible citizens without even a hearing being held on the exclusion. 

5. Denaturalization upon adjustment of status: Section 246 (b) 
permits denaturalization of any person who became a citizen upon the 
basis of a record of a law^ful admission for permanent residence, cre- 
ated as a result of an adjustment of status for which he was not in fact 
eligible and which is subsequently resumed within 5 years. This 
section should be opposed because it represents punishment for acts not 
committed by the person punished. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 
Miss Madeline L. Greco. 


Miss Greco. I am Madeline L. Greco, administrative assistant, 
American Service Institute of Allegheny County, 200 Ross Street, 
Pittsburgh, Pa. 


I would like to preface my prepared statement, which I wish to 
submit, gentlemen, with a comment that I am one of a three-member 
delegation from Pittsburgh who is appearing before this Commission 
today. We each have a different point of view to bring to this Com- 
mission and we are, therefore, not attempting in our own individual 
presentations to cover all of the aspects of the recently enacted Pub- 
lic Law 414, but are merely bringing to you the point of view that 
each one of us feels best equipped to give. 

I specifically represent the American Service Institute of Allegheny 
County, which is a social agency charged with the responsibility of 
rendering technical service to Allegheny County, Pa., charged with 
the responsibility of rendering technical service to individuals on im- 
migration and naturalization. 

As a resource agency, the American Service Institute also acts as a 
consulting and coordinating body to groups, organizations, and private 
and public agencies, whose area of work encompasses services to the 
foreign-born population of our community. 

The opinions and views expressed in this statement are practically 
all from the practitioner's point of view in a social work agency, and 
we bring the concerns of those of us who are practicing in the area 
of social work and who have to work with people who may be affected 
by the implications of this law. I therefore proceed with the conclu- 
sions, and the tilings that we have drawn out of our experience. Our 
experience has shown that the people of foreign extraction in our 
society have often been placed at a disadvantage when we compare 
their relative freedom and security to that of those privileged to have 
been born in the United States. 

Public Law 414 not only perpetuates this pattern, but by its provi- 
sions imposes greater penalties on the foreign people, the foreign- 
born than on its native-born citizens — and this was very aptly put by 
one of the preceding speakers on the Council of Churches delegation ; I 
think it was Mr. Davey — by casting a glare of suspicion over our nat- 
uralized citizens as well as the aliens resident in our communities. 
The law has the effect of giving these people a second-class status in 
our American societies. 

I might digress a moment to amplify this : At the present time in 
Pittsburgh, Pa., the public health agencies are conducting a chest 
X-ray survey, and in carrying out this project, these agencies have 
asked all social and civic agencies to encourage everyone living in 
the community, all individuals, to take advantage of this chest X-ray. 

Now, the primary purpose of the chest X-ray, of course, is for the 
diagnosis and prevention of TB. But at the same time if it shows up 
the needs for clinical care on heart or cancer disease, these people are 
referred to a public health clinic where they are expected to follow 
through on referral and to get care. 

Because we have an adequate clarification of how such a referral 
would affect the alien, particularly that of short residents, we feel 
that we need to have very clear clarification of that provision. 

The Chairman. Excuse me for interrupting. Do I understand you 
came from Pittsburgh to appear here? 

Miss Greco. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And would you state again what organizations you 
represent ? 


Miss Greco. I represent the American Service Institute — in addi- 
tion, the opinions expressed in this statement are the joint thinking 
of these organizations : 

The American-Bulgarian League, American Service Institute of 
Allegheny County, Catholic Slovak Brotherhood, Council of Jewish 
Women, Croatian Fraternal Union, Federation of Jewish Philanthro- 
pies and United Jewish Fund, Greater Beneficial Union of Pitts- 
burgh, Jewish Family and Children's Service, Lutheran Service So- 
ciety, Serb National Federation, Verhovay Association, Jewish 
Community Relations Council. In addition, we speak for the social 
and civic agencies in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. 

If I may, I will submit our prepared statement. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to receive it. 

(The prepared statement submitted by Miss Madeline L. Greco, 
administrative assistant, American Service Institute, is as follows:) 

American Seevice Institute of Allegheny County 

As a member of the delegation appearing before this Commission from the 
city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pa., the opinions expressed in this 
statement are the result of the joint thinking of 12 organizations representing 
a cross section of interests in the implications contained in Public Law 414, 
the recently enacted Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The delegation also speaks for the fraternal and nationality organizations, 
and for social and civic agencies in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, where 
the population of this great industrial area is more than 40 percent foreign-born 
or of foreign-born parentage. 

I specifically represent the American Service Institute of Allegheny County, 
a social agency charged with the responsibility of rendering technical service 
to individuals on matters of immigration and naturalization. As a resource 
agency, the American Service Institute also acts as a consulting and coordinating 
body to groups, organizations, and private and public agencies whose area of 
work encompasses serving the foreign-born population of our community. 

Our experience has shown that the people of foreign extraction in our society 
have often been placed at a disadvantage when we compare their relative free- 
dom and security to that of those privileged to have been born in the United 
States. Public Law 414 not only perpetuates this pattern, but by its provisions 
Imposes greater penalties on the foreign-born than on native-born citizens. By 
casting a glare of suspicion over our naturalized citizens as well as the aliens 
resident in our communities, it has the effect of giving these people a second-class 
status in our American society. 

We recognize and endorse the importance of legislating adequate safeguards 
to the internal security and welfare of our country. Our concern, however, is 
directed to the interests of millions of patriotic, law-abiding, sincere, and well- 
disposed Americans by choice in this country whose way of life and status are 
placed in jeopardy by the methods which may be applied in administering this 
law. The impact which this law has upon the people it affects is one of fear 
and insecurity. This is reflected in the numerous inquiries coming to us from 
private health and welfare agencies whose case load includes the foreign-born. 
For example, because of the arbitrary methods which can be employed by the 
Attorney General and his staff in administering the law, the question imme- 
diately arises as to what constitutes a public charge. Since the term is not 
clearly defined in the law, these agencies are faced with the lending of whatever 
assistance appears to be required in the case of an alien at the risk of subjecting 
him to deportation if such assistance is construed by the Attorney General to 
be a violation of the public-charge provision. For "the alien recently arrived 
or of short residence in this country, the law works a particular hardship by 
keeping him under the constant fear of deportation if he should unwittingly or un- 
knowingly place himself in a situation which the Attorney General might 
construe as a violation of the public-charge provision (sec. 241, No. 8). 

For the first time in the history of our immigration and nationality laws, 
the glare of suspicion can be cast over any of our naturalized citizens of long 
standing. This is typified in a comment recently made to us by a prominent 


professional man in our community who was naturalized more than 30 years 
ago when he said, "I have always felt safe and secure in the knowledge that I 
am an American citizen, but with a law that can reach back and question any- 
thing in my original application, who knows what can happen?" (sec. 340). 

