Hearings

^5'

i

.m Oi%D.h.riA^\6\

Given By

HB.

.^^jl IX'KT

*ld SoT} COMMITTEE PKINT

'/ ~ /-ti s

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION

ON

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

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

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

82d CongTess\ COMMITTEE PRINT

2a Session J

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

ti.S PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION

V

ON

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

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

Pi-inted for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25356 WASHINGTON : 1952

V

sw

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Philip B. Perlman, Chairman

Earl G. Harrison, Vice Chairman

Msgr. John O'Grady

Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson

Clarence E. Pickett

Adrian S. Fisher

Thomas C. Finucane

Harry N. Rosenfield, Executive Director

^'^Sr^. nsAI^Ti

REQUEST FOR TRANSMITTAL

House of Representatives,

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

Hon. Philip B. Peklman,

Chairman, Pi''esident\s C omniission on
Lininigration and Naturalization,

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

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

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

Emanuel Celler, Chairman.

REPLY TO REQUEST

President's Commission on
Immigration and Naturalization,

ExEcuTTVTE Office,
Washington, October 27, 1952.

Hon. Emanuel Celler,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

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

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

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

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

Philip B. Perlman, Chairman.

CONTENTS

Sess^ions:

New York, N. Y.:

First: September 30, 1952, morning session.

Second: September 30, 1952, evening session.

Third: October 1, 1952, morning session.

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

Fifth: October 2, 1952, morning session.

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

Seventh: October 6, 1952, morning session.

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

Ninth: October 7, 1952, morning session.

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

Eleventh: October 8, 1952, morning session.

Twelfth: October 8, 1952, evening session.

Thirteenth: October 9, 1952, morning session.

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

Fifteenth: October 10, 1952, morning session.

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

Seventeenth: October 11, 1952, morning session.

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

Nineteenth: October 14, 1952, morning session.

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

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

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

Twent.y-third: October 17, 1952, morning session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of names.
Subject matter.

(Page numbers may be obtained from indexes)

\

r

I

HEARINGS BEFORE THE

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1952

nineteenth session

San Francisco, Calif.

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization
met at 9 : 30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in Civic Center Building^
San Francisco, Calif., Hon. Philip B. Perlman, Chairman, presiding.

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman and the following Commis-
sioners: Msgr. John O'Grady, Thomas G. Finucane, Rev. Thaddeus
F. Gullixson.

Also i^resent : Harry N. Rosenfield, executive director.

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order.

The first witness who will be heard this morning is Mr. Lloyd E.-
McMurray.

STATEMENTS OF LLOYD E. McMURRAY, CHEIS MENSALVAS,
GEOEGE VALDES, AND VINCENT PILIEN, EEPEESENTING THE
INTEENATIONAL LONGSHOEEMEN'S AND WAEEHOUSEMEN'S
UNION AND THE NATIONAL UNION OF MAEINE COOKS AND
STEWAEDS

Mr. McMuRRAY. I am Lloyd E. McMurray, 240 Montgomery Street,.
San Francisco. i

I am appearing here, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commis-
sion, on behalf of the International Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
men's Union and on behalf of the National Union of Marine Cooks
and Stewards.

The ILWU is a union of about 80,000 members spread over the en-
tire west coast and including Alaska and including also about 30,000
members in the Hawaiian Islands who are the organized workers in
the sugar and pineapple plantations there. Of the 30,000 ILWU
people in Hawaii, a great many of them are aliens; approximately
half of them are Filipino-Americans.

Of our local unions on the mainland here there are the fishermen
in San Pedro, which is the largest fishing port in the United States.
A great many are people of Yugoslav extraction. In the warehouse
division of the union there are many aliens up and down the coast. In
Alaska we have one union of 80,000 ])ersons composed of Fi]ii)inos — •
that is local 37 — the members of which spend their time partly in agri-
cultural industries in California and part of their time in Alaska
salmon canning during the spring and summer months. So that this

989

990 COIMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

union has very vital interest in the immigration and naturalization
laws.

Some of its members are so directly affected, but its interest also
stems from the fact that it is a union which has successfully organized
workers of all national origins and races and all colors without any
attention whatever to any differences among them.

They have been organized successfully by this union for the first
time ; for example, in Hawaii, where the basic wage was raised from
less than 50 cents to $1.02. The highest agricultural workers are mem-
bers of this union in Hawaii. They are successful there because they
followed a principle that the immigration law is designed to subvert,
in our opinion. This union has, as a part of its constitution, article
3, the objects of the organization. The first objective is to unite
into one organization, regardless of race, religion, political affiliation,
or nationality, all workers in the jurisdiction of this nationality. This
union has had a special experience with the immigration law, as Harry
Bridges, its leader, has been the subject of persecution of the immigra-
tion services for many years.

In the case of Harry Bridges it is longer ; it has been for 18 years,
and it still continues. I think that it is impossible in the time al-
lowed here for us to state anything more than the general objections
that we have to this immigration law as it now stands or as it will
be when the McCarran-Walter Act goes into effect.

The first major objection that we have is to erase his character —
the fact that it is based upon a principle tliat this union has found to
be contrary to its own successful experience and, of course, which
this union feels is quite contrary to the idea of American democracy.

The second objection it has is that this law as it now stands con-
tinues the trend to give enormous power to the Immigration Service
and particularly in the McCarran-Walter Act. The effect of what-
ever restrictions may be in the law it seems to us to be practically nega-
tive by the fact that at every turn the Attorney General is given dis-
cretion to do something other than what the law seems to require or
authorizes to do.

The third major objection is that this law puts a restriction on
movement of our people and all people. It sets up internal passports,
particularly by registration requirement, which sets up an enormous
blacklist of aliens, a central blacklist wdiich had been unknown in
this country, which was certainly characteristic of Fascists before
the war. It has effect on international relations of a union whose
welfare is vitally connected on the west coast with world trade.

We think that this immigi^ation law is at variance with American
policy on extending trade. We think that it is vitally necessary that
trade be extended, particularly in the Pacific area, and the peoples of
the Pacific areas cannot help but be insulted by the attitude of the
United States when it passes this statute, the McCarran-Walter Act.

Now we have one union, as I said, which is particularly affected by
this. That is local 37, the Alaska fishermen's or canneries workers
section of the international, and we have Mr. Chris Mensalvas, the
president of that union, who is here to testify before you, about the
way in which that union is affected by the Immigration Service and
by the McCarran-Walter Act.

I should like to present Mr. Mensalvas.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATIOIv AND NATURALIZATION 991

Tlie CirAiRMAN. You may do so.

A[r. Mensalvas. 1 am Chris Mensalvas, 213 Main, Seattle, Wash.
I am president of local 37 of the International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would also state that I have here
with me in the room two of my colleagues elected by the union, Mr.
George Valdes and Mr. Vincent Pilien.

The Chairman. Will you tell us something about the composition of
your union ?

Mr, Valdes. Our union is composed of 80 percent Filipino-Ameri-
cans, and the remaining 20 percent consists of Negro-Americans, Mexi-
cans, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, Japanese, and Hawaiians, and so forth.
These workers are engaged in the canned-salmon industry about 2 to
4 months during the summer period, and the rest of the year they are
engaged in the agi'icultural crops in the State of California, especially.

Now the 80 percent Filipino-Americans came to this country as
j)ermanent residents, and they have reached the peak of immigration
in 1934, when some 75,000 of the Filipino-Americans came to this
country and they were recruited — we were recruited — by the Alaska
salmon industry and the growers and farmers of California to work in
these particular industries as early as 1925,

Now, our membership, in the nature of their employment as transient
workers moving from California to Alaska and back, have developed
a very high degree of efficiency for these industries, so that in World
War II the California farmers and the Alaska salmon industry were
able to secure the permanent status for these men, although some 20,000
of the Filipino-Americans were, of course, inducted into service and
serving the Armed Forces of the United States.

Also, because of their employment, we believe that because of their
employment the implementation of the McCarran-Walter Act is detri-
mental to their w^elfare. Firstly, I would state here because of our
organization we were able to improve and secure higher wages for our
membership from $25 a month to $250 a inonth in the canneries in
Alaska, and also in agriculture from 15 cents an hour back in 1929
and 1930, to about $1 an hour up to the present time.

Now, we were delegated by our membership to present our views
here in opposition to the Walter-McCarran Act for the following rea-
sons: Firstly, with regard to the Walter-McCarran Act, we have
noticed in it especially Mr. John P. Boyd, of the Immigration Service
in Seattle, Wash., has from the time harassed our union and our mem-
bership ever since 1948 or 1949 up to the present time when Mr. Boyd
arrested some of our leaders and rank and file of some of our members
during the time of union negotiations with Alaska salmon industry
and also during the National Labor Board elections.

Secondly, that we are opposed to the implementation of the Walter-
McCarran Act because that law itself, if it is going to be applied, will
greatly interfere with the normal procedure of union business.

For instance, our membership would elect officers of our union to
visit the Territory of Alaska. They would feel insecure under the
Walter-McCarran Act of being able to come back to the United States
in spite of the fact that they are permanent residents in the United
States.

No. 2 is that the Walter-McCarran Act deprives the right of these
workers the right of employment. We believe that, after working for

-992 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

.25 to 30 years both in the Alaska sahnon industry and in the Cali-
fornia agriculture, we certainly have the right to maintain and to
have these jobs that we have had for the last 25 years. The Walter-
McCarran Act will take this right away from us.

Commissioner Finucane. How will it do that?

Mr. Valdes. Well, according to the statement of Mr. Boyd, the im-
migration man in the Northwest, he stated that all citizens that will go
to Alaska and work can go, but they wull not be permitted to come
back. In other words, we will be keeping in the Territory of Alaska
for the rest of the year these people, and they v\'ould never be able to
come back to our formal pursuit of occupation here in California.

Mr. E.0SENFIELD. Docs that relate to your union onlj^ or also to
•others ?

Mr. Valdes. I think to other unions also.

Commissioner Finucane. Do you happen to have a copy of Mr.
Boyd's statement ?

Mr. Valdes. No ; I haven't a copy here now. "We could obtain that,
iiowever, and forward it to the Commission.

Mr. Rosenfield. Will you, please ?

Mr. Valdes. I will.

Another reason why our membership is opposed to the Walter-
McCarran Act is that the act itself will create a very, very unfavorable
reaction against the agencies of the Government of the United States,
which is the Immigration and Naturalization Service, by the Filipino
people back in the Philippines. Now I mention this because the
Philippine Government today has a trade agreement, known as the
trade agreement of 1946, with the United States Government, thereby
defining the reciprocity of quality of opportunity for both the Amer-
ican people and the Filipino peoples to earn a living. American
citizens going to the Philippines are given the opportunity and un-
limited right to earn a living. They are allowed to go to the Philip-
pines in unlimited numbers, whereas, on the other hand, the Philip-
pines is only allowed a quota of 100 a year to come to the United States,
and it is our opinion that the Walter-McCarran Act is, by depriving
the rights of our people, the Philippine people or Filipino-Americans,
the right to pursue their occupations in California or elsewhere, par-
ticularly in the Territory of Alaska. Well, that is unjust and unfair
as far as our people are concerned.

Commissioner CGrady. What section are you referring to ?

Mr. Valdes. It is because of section 212 (d) 7, the section which
makes the Territories essentially foreign for this purpose.

Another reason, Mr. Chairman, why we oppose the Walter-McCar-
ran Act is the fact that it is depriving our people the right to pursue
their occupation they have had for the last 25 years, is that it will
subject these people to public charity in the future, and we understand
that under the new law people under public charge or under public
welfare would be subject to deportation, and certainly it is our opinion
that this will deprive the right of our people to do that and then
subject them to deportation.

Mr. Mensalvas. If I may, I should like to present Mr. Eddie
Tankin, of the National Marine Cooks and Stewards. I think we have
about fi minutes left.

The Chairman. Can't one person make the statement ?

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 993

Mr. Mensalvas. These are two separate unions.

The Chairman. It doesn't add much to our knowledge to have
repetition from three different people. We have a very crowded
schedule, and this business of dividing it up and presenting it and
repeating the same argument is not very helpful to us.

Wliat matter is he going to introduce ?

Mr. Mensai.vas. The particuhir provisions of the law that relate to
seamen as opposed to other aliens. It is an extension of the law that
has ah-eady been in effect, but it is worse than it was before, so we
should like to present our opposition to those particular provisions of
the laAv by INIr. Tankin or by myself, whichever you prefer.

The Chairman. We have no preference except that it would make
it easier if one person would state the opposition the unions have to
the different provisions of the act instead of having it broken up.

Mr. Mensalvas. If you woidd like, I would say there are certain
provisions of the McCarran- Walter Act which apply particularly to
seamen and distinguish between alien seamen and other aliens in a
way whicli we think is wrong. It is detrimental to the shipping in-
dustry and to the unions, particularly.

Commissioner O'Grady. What sections are you referring to ?