It is our considered opinion that the provision of a mandatory neighborhood 
investigation (sec. 355 (a) and (b)) required for applicants for citizenship 
has the potential for inviting character assassination and the activity of malicious 
informers. It can subject the petitioner for citizenship to the possibility of 
nnscrupulous attacks upon his character which may prejudice the examiner 
hearing his petition. This provision in the law, to our knowledge, provides 
no safeguards to the petitioner against the unsubstantiated and prejudicial 
results which may come from such an investigation. By the very methods which 
we know to be employed in this procedure at the present time, many of our 
potential new citizens are filled with apprehension at the thought of being in- 
vestigated in their neighborhoods — "Like as if I were a criminal" — as one of 
our clients reported when he discovered the extent and nature of the investiga- 
tion made in his particular application for citizenship. Rather than encourag- 
ing these well-meaning and well-intentioned individuals to work toward their 
new status as American citizens with hope and pride, the requirement of a 
neighborhood investigation frightens many people, particularly those who live 
In communities not friendly to the new arrival or to the so-called foreigner. 
The net result is that people sensitive to the positives and negatives in human 
relationships may sacrifice a cherished hope for citizenship rather than subject 
themselves to what may prove to be a humiliating and demoralizing threat to 
themselves and their families in the communities where they live and the places 
where they are employed. 

We believe that all human beings, alien and citizen alike, who are loyal to 
the American ideal and who are an integral part of our great American culture 
and progress, should be free from unreasonable burdens and restrictions and the 
unnecessary harassment which can result under the administrative procedures 
of this law. The groups which I represent are concerned about the complete 
authority vested in the power of the Attorney Greneral to make final decisions 
on denaturalization and deportation proceedings. Such authority is virtually 
dictatorial — a principle contrary to our traditional concepts of American justice. 

We, therefore, respectfully urge this Commission to recommend the following 
revisions : 

1. Clarification of the public charge provision (sec. 241, No. 8). 

2. Strong provision for judicial review in all cases, and the application of 
such measures as will safeguard the dignity and rights of all individuals by 
protecting them from administrative abuse. 

3. The retention of the present 5-year statute of limitations where the violation 
does not involve the internal security of the United States or serious criminal 
and moral ofifenses. 

(A supplementary statement submitted by the Pittsburgh section 
of the National Council of Jewish Women through Miss Greco, fol- 
lows :) 

Statement SuBMrrTED by the Pittsburgh Section of the National Council 

OF Jewish Women 

Pittsburgh Section, 
National Council of Jewish Women, 

Pitts'burgh, Pa., October 2, 1952. 

The Pittsburgh section, National Council of Jewish Women, a group of over 
3,000 women, in accordance with our national policy urge the revision of the quota 
system to enable the members of all national groups to share more equitably in 
immigration to the United States eliminating discrimination against people be- 
cause of race, creed, or national or ethnic origin. 

Immigrants of all races and creeds have added their cultural and economic 
contribution to the development of our country. In Pittsburgh, industry has and 
can continue to absorb immigrant labor with resulting benefits to the'economic 
development of the entire community. 

We feel too that both the ideology of our present immigration and naturaliza- 
tion laws as well as the laws themselves should be so modified that the naturalized 
citizen has a feeling of security and asylum equal to that of a native citizen. 


Along with this thinking we believe in the "retention of a statute of limitations" 
on offenses for which a person can be deported. 

The Pittsburgh section, National Council of Jewish Women, cognizant of the 
gravity of the immigration and naturalization situation under the present laws 
with the added dangers of the effectuation of the INIcCarran-Walter bill urge 
consideration of the opinions expressed herein. 

( Signed ) Mrs. Harold H. Solof, 
Vice President, Bureau of Education and Social Action. 

The CiiAiRMAiSr. Kev. Elwin A. Miller. 


Reverend Miller. I am Rev. Elwin A. Miller, a clergyman and 
executive director, Lutheran Service Societies of Western Pennsyl- 
vania, 533 Wabash Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

I am a member of the delegation which Miss Greco mentioned. 
The organizations she mentioned, including the Lutheran Service 
Societies of Western Pennsylvania of which I am executive director, 
had a meeting called by the American Service Institute, at which we 
discussed these issues, and came to grips with these ideas we are put- 
ting forth here today. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you. 

Reverend Mima?. In this new Public Law 414, we are fairly and 
very concious of the fact that a tremendous job has been done on codi- 
fying an old law and making some worth-while improvements, and 
especially in the area of the preferred immigrant. Beyond that, there 
are certain recommendations and considerations that I would like to 
present from our group in Pittsburgh. 

As stated by those lawmakers who were or are mainly responsible 
for the new law, that it is impossible to pass a law which in the fu- 
ture might not need further adjustment, I turn to the last part of the 
law which refers to the joint congressional committee, of which I 
think there has been an implication for the possibility of future study 
and adjustment of this law. 

With these implications in mind, and the thoughts of my fellow citi- 
zens of Pittsburgh, I shall make the following recommendations and 
these recommendations are made only in connection with title II, and 
titled "Immigration, Chapter I," which is the quota system. I make 
the following recommendations mindful of the fact that our constant 
flow of foreign-born people into this country, with their national 
cultures, have not only brought the best from the lands from which 
they came, but also the merging of those cultures into what we call 
today the over-all American culture, that has helped to make our 
Nation as great as we fiind it to be at the present time ; and in these 
recommendations we make a common plea for a need for a constant 
flow of people, as we have had in the past, and perhaps a new kind 
of law within each generation to add to this richness of American life 
lest it become sterile ; that is, with this constant flow, so that we can 
understand other cultures by having people live here beyond the short 
term of a visitor's visa ; and as a leaven in the lurch, as it were, a large 
nucleus of foreign-born people, which can adequately help us with 
a foreign policy. 

25356—52 34 


Now these recommendations, No. 1, that the joint congressional 
committee in section 401, be given a special assignment. This assign- 
ment should be the continuous reconsideration of the annual immigra- 
tion quota, and the formula on which this quota is made ; that is, re- 
ferring to the formula in section 201 which is one-sixth of 1 percent of 
the 1920 population of this country : a recommendation on immigra- 
tion-quota formula should be made to Congress at least every 3 years, 
and the reason I make that statement is that in the past 3 years we 
have had an experience with the DP Act of 1948, and the extension of 
the act after 2 years, and a strong desire at the present time amongst 
a considerable number of people to allow additional refugees to come 
into our country. That is, with this reconsideration of the formula 
that we might be able to solve the problem of effecting an emergency 
law every now and then as we have experienced it within the past 3 
or 4 years. 

The second recommendation is the matter of canceling out the mort- 
gage which the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 has caused. 

The third recommendation, and that is going back to the second 
recommendation, a canceling out of the mortgage of the DP Act; as 
we all know, the act is going to affect by 25 percent the annual quotas 
up to 54, and then 50 percent beyond. 

The third recommendation : To give humanitarian consideration 
to the refugees, which we don't find in the present law, that are people 
that are worthy within the population pressure groups, that are in 
political sympathy with the United States, and to enter a program of 
cooperative planning with other countries for the health and welfare, 
and possibly relocation of these peoples, if not immigration, to the 
United States. 