Mr. Mensalvas. Sections 232, 233, 234, and 235, 236, and 237 of the
act, and to the sections on chapter 6 of title II, I believe it is, on the
control of alien crewmen. Under this statute now, alien seamen who
come to or into the United States may be admitted to the United States
by an immigration officer for a period not to exceed 29 days, but this
permission to remain in the United States may be revoked at any
time by the immigration officer, and the alien may be imprisoned with-
out a warrant; that is, without a warrant and without any charge
against him. He may be deported without any hearing, without any
of the process that is provided with regard to deportation hearings
for other aliens. He may be required to remain aboard the ship
or he may be taken to the detention quarters of the Immigration Serv-
ice by any immigration officer who wants to examine him about his
right to be here or about anything material to the implementation of
this act or the conduct of the Service. He may not be paid off in the
United States without the permission of the Attorney General.

Now there are a great many alien seamen who have been sailing on
American vessels for years. They form a substantial segment of the
American merchant marine, particularly on this west coast. They
form a substantial portion of the union that I am speaking of, the
National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, which mans the
stewards department of all west coast vessels; and these seamen, under
the new provisions of this act, would not be able to be paid off at
the end of a voyage and then take another ship out unless the Attorney
General approved. This is a departure from the way in which this
statute has been operating and which the Immigration Service has
been operating in the past. It means virtually the end of shipping
for alien seamen who have been shipping on American sliips since
they began doing that during the war when they were particularly
welcome here.

May I say we have many other objections to this statute. There
is no time to state them now. We would like an opportunity on behalf
of both of these unions to present a written statement which would

994 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

jn-esent in detail our objections to the act and to the practice of the
Immigration Service.

The Chairman. We would be glad to have it if you can let us have
it in the near future and send it to Washington at our address there,
and then we will make it a part of this record. We would like to have
it in detail.

Mr. Mensalvas. I will prepare that and have it to you before the
end of October. I understand you have hearings scheduled for most
of October.

Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you.

(There follow two statements submitted by Mr. McMurray on be-
half of the National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards and the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and local
37, ILWU:)

Statement of Inteknationai, Longshoremen's and Waeehousemen's Union and

Local 37 ILWU

INTRODUCTION

This document is in the nature of a statement, argument, or brief submitted
by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and local 37,
ILWU, one of its affiliated locals. The President's Commission kindly agreed at
its hearing in San Francisco on October 14, 1952, to receive a written statement
in addition to the oral testimony given by these unions.

The International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union is an organiza-
tion of approximately 80,000 members on the west coast of the United States,
Alaska, and Hawaii. Its divisions include longshoremen, warehousemen, fisher-
men, sugar and pineapple workers, and Alaska fish cannery workers. Among
the membership there are many aliens. In Hawaii approximately twelve to
fifteen thousand of the 30,000 members of the union in the islands are Filipinos
or aliens of Asiatic origin. In California and the Pacific Northwest are many
Filipino members who earn their living partly in California agriculture and
partly in the Alaska fish canneries.

Since most of its membership is concerned in one way or another with inter-
national trade, the members of this imion have a vital interest in all matters
which affect the relations of the United States and foreign countries, particu-
larly in the Asia-Pacific area. To the extent that the immigration laws hamper
a thriving international trade and produce bad relations with friendly foreign
nations, those laws are inconsistent with the best interests of the ILWU. Fur-
thermore, the large number of naturalized citizens in the union means that
there is an interest in fair play for aliens that arises naturally among the foreign-
born, even though they are no longer aliens. Finally, this union has been
founded and has prospered upon the principle of equality without regard to race,
color or creed. Such a policy alone has made it possible for this union to
organize the many divergent groups of Hawaiian workers and many workers
on the mainland in occupations historically dominated by foreign-born persons.
The racist character of the McCarran-Walter Act and the discriminatory prac-
tices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service are inconsistent with the
policies and procedures which this union has found effective in the United States.
They are inconsistent with the tenents of government which this union has
sought to observe and expand.

For many different points of view, therefore, the International Longshore-
men's and Wai^ehousemen's Union has a deep interest in our immigration laws
and policies. It is happy to have an opportunity to present its views to the
President's Commission. The presentation which follows is neither as lengthy
nor as detailed as the information at hand would warrant. Should any further
procedure be followed by the President's Commission to gather more material,
this union could and would, if allowed, supply more than the following brief
statement.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 995

IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES

The policies and practices followed by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service liave earned almost universal condemnation. The studies made by
the Attorney General's committee on administrative procedure and its predeces-
sors covering a period from 15)37 to 1941 pointed out many defects in the practice
followed by the Immigration Service and many points at which that practice
varied widely from the accepted standards for administrative action. These
reports are very brielly summarized in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States in Wong Yang Sung v. McOrath (339 U. S. 33, 70 S. Ct. 445). Pri-
mary attention there was given to the centering, in one group of immigration
agents, of both the investigative and the quasi judicial functions of the Service.
Particularly singled out for discussion and criticism was the combining of prose-
cutor and administrative judge in one person. The evils of such procedure as set
forth in various governmental studies were commented upon by the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court said :

"Turning now to the case before us we find the administrative hearing a perfect
exemplification of the practices so unanimously condemned."

That such practices were not the result of historic accident or gradual accre-
tion to once valid procedures is demonstrated by the attitude taken by the Depart-
ment after the decision in Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath. That case, it will be
recalled, decided that he Administrative Procedure Act, set up by Congress in
1946 to require a uniform and fair procedure for Federal administrative agencies,
applied to deportation hearings. The Service of necessity reorganized its pro-
cedures to conform to this new state of the law. The decision of the Supreme
Court was handed down in March 1950. The following November the Service
obtained the passage by the Congress and the President of a rider to an appro-
priations act which provided that deportation proceedings thereafter need not
conform to the Administrative Procedure Act (8 U. S. C. A. sec. 155 (a) ). The
Immigration Service then remodified its procedures to return to the status quo
ante. In so doing it made major changes in its procedure, set forth below
(with references to the sections of 8 C. F. R.).

These modifications in procedure are set forth in some detail here not only to
demonstrate the attitude of the Service toward procedural requirements which
the Congress found desirable and necessary in all administrative proceedings,
but also to shed some light upon the little known methods used by the Service in
deportation cases. Those who have liad experience with it recognize it as almost
entirely unadorned by the fairness which Americans like to think their Govern-
ment regularly affords all persons. Even the courts are generally unaware of
the nature of deportation hearings. The bald statements appearing in the regu-
lations, if they are envisaged in operation in a deportation case, may give some
sense of the authoritarian nature of these hearings.

151.2 : The hearing officer, who had purportedly been appointed pursuant to
the provisions of section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act, was no longer
required to be so appointed.

151.2 (b) : The hearing officer was no longer required to refrain from consulta-
tion with any person or party on any fact in issue without first giving notice and
opportunity for all persons concerned to pai-ticipate. It was stated that he
should not perform any duties inconsistent with the responsibilities of an adjudi-
cating officer "except as provided in this part." The inconsistencies between
certain of his duties and his functioning as an adjudicating officer was thus ex-
pressly recognized but allowed by the Immigration Service.

151.2 (c) : It was no longer required to inform the alien at the outset of a
deportation hearing of the dofinitioh of and the penalty for perjury, or of the
disabilities incurred under tlie act of March 4, 1929, respecting reentry into the
United States after arrest and deportation. He was no longer to sit as a hearing
officer alone, but was empowered to present to himself the evidence in the case
which lie was deciding. Except in certain types of cases, where an examining
officer was appointed as prosecutor, he was to be the complainant, prosecutor,
judge, and jury.

151.2 (d) : It was no longer possible to have a hearing examiner disqiialified
by the filing of a timely and sufficient affidavit of personal bias or disqualification
of such officer. His withdrawal was placed eiitirel.v in his own discretion.

151.2 (e) : Examining officers were no longer required to obtain the permission
of the hearing officer before lodging additional cbarges against aliens. This
function was placed in the examining officer in cases where there was nn examin-
ing officer, and in cases where no examining officer was appointed the hearing

996 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

ofBcer would determine during the course of the hearing whether the evidence as
it developed warranted the filing of additional charges. This placed a premium
upon procuring and admitting evidence outside the issues stated in the warrant
of arrest.

151.3 : The regulations which during the period when the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act applied stated that the transcript of testimony and exhibits together
with motions and other papers should constitute the exclusive record for the
recommended decision of the hearing oflScer, was modified to provide that such
matters should constitute "the record for the decision in the case."

151.4 : This section, which had allowed submission of proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law by counsel for the alien, was revoked.

151.5 : This section, which had required a recommended decision to be pre-
pared by the hearing ofBcer in which he gave due regard to the proposed findings
submitted by the alien, was modified to provide merely that as soon as practicable
after a hearing the hearing ofiicer should prepare a decision setting forth a
summary of the evidence adduced and his findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The oflicial attitude of the Immigration Service is therefore one which seeks
hearings which have been condemned by Congress and by the Supreme Court
of the United States as unfair, unconstitutional, and highly prejudicial to the
aliens whose fate is entrusted to the Service. It is not surprising, therefore, that
this administrative agency follows certain other procedures not set forth in the
Code of Federal Regulations but equally damaging to the rights of aliens and
to all Americans. Thus the use of imprisonment without bail for aliens who
have committed no crime and are not charged with the commission of and crime
is a commonplace practice. Not only are aliens regularly imprisoned without
warrant they are even placed in solitary confinement. The detention quarters
provide no place for fresh air or exercise, and the conditions there are so de-
pressing and unbearable that at San Francisco, at least, the detention quarters
at 630 Sansome Street have been the scene of frequent suicide attempts on the
part of aliens imprisoned there for long periods.

With regard to aliens who are suspected of being in the United States in,
violation of law or of being deportable on one of the many grounds available to
the Service, the practices of the Service frequently reflect no concern whatever
for the provisions of law. Thus aliens are asked to appear before the Immigra-
tion Service and are then placed under oath and examined, without counsel,
frequently without interpreters where interpreters are needed, and their answers
are recorded for use against them at a later stage of the proceedings when they
may have obtained counsel and have some protection. The Service regularly
uses questions prepared on printed forms for such interrogations. These ques-
tions are frequently so complex and presuppose such a knowledge and under-
standing of the law that they would be immediately objected to by any com-
petent attorney. The testimony of frightened, friendless aliens, held incom-
municado and examined in this manner, is nevertheless freely accepted over ob-
jection when it is subsequently offered in deportation hearings.

Part of the vice of this type of inquisition is that the alien does not know when
nor whether he will be allowed to leave the detention quarters where he is
questioned. Frequently he is not. He is often asked to report, supposedly to
discuss a little matter of change of address of some vague question about whether
his papers are in order. Once he has walked into the web, he is not allowed
to leave. At some subsequent date a warrant is obtained for his arrest and is
served upon him in his detention cell.

The discretionary power of the Attorney General to allow or to deny release on
bond is exercised without regard to any regular published procedures and
without any relation to the usual purposes of bond or bail. The district director
of immigration and naturalization at San Francisco, Mr. Bi-uce Barber, has
stated that it is the policy and practice of the Service to hold seamen, sus-
pected of having overstayed their leave, without bail or bond until their deporta-
tion can be effected. This is done even where such detention means months of
delay while the deportation procedure is followed. Recently in one such case
while this policy was being followed, it required the filing of a petition for
habeas corpus, setting forth that statement of the district director, to obtain
the administrative release of the alien on bond. (See /?t re Nikolas Guikas, No.
31342 United States District Court, Northern District of California, Southern
Division.) This was a case where the alien had been in the United States
for a number of years, mai'ried to an American citizen, and where he had been
casually asked at his place of business to drop into the immigration office at
his convenience to check on the status of his papers.

COMJMlSSIOiS: ON niMIG RATION AND NATURALIZATION 997

At the presont time a Filipino, a inemlier of local 37. ILWU, is beins^ held by
the imniigratioii iServire witiiout boiul while his ix'titioii for hnl)eas corpus is
being processed on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The alien is a Filipino who has l)een in this country for many years
and who, if he had been char,i;ed with the commission of a crime, would im-
doubtedly be entitled to bail under both the State and Federal Constitutions
and statutes. No reason whatever is given for the refusal to release this alien
upon bond.

This matter of detaining aliens without bond frequently results in lengthy
imprisonment, sometimes extending for years. See the article in the New
Yorker, "a serious study of tlie practice of the service at Ellis Island," by A.
Logan, appearing in the May 12, 11)51, issue at page 50 of that magazine.

The prejudicial practices of the Service not provided for by regulations in-
clude the examining of aliens during deportation hearings on issues far outside
the issues stated in the warrant of arrest. The purpose of this type of broad
examination is to search for additional material upon which to base new charges
to be lodged during the hearing itself. Since it is frequently necessary for the
alien in a deportation case, in order to fully protect himself against the conse-
quences of a possible advei'se decision, to apply for discretionary relief from the
Attorney General, he is often extremely loath to refuse to answer these ques-
tions. Nevertheless, they may go so far afield from the stated issue before the
hearing officer that they seriously prejudice his rights and interfere with his
opportunity to defend himself. Hearing officers have frequently taken the posi-
tion nevertheless that any question is allowable if it has any possible bearing
upon the status of the alien in the United States under the immigration and
naturalization laws. This is a far cry from the standard of fairness which
has long been accepted in America as requiring that the charges against any
person called to account be known to him in advance, and he be given an oppor-
tunity to prepare for it.