The fourth recommendation is the revision of the Asia Pacific tri- 
angle quota in relation to the birth of immigrants; that is, that with 
the European population their immigration quota is based on where 
they are born, the quota of the country in which they are born, and 
we would like to have that also be the same for the Asiatic people. 

The fifth recommendation is that the unused immigration visas be 
made available. I understand in the present law that these unused 
immigration visas that are handed out to people that are not able to 
come over are canceled out, and we would like to have those made 
available to worthy immigrants within any quota area. 

The Chairman. How would you propose to distribute it? 
Reverend Miller. I would say that could be the consideration of the 
joint congressional committee on the basis of population need abroad 
and in relation to the needs that our country has for employment and 
other cultural needs. 

I think to be realistic in meeting the population needs of the world 
that we have to reconsider the formula on which these quotas are set 
. up ; that is, to not go back to 1924 for the basis. 
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 
Mrs. Elisabeth Ponofidine, you are scheduled next. 



Mrs. PoNoriDiNE. I am Mrs. Elisabeth G. Ponofidine, 16 Delaware 
Avenue, Buffalo, N. Y., representing International Institute of Buf- 
falo and a number of other organizations in Buffalo. 

The Chairman. What organizations do you represent ? 

Mrs. Ponofidine. I represent eight organizations in Buffalo, Mr. 
Chairman; namely. Board of Community Kelations of the City of 
Buffalo ; Council of Social Agencies ; Diocesan Resettlement Commit- 
tee of Catholic Charities; Labor Committee to Combat Intolerance; 
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; Council of Churches; 
Jewish Federation for Social Service ; International Institute. 

The Chairman. Did you come here from Buffalo, N. Y., and did 
you come here at the request of those agencies ? 

Mrs. Ponofidine. I came from Buffalo, N. Y., at the request of 
those agencies, and I would like to be permitted to read a brief state- 
ment, representing those organizations. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

(The statement read by Mrs. Elizabeth G. Ponofidine in behalf of 
the following organizations in Buffalo, N. Y. : Board of Community 
Relations of the City of Buffalo ; Council of Social Agencies ; Diocesan 
Resettlement Committee of Catholic Charities ; Labor Committee To 
Combat Intolerance ; Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith ; Coun- 
cil of Churches ; Jewish Federation for Social Service ; International 
Institute is as follows :) 

We, who represent organizations that are concerned with individuals who 
have immigrated to this country, and with the whole process of immigration, 
have during the past many years seen grave family and community problems 
which resulted from some of the limitations and inequalities in our present im- 
migration laws. We have already felt some of the consequences of the new 
McCarran Act even though the law has as yet not actually gone into effect, and 
will not do so until December 24, 1952. 

Also, we have already had family and community problems created by the 
enforced separation of family units because of quotas being mortgaged for al- 
most the next hundred years ; problems because people cannot bring members of 
their families from areas with small quotas and where there is no opportunity 
to earn a livelihood. 

In our area in Buffalo there are today large shortages of skilled labor which 
could well be filled either by DP's or by people coming from overpopulated areas, 
most of them people whose one hope is a desire to breathe the air of freedom. 
Among groups of good Americans whose forebears came from many European 
countries there is justifiable anger and irritation because of Siu immigration 
policy which has made it impossible for friends and families of the same country 
of origin to come to this country. 

We who are concerned with this problem feel that an immigration policy 
which is based upon a national-origins quota system is doing a grave disservice 
to prospective immigrants and to our own country. 

The basis for the national-origin quota system is long outmoded. The as- 
sumptions of innate race and ethnic superiority or inferiority have been the 
weapons of Fascists and Communists alike and have no place in the free Ameri- 
can system. It is our belief that the interest of our country will be best served 
by eliminating quotas based on national origins ; the alternative which might well 
be suggested is that there should be established a national immigration policy 
committee making a continuous study of population trends in our country, the 
amount of immigi-ation which our country needs and can absorb, and which 
shall set within fixed maximum and minimum limits the number of immigrants 
to be admitted to this country in a given calendar year. This number could be 


allocated smong the various countries of the world on the basis of the demands- 
f )r immigration visas in each country, determined by qualified, independent in- 
\estigations made through our American consulates; the need for additional 
labor sources on our part and the need for meeting the problem of overpopulation 
of some of the countries of the world. This committee should set priorities and 
preferences, but the preferences should be based on individual worth and not on 
national pedigree. There should be a wider preference for relatives of American 
citizens and legal resident aliens. There should be a preference for refugees 
and political perseciitees and a preference for economic-hardship cases. It i& 
our firm belief that injmigrants should be selected on the basis of their character,, 
their talent and love for freedom rather than for race, color, creed, or national 

We have noted with great alarm the tendency to create classes of citizens 
based on birth in our country as opposed to naturalization. 

We believe the idea of revocability of citizenship, acquired in proper and legal 
ways, should be completely rejected. 

There is already a marked uneasiness on the part of God-fearing, law-abiding^ 
and freedom-loving naturalized Americans who are being placed almost in the 
category of second-class citizens because of the accident of birth. 

We believe that the idea of revocability of citizenship is alien to the philosophy 
set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United 
States, and to all legal precepts developed in our country since the day of 

We submit that this type of division between groups of citizens irreparably 
damages our national unity. 

We also firmly believe that our present laws are too stringent in refusing the 
right of asylum to persons who have reached our shores in search of freedom, 
and who for fear of political persecution are iinable to return to their native 
land. We believe that the freedom-loving people of America have always been 
willing to share their opportunities with the oppressed and the persecuted, not 
only yesterday, but also today. 

Again, as American citizens we feel deeply that our immigration policy should' 
be directly related to our international policy, and it appears to us that the pres- 
ent policies, through their strict national-origins quota system, and because of 
their lack of relationship to our national needs and our international moral obli- 
gations, are not designed to best implement our foreign policy. 

Mrs. PoNOFiDiNE. Tliese statements of our beliefs are made, not only 
as representatives of volunteer agencies who are concerned with and 
deal directly with immigration situations, but as citizens of a country 
which, since its inception, has offered more rights and privileges to its 
citizeniy, whether native-born or naturalized, than any other country 
in the world. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether there are any labor shortages 
in or around Buffalo ? 

Mrs. PoNOFiDiNE. Yes ; we have had a great deal to do with placing^ 
displaced persons into jobs. I can tell you that we haven't got a 
single one that is unemployed unless he is sick. And the other day 
I had a call from one of the big industries saying that they were open- 
ing a plant in another city and couldn't we persuade some people to go 
to that city and work there. 

Commissioner O'Grady, Has any study been made in Buffalo about 
the labor needs of industry ? 