The Immigration Service replies to this criticism that whenever a new charge
is lodged, an opportunity is given to the alien to request a continuance for the
purpose of preparing to meet the new charge. Since the evidence upon which
the new charge is based is frequently sought and put into the record before
the new charge is lodged, this answer is obviously not a serious one.

It is not only in hearings that the Immigration Service frequently departs
from its proper role and from fair procedure. It has frequently injected itself
into trade disputes. The experience of local 37, ILWU, in Seattle included
attempts by the Immigration Service to interfere against unions tlaere in the
interests of employers. Thus, although thei'e was no possible excuse for it and
no excuse was offered, seven members of the negotiating committee of the union
were arrested and imprisoned during the conduct of negotiating sessions while
a trade dispute was in progress. These men, chiefly union officials, were Fil-
ipinos who had been in the United States and whose records and activities were
well known to the Service for many years. No possible explanation for the
timing of their .sudden arrest and imprisonment could be supplied except that
they were then engaged in negotiating for new contracts in accordance vpith our
law.

Not only has the Service interfered directly in negotiations in the manner
just related, but it has also exhibited its antiunion bias by questioning approxi-
mately 100 members of local 37, ILWU, with regard to union policies and union
positions on matters of public affairs. The method of questioning used left no
doubt that the purpose of these examinations was to intimidate the union mem-
bers and to attempt to find among them persons who would testify against their
union leaders. Tliese were aliens \Vho had applied for naturalization. The
pressures that could be exerted upon them in such a situation are too obvious to
need exposition.

These practices are the iiistoric ones. Any study of the Immigration Service
will reveal countless examples of such prejudicial misconduct on the part of
immigration officers purporting to exercise the executive power of the Govern-
ment of the United States without regard to the laws of the United States.
The McCarran-Waltei- Act, when it goes into effect, will make many of the extra-
legal practices now foili'wed lawful, assuming that the statute is itself consti-
tutional. Thus it will be provided that aliens arriving at purts of the United
States may be detained for so long as the Innnigration Service finds it neces-
sary to detain tlicni, i)i (irder tsi allow tlicir examination l)y immigration officers
as to their right to enter the United States. The examination nf aliens as to
their right to remain in the United States aside from physical disease is en-

998 COMMISSION ON IIVCMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

trusted to immigration officers. It includes an examination with regard to
political ideas and affiliations of aliens in accordance with the exclusionary
sections of the immigration law. Section 232 of the McCarran-Walter Act
(hereinafter referred to as the act) in allowing examination by immigration
officers therefore speaks not only of examination for disease but examination
as to the state of mind and the political ideas of aliens. What may occur during
fsucli examinations would depend, of course, upon the particular purpose for
the examination. The pressures that could be brought \ipon aliens seeking to
enter the United States, who would be unable to obtain their release by any
means xuitil they satisfied their captors and jailors may well be imagined.

Under sections 233 and 235 of the act the power to require testimony under
■oath of persons entering the United States is extended to all ])ersons (thus in-
cluding citizens) entering the United States. In addition to questions regarding
the right of aliens to enter or reenter the United States or remaining there, the
Service may question any person "concerning any matter which is material and
relevant to the enforcement of this Act and the administration of the Service."
Boo]i;s and records may be required to l)e prodnct'd, and the subpcna puwer of
the United States district courts may be obtained to force such production.

The experience of this union with the Immigration Service leaves no doubt
that such power is dangerous, in part because it will be exercised by the Immi-
gration Service to the prejudice of unions.

SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS

Procedure aside, this union has many points of disagreement with the current
law and with tlie McCarran-Walter Act. Some, of these are matters of such
widespread distaste that they will undoubtedly have been thoroughly covered
by other organizations appearing before the Commission. Therefore we pass
by, without more than mentioning it, the racist character of this legislation. Its
effect on international trade in the Pacific area particularly is yet to be seen,
but there can be little doubt that it will not foster good will and good trade
relations. The conflict between the treatment required of the Philippine Gov-
ernment in dealing with American citizens in the Philippines, as contrasted with
the treatment accorded Philippine citizens in the United States, is but one
example of the variance between this legislation and our declared foreign policy
and our treaties. The good will of Asia is generally regarded as essential to
American security and prosperity. Legislation like the McCarran-Walter Act
harms the entire Nation by worsening our relations with other nations.

An aspect of the statute that has received much less comment, but that is
undoubtedly at least as important, is the delegation of almost unlimited dis-
cretionary power to the Attorney General. The extent of this delegation of leg-
islative and executive power surpasses any statute recently enacted. It attempts
to bypass the courts and to erect an unreviewable authority held to few of the
requirements of law which our Constitution is generally thought to exact. Thus
in section 103 of the act it is provided that "determination and ruling by the
Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling." In
deportation matters where the Attorney General has the power to imprison or
to release on bond, the act attempts to make the actions of the Attorney General
unreviewable in court except by habeas corpus. The scope of habeas corpus
even is restricted, so that the court may not review or modify the Attorney
General's decision unless it is conclusively shown that the Attorney General
Is not proceeding with such reasonable dispatch as may be warranted by the
particular facts and circumstances in the case of any alien (sec. 242 (a) and
(c)).

In exclusion matters, where the Attorney General will be empowered by this
act to exclude purported aliens who are in fact citizens of the United States,
his decision is reviewable, but only by habeas corpus, providing the person
excluded can get to the court. The more extended review of deportation orders
which has recently been developed, allowing review under the declaratory judg-
ment statute iKristcnso?i v. McGrath, 179 F. 2d 796) and review under section
10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U. S. C. A. 1009) ; Podovinnxko-ff v.
MiUer (179 F. 2d 937 (3) Cir. 1950) is thus done away with.

In countless situations where the act sets up a rule or principle which is to be
applied in a given situation, it allows tbe Attorney General in the exercise of his
discretion to follow some other course of procedure if it seems proper to him.
It is extremely difficult to obtain judicial review of the exercise of discretionary
power by a Cabinet officer. Particularly when the statute authorizes the use

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 999

of secret information obtained by the Attorney General, which is not disclosed
either to the alien or to the courts in certain types of proceedings, court review
is almost wholly ruled out. Tiiis statute attempts to delegate to the Attorney
General complete power over the fate of both aliens and citizens who may for
proper reasons and in the exercise of their legal rights have occasion to attempt
to enter the United States.