Mrs. PoNOFiDiNE. There was a study made by a student of one of 
the social organizations concerning displaced persons. Contrary to 
what has been said by one of the gentlemen who testified here earlier, 
we find that the change of employment was not at all as frequent as 
it appears. We find that people were eager to work in spite of the 
affidavits that were signed in Europe, Some of them, it is true, did 
not remain in the jobs that were selected for them. However, they 
were quite willing to take a similar job where they w^ere able to be 


interviewed by the employer and they knew what the conditions were 
going to be, and that they were satisfied ; but quite often you know, 
provisions for employment were made without talking it over witn 
the person, rather having a dim idea of what he was going to do here. 
We also do not believe in slave labor. We believe that people cannot 
be forced to stay for years in a given job once they are brought over 
here. They should have the same freedom of moving as other people. 
Also, if you don't know the English language, an engineer — and 
that is a fact^ — will go to work in a factory as a laborer to support his 
family. However, his talents are wasted. He could do much more 
productive work if he had a chance to move as soon as he could have 
a refresher course or as soon as he learns English. And to attach 
them to a place and say ''You have to stay there for 'd or 4 years," 
that would be cruel. 

Commissioner O'Grauy. Have your organizations informed or in- 
terpreted to the public in your community in Bulfalo what you have 
been doing, or what your experience has been pro and con l 

Mrs. PoxoFiDixE. Of course we have been doing that all along since 
before the passage of the DP xVct, we have been concerned with doing 
that. Of course under the Displaced Persons Act the reaction of the 
people to that very much may be their experience with one person, 
which colors their whole belief. We and different members of various 
■organizations mentioned liere, and many others who we weren't able 
to get here, naturally do a great deal of interpreting all the time. At 
the time when the McCarran Act was passed we had Monsignor Loftus. 
We had quite a group of reconnnendations brought together by him, 
vrho discussed that and who brought out views about the McCarran 

The Chairman. If there was so much opposition by the public to 
this law, how do you account for the fact that the Congress passed 
it over the President's veto? 

Mrs. PoNOFiDiNE. I tliinlv our two Senators in the State of New 
York heard the expression of our views and were with us on that. I 
Avonder whether the Congressmen and Senators of other States, if 
they actually knew something about the human-needs and human- 
interest stories, whether they wouldn't feel a little differently. Some- 
times they are rather removed from the actual human interest. 

I think this is a matter that has to be interpreted constantly. For 
one thing, the situation is changing but the human needs remains the 
thing. I think you can only really understand it if you present it on 
the basis of human needs. When you present the whole immigration 
policy it is for a good long time, you don't change the bill very often. 
Nevertheless, it never fails, the moment we pass the bill somebody gets 
concerned and we all start working toward changing things because 
we realize that an injustice has been done. 

The Chairman. I again come back to the question, if there was such 
opposition to the bill as some witnesses have indicated, how was it 
passed over the President's veto ? 

Mrs. PoNOFiDiNE. I think the public really doesn't quite understand 
really what the Immigration Act means. Senator McCarran certain- 
ly did, and he was very insistent on keeping it. But today when we 
try to feel at least that the place of birth is such an unjust thing to 
judge a person upon, just as an illustration, in comes a Greek per- 


son and says "My brother has just died in Greece and I want to take 
his child here, he needs to come to America, he needs me." We have 
to say that he pro'bably will be long dead and buried before his time 
comes on the quota. 

Somebody says in England, "Do you think he can come?" And we 
say, "Oh certainly, he can." Now that is unjust, the incident of birth 
in one countiy or another; a person who needs the care and bringing 
up by a close relative cannot come here, and somebody for whom 
maybe it doesn't mean so much at all will be able to come. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tricarichi. 


Mr. Tricarichi. I am Charles S. Tricarichi, 3475 East One Hun- 
dred and Fortieth Street, Cleveland. I am here to represent the 
American Committee on Italian Migration and Judge Celebreese of 
the municipal court, who is the head of the committee but was unable 
to appear himself. 

The law, like anything else, the law is not for the artist or for 
the Pope ; but the law is like Marshall once said : "The calling of the 

I am thinking, along the lines of an immigration law, it should be 
based on full, and with a great deal of, foresight relative to our times; 
and, like anything else, the elasticity of law should be able to meet 
the times and should change with the times, have the ability to; and 
that applies to any immigration law as well as to any other law in 
this country. Since our life at all times is like playing a game of 
bridge with destiny, we must govern ourselves in view of the picture 
of today. America has always been considered the leader of the 
world, and as a leader it sets a pattern for which the rest of the world 
follows. In one respect, in the position of immigration, America has 
failed its duty as a leader. By that, recalling back historically, our 
immigration laws prior to the McCarran Act were based on our 1924 
laws, I believe, and most of the South American countries,, and some 
of the English possessions such as New Zealand and Australia, adopted 
a similar pattern in 1922 and 1923. 

Thinking along those lines, any law passed by America today will 
also be followed by people who have followed our conscientious think- 
ing previously. And right now we are faced with several problems in 
the world. We as a country cannot do as much for the world problem 
as countries like New Zealand or Canada or Venezuela, who can take 
a great deal of population, but we can set a pattern in this country 
for which other countries will follow suit. We can set a pattern 
not based on national groups or origin of birth ; we can set a pattern 
based on need and necessity. That need and necessity must work 
two ways: It must work for the country receiving the immigrant 
and also the country giving the immigrants asylum. 

Today, in Europe, we are faced with overcrowded population in 
certain countries; specifically speaking, I would say Germany, Italy,, 
and Greece. That overpopulation has caused us to pour millions and 


millions of dollars in the Marshall plan, which is only a temporary 
solution to the problem in Europe. It will never solve the problem ; 
the problem hasn't been settled today, and it never will ; but a reorienta- 
tion of population of these countries specifically could do a great deal 
to solve a world problem, and also save the American taxpayer a good 
deal of money. 

It is true that the United States cannot take the greatest loads, but 
they can set the pattern, even if we adjust ourselves to the world need 
on the basis of 150,000 immigration, that is a small number with rela- 
tion to the world problem. But that would set a pattern for coun- 
tries like Canada, New Zealand, Venezuela, who can take a larger 
population, and much larger population from the crowded countries 
of Europe. 

Today, in this country, a country such as Italy could employ such 
workers in each skill, such as masonry, stonecutting, and needlework. 
There is a shortage in those special skills. 

As I said before, there has to be a need on both sides, the country 
giving and the country taking. I also say in all frankness there has 
been an abuse of immigration in the past few years ; the country giv- 
ing has not given their best people. That problem could probably 
be cured by some sort of commission which would be established, and 
in which a prospective immigrant may be allotted the 3 month's period 
in which to prove his skill. I mean I have heard stories — and I be- 
lieve they are true, and I blame both the Italian council and the 
American counterpart — as far as they ask for farmers and they get 
people who have no conception of farming, I believe that has created 
a great deal of antagonism toward some of the people who we are 
receiving on the basis of needs, and that could be cured by some sort 
of commission which could be established in a country — Italy, Ger- 
many, or whatever country — and they would have a period of 3 
months' rehabilitation there in order to prove their skills, which we 
need. Some of the skills which we need in our society could help 
make a better America; over a period of years has made a better 

That is all I have to say. 

The Chairman. Wliere would you prove those skills ? 

Mr. Tricarichi. Well, along the lines I was thinking of setting up — 
say, if you wanted to get some immigrants from Italy I would have 
an American commission there in Italy, and have maybe a 3 months' 
guaranty period by which these people could really prove their skills. 
I mean, we don't want to get people who will be a burden upon our 
society but we would welcome people who could contribute like many 
others have, and I think that could be accomplished in that manner. 

Commissioner O 'Grady. Would you advocate that training be given 
these people to fit them for job needs? 

Mr. Tricarichi. This wouldn't be training; it would be a place to 
segregate the people according to their claimed occupations. Recently 
I talked to a farmer from Iowa, and he was telling me they asked for 
some farmers and they got people of other trades which created an 
antagonistic feeling which could be avoided by these camps, to prove 
their ability. 

Commissioner Finucane. Did it create antagonism on the part of 
the one who sponsored the people and brought them over ? 


Mr. Tricarichi. Partially on their part, and partially by the people 
in whose community tliey come, which could be done away with. As 
far as the problem of the other countries like Venezuela and New 
Zealand, if we set a pattern about a liberal immigration law, of course 
we wouldn't take the greater part but a very small percentage, but 
by setting a liberal policy we would also set the pattern by which a 
great deal of the problem in Europe could be solved by the other 
countries, like New Zealand, Venezuela, and Brazil, following suit. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Wouldn't this selective program you men- 
tioned be difficult to set up ? 

Mr. Tricarichi. The only reason I spoke of the selected program 
was to relieve some of the stigma that has been attached within the 
last couple of years to the policy of certain groups. I mean, with 
reference to its immigration policy, I think it has not been handled 
as properly as it could have been. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Is Margaret Fergusson here ? 


Miss Fergusson. I am Margaret Fergusson, director of the Interna- 
tional Institute of Cleveland, 1620 Prospect Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio. 

I would like to limit my presentation to the two subjects; namely, 
quota laws and deportation. I wish to preface my remarks by saying 
that I believe in restrictive and selective immigration, but I believe 
the present quota law, however, is unfair. 

I believe it is unfair to base the quota on the 1920 census, and that 
a 1940 date would be better. 

I believe it is unfair for Ireland, with a population of approximately 
2,900,000, to have a quota of 17,800, and Greece, with a population of 
approximately 8,000,000, to have a quota of 310. 

I believe there should be some plan for the redistribution of unused 
quotas and the pooling of these to be issued to countries in need of 

To rewrite the law is a time-consuming thing; and, pending drastic 
revisions, I believe consideration should be given to emergency legis- 
lation which would admit larger numbers for a certain period of time. 

There should be some correlation between our foreign policy and 
our immigration policy. If we encourage people to escape from behind 
the iron curtain, and if we encourage Italians to fight communism, we 
should have an immigration policy which is complementary to it and 
consistent with it. 

Under deportation, I believe the McCarran Act does not leave dis- 
cretionary power in deportation cases in the hands of the Immigration 
Service. Previously, the Service was given more power in hardship 
cases, and hardship was not defined as "exceptional or extremely un- 
usual hardship." 

The question is not only whether it is "exceptional and extremely 
unusual," which term is hard to define, but it should bear some rela- 
tionship to the severity of the offense. 

This is in no way a criticism of the Service, but the Service must 
be given certain discretionary power, which I believe they do not have 
under the new law. 


These statements are based an the experiences of a social agency 
working in the field of immigi-ation and, therefore, well aware of the 
strength and weakness of the new law. 

The Chairman. What is the International Institute of Cleveland ? 

Miss Fergusson. We work very closely with the Immigration Serv- 
ice in Cleveland. 

The Chairman. Is it composed of a great many other organizations? 

Miss Fergusson, No ; it is a separate organization. It is a branch 
of the YWCA. 

The Chairman. Does it work with these other agencies ? 

Miss Fergusson. Yes. 

I believe the McCarran Act has many good points. I think the 
changes it has made in the field of naturalization have been excellent. 
I think many of the discriminations that existed before are not existent 
now. However, I think in the field of immigration more care should 
be given in the field of deportation. 

I would like to explain a little bit about my stand on restrictive and 
selective immigration, because I think that it is a little touchy with 
a great many people. I should also like to explain what I have said 
about a certain number of people coming into the country in addi- 
tion to a quota for a limited time. I believe that there are many people 
in Europe who did not qualify under the Displaced Persons Act who 
will never be able to come to this country under the quota laws, who 
should be permitted to come because of the relationship to people who 
have been admitted for permanent residence and the need for families 
to get together ; and it is to that point that I believe a certain alloca- 
tion, not from the quota, but a certain allocation of people coming into 
he Unied Staes ouside of the quota is required to relieve a situation 
that, to my mind, needs relief. 

Now, so far as quotas are concerned, I have said I don't believe they 
should be increased. I think a 154,000 quota for people in addition to 
our nonq^uotas at this time is large enough. I think the distribution is 
the unfair part. I think it is the fact that we have so many for Great 
Britain and so few for some of the other countries, all of whom have 
made good citizens and bad ones, and I think they deserve the same 
amount of consideration as people rather than nationals of another 

Commissioner Finucane. Do I understand. Miss Fergusson, that in 
order to unite families in the United States you would permit family 
members abroad to come here irrespective of quota limitations? 

Miss Fergusson. I would not have that done in countries where it is 
their home country particularly. I am thinking in terms of Italy, 
Austria, and Germany as being the displaced-person countries. I think 
there are still persons who at the time we had a displaced-person law 
did not qualify as displaced persons. The quotas are full. I am not 
thinking in terms of husbands and wives. I am thinking in terms of 
fathers and mothers of aliens who are second preference now when 
many of the quotas are filled. I am thinking of grandmothers and 
grandfathers, uncles and aunts, in some instances. 

Commissioner Finucane. Where the quota is oversubscribed would 
you admit those without regard to quota ? 

Miss Fergusson. Yes; particularly Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and 


The Chairman. What would you put in the nonquota category? 

Miss Fergusson. The same as we have it now. The husbands and 
wives and parents are first preference, are they not? 

Mr. RosENFLELD. Do I Understand you would not add to the non- 
quota any except this group that you have just been explaining to 
Commissioner Finucane ? 

Miss Fergusson. That is true. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Miss Ferguson. 

Is Mr. Pascu in the hearing room ? 


Mr. Pascu. I am Danila Pascu, 7011 Detroit Avenue, Cleveland, 
Ohio. I am connected with the Rumanian Baptist Church in Cleve- 
land and am an employee of the Cleveland Baptist Association. I 
worked among DP's in Cleveland, and I was sent by the association 
to Europe in 1948 to organize a relief agency. 

I am appearing here in my individual capacity. 