The most flagrant examples of this power are found in the provisions of sections
235 (c), 236 (a), and 3(i0 (a). The first of these sections provides for the tempo-
'rary exclusion of aliens who appear to innnigration officers upon arrival to be
excludable. Section 23G (a) provides that "proceedings before a special inquiry
officer under this section * =•■ * shall he the sole and exclusive procedure
for determining admissibility of a person to the United States under the provi-
sions of this section." As to aliens, this section means that any alien may be
kept out of the United States by the Attorney General without any appeal to the
courts if the Attorney General is satisfied that the alien is excludable "on the
basis of information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which the Attorney
General in the exercise of his discretion * * * concludes would be prejudicial
to the public interest, safety, or security." This exclusion is made without any
hearing whatever. This section is taken from the McCarran Act of 1950 and-
has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Knmiff v.
Shaughncssy (338 U. S. 537, 70 St. Ct. 309). In that case the alien seeking to^
enter was the wife of a naturalized American who was sei'ving in the Armed
Forces in Germany. She sought to enter under the provisions of the War
Brides Act in order to achieve American citizenship. She was not a stranger
knocking at the gate, but one whose right to enter the United States was lelt
by several judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, to be guaranteed by
the War Brides Act. She was, however, excluded without any hearing and
without any statement of the reasons therefor.

The procedure under discussion is serious enough when it is applied to aliens
who have never been in the United States before. When applied to aliens wha
have taken up lawful residence in tlie United States and who have for sufficient
reasons and with the permission and knowledge of the Government left the
United States intending to return, it presents an even more unpalatable picture.
The current case of Charley Chaplin may become an instance of the exercise of
this power. But this procedure may be used to keep out of the United States a
citizen born in the United States of American parents born in the United States.

The attempt to keep American citizens out of the United States is not a figment
of the imagination of novelists. It is true that a novel has been written on this
subject. See Washington Story, by J. A. Deiss (Duell, Sloan & Pierce, New York
1951). However, it has occurred and doubtless in many instances. In the case
of In re Kamaiko, the Immigration Sei-vice sought to prevent the entry of an
American citizen who had left the United States with a State Department pass-
port for the purpose of setting up a unit of the United Seamen's Service in the
Philippines. While he was in Manila his passport was required of him by the
State Department and was not returned. He was given a certificate of identity
under the provisions of the Nationality Code, which was designed to allow hira
to return to the United States in order to pursue there his judicial remedy under
the Nationality Act for a declaratory judgment that he was a citizen of the
United States. On his arrival in San Francisco bearing the certificate of identity,
he was excluded without a hearing for confidential reasons which wei-e never
disclosed. In habeas corpus proceedings {In re Kamaiko, No. 29S32) in the
United States district court in San Francisco he obtained conditional release to
enable hira to pursue his declaratory-judgment action which had already been
begun while he was still in Manila. In this action he was declared to be a citizen.

Now, however, section 360 (a) of the act states that no such action may be
instituted in any case where the issue of such person's status as a national of
the United States arose by reason of or in connection with any exclusion proceed-
ing, or is an issue in any exclusion proceeding. Thus an American citizen
arriving at a port of the United States, as to whom any immigration ofiicer may
determine that he is an alien and inadmissible to the United States, may l^e ex-
cluded from the United States without any opportunity to obtain any judicial
determination of his status.

He may be imprisoned (sec. 2.33 (a)) and held for examination by a special
inquiry officer. At such a hearing the public is not admitted. He may have one
friend or relative present, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the
Attorney General. Whether he may have an attorney present is not stated. In
any event, in order to have an attorney present he must be at liberty to get in

1000 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

touch with an attorney, and financially able to pay him. When one is imprisoned,
his opportunity to communicate with the outside world is governed by his jailers.
By the provisions of section 237 (a), any alien who is ordered to be excluded
"shall be immediately deported to the country whence he came * * * on the
vessel or air( raft bringing him, unless the Attorney General, in an individual
case, in his discretion, concludes that immediate deportation is not practicable
or proper."

This means that any person, alien or citizen, and regardless of his right to be
and remain in the United States, upon arriving at a port of the United States fronf
any place outside the continental United States, may be deported without any
opportunity to consult an attorney, to obtain redress in the courts, to prove his
American citizenship, or to achieve the rights which the Constitution of the
United States guarantee to him.

If it is felt that this is a far-fetched interpretation of the statute, and one of
which there is no real danger, the Commission is advised to read further.

Democratic trade-unions operate by means of conferences, caucuses, and con-
ventions. Most trade-union constitutions provide that annual or biannual conven-
tions are the repository of final authority on miion matters. Even when not
holding such large-scale meetings, unions constantly find it necessary to have
officers of the unions traveling from headquarters to the various locals, and for
officers of local unions to journey to the headquatrers of the international union.
Under the McCarran-Walter Act this may well be impossible or foolhardy to
attempt, in the event any delegate or agent is required to enter or reenter the
continental limits of the United States. In the case of an alien member of the
union, his right to reenter after leaving the United States or one of its posses-
sions is absolutely nonexistent. In the case of a citizen, his right to reenter
may be challenged in the manner discussed above, and he may be excluded as
effectively as the alien. The experience of certain unions who have locals in
Canada immediately comes to mind. Those unions have often been unable to
have delegates from their Canadian locals participate in the union congresses.

But now, under the provisions of section 212 (d) (7), the entry of any alien
to the continental United States from Alaska, Hawaii, or any other outlying
possession of the United States, or the entry of any person leaving those posses-
sions and attempting to enter any place under the jurisdiction of the United
States, is governed by the exclusionary provisions of the immigration law, just
as if our possessions were foreign countries.

In the case of members of local 37, this provision is likely to prove disastrous.
These Filipinos, at least until recently nationals of the United States and pos-
sibly nationals of the United States at the present time (see sec. 30S), are part
of the labor force vital to two major west-coast industries. During the winter
and spring seasons they are migratory agricultural workers in the west-coast
agricultural empire. In the husbandry and harvesting of some crops they are
indispensable, because their skill and experience is unequaled by any other group
of workers. This is particularly true in the case of asparagus. Approximately
70 percent of the United States ci-op of asparagus is grown in California, and
about two-thirds of that is grown in the delta of the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Rivers, where Filipino members of this union harvest the crops.

At the close of the asparagus season at the end of spring, these workers migrate
to Alaska, where they man and operate the herring and salmon canneries. They
are taken on vessels or aircraft supplied by the canneries from Seattle to the
various Alaskan ports, where they remain for fi-om 2 to 4 months, depending on
the location of the port with regard to the arriving of ice, and depending on the
length of the fishing season. They work in the canneries long hours, at high
speed, processing the fish as fast as it is caught and brought to shore. They live
in barracks under conditions which most workers resident in the United States
would reject immediately. Upon their return to Seattle at the end of the season
they are ready to resume their work in the agricultural fields.

The Alaskan work provides a substantial portion of their yearly income. In
particular, it provides a method of getting together a few hundred dollars to
tide them over during the fall and winter months, when the demand for agri-
cultural workers is very slack. Without this employment, many of them would
doubtless become public charges and subject to deportation under section 241
(a) (S).

Yet, these Filipinos now face an almost insuperable obstacle to pursuing this
vital part of their yearly toil. Not only does the act now provide that upon
their return to the United States from Alaska they may be excluded, but the

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1001

Attorney General's acrent in Seattle, District Director John Boyd, has an-
nounced that they will he excluded if the Attorney General finds them unde-
sirable. In the cases of cannery workers who leave Alaska hy air, they may
be excluded while still in Alaska and before they are allowed to embark for the
United States. In the cases of those who arrive by vessel, they may he ex-
cluded at that point and deported to tlie country from which tliey originally
came. That this is tlie program of the Immigration Service has already been
announced by District Director Boyd, according to an article appearing in the
Seattle Times for September 21, 1952, a photostatic copy of which is attached
hereto.

Nor is the program of the Immigration Service restricted to the exclusion
of aliens who arrive in the United States from Alaska or Hawaii. The warn-
ing which was sounded by the publication of Washington Story, tiie novel re-
ferred to above, has now reached its fulhllnient. In that novel the principal
character is an American citizen who is excluded from the United States upon
her return from abroad because she is unable to establish her American citizen-
ship. She is unable to establish it because siie cannot obtain a birth certifi-
cate, a condition which applies to thousands of Americans today.

According to the district director of immigration for the Seattle area, it is
now the intention of the Immigration Service, beginning on Christmas Eve of
1902, to exclude from the United States not only aliens who attempt to i-eturn
from Alaska or Hawaii, but also citizens. They will be excluded from the United
States if the Attorney General finds that they are subversive, criminals,
or otherwise undesirable.

CONCLUSION

The broad purpose of the appointment of this Commission by the President
of the United States was to determine what are and what should be the immi-
gration policies and practices of the Government of the United States. Even
the most cursory examination of the present policies and of the ones about to
become law on December 24 of this year demonstrate that this Nation, the
guardian and protagonist of freedom throughout the world, the shining example
of democracy as a theory and in practice, has adopted an attitude toward aliens
both within and without its borders, and even toward its own citnzens, which is
completely inconsistent with all of our international professions of virtue. We
do not allow to aliens the procedure which we deem necessary, and indeed consti-
tutionally guaranteed, to one who is accused of violating a traffic ordinance
regulating parking. We declared in our Declaration of Independence, and we
stated in our Constitution, that all men are entitled to be considered as equals
and that this applies regarless of race, color, national origin, or previous condi-
tion of servitude. In our immigration laws we proceed upon theories which have
been denounced by the overwhelming majority of serious scientific students of
races and language groups. We have recently concluded a trenmendous inter-
national war in which our opponents advanced theories which were denounced as
so vile that their implementation led us to the completely unprecedented step of
setting up an international tribunal which punished the leaders of the nation with
which we had been at war. Those war criminals were put to death or imprisoned
in many instances because they announced, furthered, or enforced policies based
upon such concepts of race. We now embody policies which are based upon the
same completely indefensible precepts and premises in our immigration law.

If we believe in our organic law, if this is in fact a Government deriving its
powers from the consent of the govi'rned, and a Government of granted and
limited powers, then this statute mus\ be removed from the books. This presen-
tation has not nientioni'd. because it needs no mention, the contribution made
to our society by those ultimately derived from stock foreign to American shores.
ProI)ably every legislator or administrator who has had or will have any innne-
diate concern with the formation and implementation of American immigration
policy is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant. It may be,
although there has so far been no effort to so demonstrate, that it is necessary
to drastically curtail the influx of oppressed peoples to the United States. If
so, there is no difficulty whatever in achieving that remit in a way consistent
with our fundamental law and with our announced foreign policy. Our failure
to do so stands naked, without excuse and inexcusable.

Gladstein, Andersen & Leonaed,
Lloyd E. McMurkaYj
Attorneys for Internationoi f ■'>ngsho7~emcn' s and

and Local 37 ILWU.

1002 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

[The Seattle Times, Sunday, September 21, 1952]
Immigration Agents To Screen Alaska ToxnusTS

Beginning Christmas eve, immigration ofiicers will meet every ship coming
to Seattle from Alaska, and anyone on board who can't prove he's an American
citizen — and a desirable one, at that — will be refused permission to walk ashore,
John P. Boyd, director of the Immigration Service in Seattle, said yesterday.

Boyd has spent the past several weeks planning the procedure that will be
followed in administering a new Federal law which sets up the same require-
ments for travelers coming from Alaska as now exist for those coming in from
a foreign country.

"I'm not absolutely sure what procedure will be followed," Boyd said yester-
day, "but I believe that anyone coming to the States from Alaska by plane
will be examined in Alaska, but those coming by ship will be examined after they
arrive."

The difference results from the fact that the Immigration Service has agents
at all Alaska airports at which planes take off for the States, but it does not
have a.i^rents at all the coastal points served by ships.

"Everyone coming in from Alaska must be able to satisfy the examiner that
he is an American citizen," Boyd said.

"The procedure will be similar to that now followed at the Canadian border.
An American does not have to have a passport, and there are no specified docu-
ments which he must carry, but he must be able to satisfy the examiners that
he is legally entitled to enter the country."

But American citizenship will not be enough to get an American from Alaska
into one of the 48 States. Certain undesirable persons, such as criminals and
subversives, will be kept out, even though their citizenship is not disputed.

The same rule applies to persons entering the United States from Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, Guam or the Virgin Islands. The rules are established by the new
McCarran Act, which goes into effect December 24.

The new rules mean that a person who goes to Alaska to work or for a visit
should be sure before he leaves that he will be able to return.

An ex-convict, for example, is free to move around the United States, if he
has served his term, and he can go to Alaska without any hindrance. But under
the new law he won't be able to come back again until he has a full pardon from
his governor, or from the President, if the convict served time in a Federal
prison.

Statement of National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards
introduction

The National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards is the union representing at
least 95 percent of the stewards' department employees sailing aboard American-
flag vessels from west-coast ports, and the ships of west-coast steamship com-
panies that sail from eastern ports. This constitutes a large portion of the
American merchant marine. The stewards' department aboard most vessels,
particularly the passenger vessels, is the largest department in the vessel's
complement.