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

Mr. Pascu. I would like to present my views and our dissatisfac- 
tion with the new IMcCarran Act. Like some of the countries, those 
behind the iron curtain with such a small quota, I would like to say 
that we are trying to encourage the people to stay at home, and I am 
speaking about Rumania, where I came from in 1939, and about some 
of the people that I know over there. There are some w^ith whom I 
came in contact since the war and after the war. We are encouraging 
them to fight communism rather than leave and come here with the 
law that puts them in a different category from other people who have 
the same duty. I am speaking of Rumania, Bulgaria, and so on. 
They have the struggle there. They will have to sacrifice their lives 
there. We want them to do that ; but at the same time we tell them, 
"You will not be given consideration as are given other nationalities 
who are doing the same thing, maybe on a less scale." And I think 
the quotas of those nationalities should be increased to give them hope 
that we are considering them and appreciating what they are doing. 
I want to say also that I am not satisfied about this provision of the 
McCarran Act that provides about losing of the citizenship. I be- 
came a citizen back in 1943, and I have two children that I brought 
here to America in 1941. One was 2 years of age and the other was 
4 years of age. They are going to grow. They are American citizens 
because I and my wife are citizens. They are naturalized citizens. 
Their life is going to be the American life here. 

I feel uneasy to think that my son is going to be uneasy all his life 
because there is a provision that causes a naturalized citizen at some 
time because of something might, be deported. And suppose that 
Rumania is going to be Communist for the next 50 years. We don't 
know about that. And on top of the punishment he gets he has to go 
away from here; he has to go away from here and he has to face over 
there the guilt of his father who came here to America and has gone 
to Europe as an American citizen fighting communism. I just feel 
uneasy myself, and I feel uneasy about my children, and I know that 
this is the feeling of a great number of naturalized citizens — just 
uneasiness. I am in a different category than other citizens of the 


United States. I am required to fulfill my obligations to make my 
sacrifices and do my best, and I am happy to do it. Yet there is some- 
thing that my citizenship doesn't bear the same weight like the citizen- 
ship of those who are born here. 

I would like also to speak about refugees since I met them in 1948. 
Since then I am in correspondence with many of them and I am help- 
ing them to settle down here in America. I am in touch with many 
nationality groups here in Cleveland. I place them in jobs and in 
homes and help them to adjust. I think that if an additional number 
of them are going to be permitted to a special law there would be a 
larger number of them trying to escape the- Communists, too. I know 
that many of those who have escaped to the free countries have gone 
back to Rumania and they are doing it through underground channels. 
The news gets back to them that way. 

In 1948 I was there, and I met at least three young men who said, 
^'Oh, well, we don't go to America. We go back. We want to fight. 
All we came for here is to keep the hope in us. We will encourage 
others to come and try to escape if they can." And I know about the 
die-hard ways some of those people had to escape. Now, I think we 
should give hope to those people that when they succeed to escape they 
are given some consideration here and help them to adjust and live in 
some country where they can enjoy freedom. Since America is re- 
garded as a sort of "kingdom of heaven on earth" for many of those 
countries, I think that more of those people should be allowed to come 
to America under the provision of a special law. 

I would like also to add that I met in Europe some people and I 
was trying to help some of them to come to this country, but I had 
■difficulties. They have difficulties to come here, and I put a definite 
person before you. I found him in Paris. He is the leader of the 
Rumanian — he was a great leader of the youth in Rumania. He is 
«n honest man. Among the refugees, everybody told me that he is 
the best man we have here. Yet he is not allowed to come here because 
back in 1938 or 1939 as a young student he belonged to the Iron Guard. 
There was a price set on his head in Rumania. He was in hiding for 
3 years. He said he did not see the sun for many months. He was 
in hiding in our Premier's home. And he wanted to know if there 
wasn't anybody in America to take cases like his or similar cases into 
consideration in such a way that he should not be put in a certain class 
of people that says, "Did you ever belong to that group? If so, the 
doors are closed to you." 

Now, iie wrote me again and again asking if there wasn't any com- 
mission or any agency here in any State to consider cases like his. 
I would like to suggest the consideration of such persons too. 

Mr. Pascu. That is all I want to say. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner O'Grady. In regard to those people who are in these 
various predicaments you have described, could you give us some 
illustrations, some written statements on those cases? 

Mr. Pascu. Yes. 

The Chairman. Would you send them to us in Washington, and 
we would be glad to have them. 

Mr. Pascu. All right. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. George Green here ? 



Mr. Grken. I am George Green, director of the Citizens' Bureau' 
of Cleveland, 701 Marshal Building, Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio.- 
AVe are a welfare agency under the Welfare Federation in Cleveland 
and we deal with foreign-born people. 

I should like to file a statement with the Commission on two phases 
of the present law; namely, that dealing with deportation and the 
other dealing with the quota and the method of assigning quotas. 
I also wanted to make a little comment in that statement relative 
to perhaps something this Commission might do by way of formu- 
lating approval of regulations to implement this new law. 

We might as well face up to the fact that on December 24 we are 
going to have to live with it, at least for a little while, and we had 
better see what we can do when we do have it. When we first had 
the DP Act I thought it wouldn't work. But we all got together and 
we were able to have some amendments passed and we did a lot of 
things we didn't know we could do. We may be able to do a lot 
of things with this new act. 

In almost every page of this new act there is a i-eference to discre- 
tionary authority. The Attorney General and the Secretary of State^ 
and even the Secretary of Labor are going to have these discretionary 
authorities and those rules and regulations are going to have a lot 
to do with the humaneness, at least, with which this law is going to 

I would like to make a statement on those three things and submit 
them to the Commission. 

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

(The statement submitted by Mr. Green is as follows :) 

Statement of Gkorge Green, Director of the Citizens' Bureau, Cleveland, 
Ohio, Before the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion, Cleveland, Ohio, October 6, 1952 

My name is George Green and I am director of the Citizens' Bureau, a weli'are 
agency whicli provides services in the fields of immigration and naturalization 
for the foreign-born and others of the city of Clevaland. I am also a member 
of the Board of Directors of two national agencies interested in matters of 
immigration and naturalization legislation, namely, the American Federation 
of International Institutes, Inc., 11 West Forty-second Street, New York 36, N. Y., 
and the National Council of Citizenship and Naturalization, 1775 Broadway, 
New York 10, N. Y. Both of these agencies through their representatives sub- 
mitted statements to, and testified before, the joint hearings before the Sub- 
committees on the Judiciary, Eighty-second Congress, during March and April 
of 1951. 

Generally speaking my views on our future immigration policy coincide with 
those expressed in the various formal actions taken by botli of these agencies 
on that subject. However, it is my independent judgment that the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act which becomes effective December 24, 1952, despite the 
many seemingly objectionable provisions it contains, represents a real step 
forward and that it would have been a tragic mistake to have scrapped the 
accomplishments of so many years of industrious work on the part of so many 
people in committees and at public hearings by a failure of Congress to over- 
ride the President's veto. Let's take the good while we can but with a firm 
resolve to attack and eliminate the evils one by cne as they become more glar- 
ingly apparent with the law's administration. 

The original McCarran bill with its harsh and unworkable provisions was 
definitely objectionable. The legislation which was passed on June 17, 1952, is a 


far cry from that bill. There are many desirable provisions in the new act which 
everyone recognizes. The President enumerates a number of them in his veto 
message. It is not perfect by any means. No immigration and naturalization 
law ever is. It is highly technical, complicated, and in some instances danger- 
ously ambiguous. Particularly many of its provisions dealing with the quota 
and deportation matters appear to me so impractical and unrealistic that early 
revision of them is inevitable. That the act may need amendments is recog- 
nized by the embodiment of significant provisions within it. It provides for the 
immediate appointment of a joint congressional committee to make a continu- 
ous study of (1) the administration of this act, and its effect on the national 
security, the economy, and the social welfare of tlie United States, and (2) such 
•conditions within or without the United States which in the opinion of the com- 
mittee might have any bearings on the immigration and nationality policy of 
the United States. I understand that this committee has already been ap- 
pointed and is at work. 

Both the Commission and the committee are directed to study and make rec- 
ommendations regarding our future immigration and naturalization policies. 
Is not the President's Commission duplicating what the .loint congressional com- 
mittee is supposed to do, and may not the latter be in a much better position 
to bring a fresher point of view and present objectives more likely of legisla- 
tive attainment to the next Congress? The joint congressional committee is not 
a static organization. The complexion of its membership is subject to change 
after every election and should therefore be currently responsive to public 
opinion. I cannot see therefore wherein the Commission can accomplish any- 
thing of real value for the next Congress to work upon beyond a resubmission 
through the President of recommendations that have already been offered, heard, 
and found wanting so far as legislative achievement is concerned. 

The testimony being heard in Cleveland today is accumulative in nature to 
that previously offered at the joint hearings before the Committees on the Ju- 
diciary by the same type of agencies, individuals, and interests whose efforts for 
the enactment of a more humane and liberal law culminated in the introduction 
and the overwhelming defeat of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by Senator Lehman in the last Congress. Could not the Presidents Com- 
mission in some ascertain the reasons which impelled over two-thirds of the 
Members of both Houses of Congress to pass the new legislation over the Presi- 
dent's veto? It seems to me this knowledge is absolutely essential if we are to 
•expect our Congress to work dispassionately for a new approach to a determina- 
tion of our future immigration policy. The Commission would need to set out 
upon an entirely different itinerary from the one it is now following in order to 
learn these facts. In a large number of States both Senators regardless of party 
voted for this law and in them are many large cities which are not being visited 
by members of this Commission. 

We must face the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act becomes effec- 
tive on December 24, 1952, whether we like it or not, and it is my feeling that by 
intelligent interpretation and the promulgation of a set of liberal and humani- 
tarian rules by those authorized to formulate them the law can be made to work 
for the time being at least to the benefit of all concerned. I believe that it is in 
this particular sphere of action that the President's Commission can wield a 
tremendous influence and render a worth-while service. The rule-making au- 
thorities set up in the act as well as this Commission are creatures of the 
President's own making. If the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the 
Secretary of Labor, and others come forward with a code of feasible regulations 
we can make a much better law out of the one that appears so objectionable to so 
many. There were many of us who vigorously opposed the recent Displaced 
Persons Act and felt that it could never function because of its rigid provisions 
as to housing, employment, and assurances. An intelligent and liberal-minded 
Displaced Persons Commission brought forth a set of regulations which did 
make it work and accomplished that which at the beginning seemed impossible. 
The President's Commission by emulating the Displaced Persons Commission can 
contribute much to the shaping of our immigration policy of the future by insist- 
ing that the law now on the statute books is liberally and intelligently construed 
by the administrative authorities who are empowered with wide discretionary 
authority to prescribe the rules and regulations for its administration. 

Mr. RosENTTELD, I should like permission to insert in the record at 
this point a telegram received from Mr. V. S. Platek, president of the 


National Slovak Society of the United States of America, Pittsburgh,. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

(The telegram is as follows:) 

Statement Submitted By V. S. Platek, President of the National Slovak 

Society of the U. S. A. 

On behalf of its 40,000 members, the officers of the National Slovak Society 
of the United States of America support the President of the United States in his 
effort to make further study of the newly enacted immigration laws which we 
deem discriminatory and unjust. 

V. S. Platek, President. 

Mr. EosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, I also request permission to put 
into the record a statement received from James C. Mylonas, repre- 
sentative of the supreme lodge, Order of Ahepa, Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. It will be received. 

(The statement is as follows:) 

Statement Submitted By James C. Mylonas, Supreme Lodge, Order of Ameri- 
can Hellenic Educational Progressive Association 

In the many years that I have spent in this community, I have watched with, 
a great deal of pride the condition of my fellow countrymen whose national 
origins stem from the ancient country in the Aegian Sea. I have watched with 
a greater interest and pride the stalwart citizens of Greek origin who have 
become interwoven in our community. I see amongst them doctors, lawyers, 
dentists, successful businessmen, artists, and laborers in every walk of life. 

I turn with pride and find the relief rolls absent and lacking Greek names, 
nor are they found in other public institutions. Our churches are full and in- 
dicate the high spiritual standards. These statements indicate that ,the soil of 
this community has been a proper location for the development of Greeks to a 
high moral, physical, and economic standard. In their many businesses they 
are expanding. They cannot find adequate help and the pressure to try to bring 
their relatives and friends from teeming and overcrowded Greece is strong. 
They ask for orphan children, for companions, for servants, for spouses and 
have demonstrated two outstanding situations ; first, the percentage need for 
increased immigrants; and second, to maintain them under healthful and 
flourishing and high standards. But, what are some of the obstacles that they 
must go through? 

First, it is necessary that a sponsor prepare various papers which will be sent 
to the American consulate in Greece ; then the party in Greece must be notified 
to appear before the consulate and answer questions regarding the petition to 
enter the United States. Due to poor transportation and the consulate being" 
located at a distant location, it may take more than 2 months before this can be 
accomplished. In many instances, numerous papers are prepared and much 
money expanded, only in the end to be rejected because of the strict laws of 
the United States. 

Second, it is also necessary for the sponsor and immigrant to be blood rela- 
tives and in many instances, it is very difficult or impossible to invite someone- 
in great need to the United States for the purpose of becoming a useful citizen 
in this country because he does not have the qualified relative to invite him to 
the United States. 

Third, as far as orphans are concerned, it is a very expensive matter, for the 
party must go to Greece to obtain the orphan and adopt the orphan at the probate 
court in Greece and then give all the papers to the American consulate in Greece, 
who in turn send them to the United States and in many instances, it is rejected 
because of some discretionary power of an officer in that particular department. 

Here the American citizens of Greek origin read the history of their Greek 
people, how they fought with great success and unusual bravery the Italian and' 
Nazi hordes, holding back the arrogant egotists until the might of our country- 
could crush them. Here again Greece was called on to hold up the principle 
of democracy and suppress the insidious hand of the Red Communists' poison. 
This is modern history showing the great sacrifices that helped maintain the 
principles of this country. 


Now again the country of Greece is called upon as a sanctuary for the multi- 
tudes surrounding it fleeing from the cruel oppressive hand of the gluttonous 
Communist murderers, and Greece is filled with the people of the surrounding 
countries who have no homes and are dispossessed. Why then, should we not 
show our appreciation for the past, our concern for the depressed, by erasing 
some of the many obstructions toward opening arguments toward worthy resi- 
dents of Greece whom we are in a position to protect and whose financial condi- 
tion we will gxiarantee. Any assistance that this community can give will be 
assisting the path of this country in the ways of its founding fathers. Now this 
is all we ask. 

Respectfully submitted. 

James C. Mylonas, 
Representative of the Supreme Lodge, 

Order of Ahepa, Washington, D. G. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I request that the Cleveland 
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 concluded the hearings in Cleveland. The Commission will 
now be adjourned until it reconvenes in Detroit, Mich., at 9 : 30 a. m., 
October 7, 1952. 

(Whereupon at 4: 55 p. m., the Commission was adjourned to re- 
convene at 9 : 30 a. m., October 7, 1952, at Detroit, Mich.) 


(Those submitted statements follow :) 


October 3, 1952. 

Mr. Harry N. Rosenfeld and Mr. President: We do not wish to have the 

McCarran-Walter immigration law changed in any way. We have too many 

immigrants in these United States now; also we wish to have this so-called police 

action ended in Korea, so all our boys will be brought back home at once. 

Sincerely yours, 

Mrs. T. Challgren (and family), 
496 E. Homecrest Drive, Buffalo, N. Y. 



Buffalo, N. Y., October 5, 1952. 
Habey N. Rosenfet.d, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: I for one do not want the McCarran-Walter immigration law 
changed in any way. 

It was passed by our elected Representatives in Congress, and that is good 
enough for me. 

We have too much immigration now ; that is what is the matter with this 

Why not send some of these boys to Korea instead of our boys. I notice 
it's most of our boys doing the fighting and dying beside paying the bills. 
Hands off the McCarran-Walter immigration law ; it suits me. 

Edith Grant, 
1S3 Merrimac Street, Buffalo, N. Y. 


The Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, 

The United Jewish Fund of Pittsburgh, 

Pittsburgh, Pa., October 2Jf, 1952. 
Mr. Harry Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, PresidenVs Commission on Immigration and Natural- 
ization, llJfO O Street NW., Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : I herewith transmit to you two statements on behalf 
of the Joint Committee on Service to New Immigrants which is sponsored by 
the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies and the United Jewish Fund of Pitts- 
burgh. The joint committee is responsible for coordinating the efforts of our 
fraternal and welfare agencies in serving the new American. 

As soon as I receive additional statements, I shall forward them to your 

Sincerely yours, 

Meyer Schwartz, 
Secretary, Joint Committee on Service to New Immigrants. 


Report by United Vocational and Employment Service, 931 Penn Avenue, 
Pittsburgh, Pa., Re I'migres 

We have been asked to submit good reasons why more emigres should be 
permitted to come to this city. We hereby submit 624 good reasons for bringing 
additional emigres to Pittsburgh. During the 4-year period from 1948 through 
1951, 624 new Americans came to the United Vocational and Employment Service 
for help in seeking employment. We are more than a little i)roud to say now 
that all of the 624 are productive workers in this community, earning their own 
livelihood, supporting their families, buying goods, and contributing materially 
to the welfare of the community. 

Many of the newcomers have brought with them vital skills, craftsmanships, 
and know-how which have been utilized to the fullest extent by the industries 
wherein they are employed. Many have filled jobs in industries where critical 
labor shortages existed. Those who found employment in the mercantile field 
served to fill the gap which was created by others who left the field to work in 
critical industries. During the 4-year period they have added to the national 
economy the sum of $3,300,000, which figure is a conservative estimate of the 
sum of their earnings. 

Following is a partial list of a number of local firms who have satisfactorily 
absorbed the new Americans ; C. G. Hussey Co., Pittsburgh Plated Products, 
Reliance Steel Co., Hyman Blum Co., Tracy Manufacturing Co., I'alley Manu- 
facturing Co., Pittsburgh Crushed Steel, and Tyson Metal Manufacturing Co., 
who are all manufacturers or fabricators of copjDer, brass, aluminum, steel, 
or other metal products ; also. Machine Products Co. and Tool Thrift who are tool 

Many smaller concerns have likewise hired a number of emigres, and the fact 
that all of them have continued to hire emigres surely speaks for itself. It is 
also interesting to note that five emigres have opened their own business and 
are now in a position to offer jol)s to others in the community. 

This evidence bears witness to the fact that emigres are productive, earnest, 
and conscientious members of the community ; moreover, they force the con- 
clusion that more newcomers would be a sound investment adding strength to 
the connnunity as well as to the Nation. 

Submitted by — 

Arthur Waldman, 
Executive Director. 

Jewish Family and Children's Service, 15 Fernando Street, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

With the exception of a small minority who, because of extreme age or sickness, 
have been unable to work and become self-supporting, the DP's have become 
absorbed into the economic life of Pittsburgh. The occupational distribution 
corresponds to that of the general population except for an overrepresentation in 
the unskilled field. Because they have been relatively so few in numbers, they 
have not caused any serious competition and they have not been conspicuous 
in any field. They have adapted themselves readily to American working condi- 
tions, bringing a willingness to perform any task. Only a small fraction of the 
total number of DP's have required continued assistance, the great majority 
liaving been able soon to take care of themselves. Some of them have brought 
special skills which have contributed to the technical and cultural development 
of our community. 

The social adjustment of the DP's involves learning the language, customs, 
and ways of the new country, establishing social relationships, participating in 
organized activities and, in general, becoming integrated into the life of the com- 
munity. It might be stated as a rule that the adjustment of the DP's, as that of 
immigrants in general, has varied inversely with age. The children have adjusted 
most readily to life in the new environment and have soon become practically 
indistinguishable from the native children. They have learned English rapidly, 
have associated freely with other children, and have presented no special prob- 
lems. With older people, the situation has been different. They find it hard to 
make new friends, get used to new customs, and acquire a new language. However, 
the DP's have made an extraordinary record in acquiring knowledge of English. 

25356 — 52 35 


They attend night schools, special classes in citizenship, technical classes, etc. 
Some of the students are over 70 years of age. Tliey make an effort to identify 
themselves completely with America. Further evidence in their desire to become 
Americans is seen in their acquisition of citizenship, their participation in the 
war effort, militai-y service, etc. They exhibit an unusual desire to become natu- 
ralized. Many of them took out their first papers almost immediately after their 
ai"rival. They are tremendously impi'essed with the privileges of citizenship; 
they feel intense allegiance to this country and do not want to be known as DP's 
or refugees but as "new Americans." 
Submitted by — 

Marcel Kovabsky, 
Executive Director. 


3 i»lillli 

3 9999 06352 477 9