This union is a particularly noteworthy example of the successful application
of American principles of equal treatment without regard to race, color, or
creed. A large percentage of the members of the union are Negro Americans,
and there are within the union many seamen of Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino
ancestry, including some who are aliens. The union has obtained for its mem-
bers the most advantageous wages and working conditions available to any
seamen anywhere in the world. Under prolonged and repeated jurisdictional
raids by other maritime unions, which do not follow the principle of nondis-
crimination, it has successfully held the loyalty of its members. At the present
time a National Labor Relations Board election is in prospect to determine
whether this or another newly formed union shall represent stewards' depart-
ment personnel on the west coast. Pending the holding of the election, men are
being dispatched to seagoing employment from a neutral office, in which the men
indicate their union preference. The preference of the seamen has been ovex'-
whelmingly in favor of this union despite the attempts of other unions to smear
and raid it, so that more .than 90 percent of the registrants have designated this

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1003

union. This is mentioned because it demonstrates the success which can be
achieved bj' treatment equal to all.

The philosophy of the MeCarran-Walter Act and of the immigration provisions
of the McCarran Act of 1050 are wholly foreign to the policies and practices of
this union. Nevertheless, the racist character of the law and the general philoso-
phy which forms it is not the subject of this statement. Those matters have been
eloquently covered by most of the organizations that have condemned the bill,
including President Truman and all the presidential candidates. This statement
is concerned with the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act which deal with
alien seamen.

The provisions regarding alien seamen cannot be separated from the act as a
whole, of course. The overwhelming authority which this act gives to the Attor-
ney General and to the Immigration Service is one of the reasons why its provi-
sions regarding alien crewmen must be regarded with alarm. The experience
of this and other unions with the Immigration Service has led it to expect nothing
but hostility and interference with union activity from the Service. When the
power of the Service is increased, as it is by this statute, it must be anticipated
that the attempts of the Service to intimidate members of progressive unions like
this one will be increased in scope and power.

Since many members of the union are aliens who desire to obtain American
citizenship, the union is interested not only in the sections regarding control of
alien crewmen but also in the provisions of the law with regard to naturalization
and the residence requirements for seamen. This will be discussed in one section
of the statement.

CONTROL OF ALIEN CREWMEN

The principal provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act (hereinafter referred to
as the act) to which this union takes vehement exception are contained in chapter
6. There are other sections, however, w^hich need some initial consideration.
First is the modification in the definition of "seaman." Under existing law a
seaman is referred to as "bona fide seaman serving as such on a vessel arriving
in a port of the United States and seeking to enter temporarily the United States
solely in the pursuit of his calling as a seaman" (8 U. S. C. A. 203). This defini-
tion has been in use for many years. There does not appear to be any difiiculty
in the use of the definition, and it is puzzling to find that the definition has been
changed by the act. It now defines in a section analogous to section 203 of title
8, a seaman as "an alien crewman serving in good faith as such in any capacity
required for normal operation of service on board a vessel * * * ^ho in-
tends to land temporarily and solely in pursuit of his calling as crewman and to
depart from the United States on the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived or
some other vessel or aircraft."

These definitions appear in sections setting forth aliens who are not immigrants
and not subject to the documentary and other requirements for the entry of
immigrants. Two questions arise with respect to this definition. First, why is it
now placed within the power of the Immigration Service to determine whether
or not a crewman signed on the articles of a vessel arriving in the United States
is "serving * « * Jq any capacity required for normal operation of service
* * *"? Immigration officials are certainly not the best qualified persons in
the w'orld to determine what is required for the normal operation of the vessel,
and it is a subject which would not ordinarily be entrusted to them for deter-
mination. When the power to make a determination on that subject is coupled
with the power to exclude and deport or to grant, refuse or cancel conditional
permits to land temporarily, the possibility exists that seamen who are bona fide
seamen serving as such on vessels and seeking to enter the United States in pur-
suit of their calling alone, may be arbitrarily ruled out, excluded and subjected to
harassment on the ground that their capacity aboard the vessel is not necessary
to normal operation of the vessel.

Were the Immigration and Naturalization Service an ordinary governmental
department administering the laws in accordance with the intention of Con-
gress and in accordance with the Constitution and statutes of the United States
generally, perhaps no prejudicial effect should be anticipated from this enormous
power. The history of the Immigration Service, as viewed by countless or-
ganizations formed to aid aliens and immigrants, by congressional investigating
committees and by the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as by this
union, demonstrates that it is not such a branch of the Government. Any ac-
cretion of its power is therefore to be feared by alien seamen.

25356—52 64

1004 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The second question that arises in connection with this change in definition
is that the classification of an alien seaman as an alien crewman exempt from
the requirements of passports, visas, etc., depends upon a determination by an
immiuratiou officer of whether or not he intends to land temporarily and solely
in pursuit of his calling and to depart on the same vessel or aircraft or some
other vessel or aircraft. The determination by an immigration inspector that an
alien seaman did not intend to depart would automatically make him subject to
all of the documentary and other requirements for the entry of immigrants into
the United States. If he is without documents he may be excluded. No court
review of any such determination is anywhere available to the alien. Thus at
one stroke the power is given to the Immigration Service to immediately and ir-
revocably remove all the exemptions and special treatment given to alien sea-
men by an immigrant inspector's determination about the state of mind of an
alien seaman.

Putting aside for the moment the question as to who may be held to be an
alien crewman within the provisions of chapter 6, there are several provisions in
that chapter which require some comment. The first of those is the addition to
the law of a criminal penalty for overstaying the leave granted to a seaman.
This appeals in section 2.^2 (c). The diflBculties that beset seamen, particu-
larly alien seamen, in attempting to ship out after they have been paid olf a ves-
sel are immediately apparent when any attention is directed to the problem. In
the maritime industry unfortunaely trade disputes are not unknown. When
these occur no alien seaman can obtain employment unless he sails as a strike-
breaker. Generally speaking, even that employment is not open to him, because
under the laws restricting the percentage of the crew who may be aliens, it is
inipossible for the ship to be manned by aliens, and seamen in general do not
ship as strikebreakers.

The Coast Guard's blacklisting program, purportedly conducted under the
authority of the Magnuson Act (Public Law 679, 81st Cong., 2d sess.) is an-
other hurdle which many alien seamen find it impossible to overcome. Under
that program seamen are listed as poor security risks because of their suspected
affiliation with any organization listed by the Attorney General or any other
organization which the Coast Guard deems worthy of censure. Such a sea-
man cannot sail aboard any vessel. He is blacklisted in this manner before, not
after, there is any opportunity for him to contest the allegation that he is af-
filiated with such an organization. He is never given a hearing in the ordi-
nary sense of the word ; he is never confronted with witnesses against him ;
his sole remedy is to appear before a board dominated by a Coast Guard hear-
ing oHicer to present what he may feel will move the Commandant of the Coast
Guard to make a redetermination of his case. A seaman who has been slan-
dered by some personal enemy may therefore find it impossible for him to leave
the United States within the time allowed by his conditional permit to land.

The restrictions on the number of alien crewmen who may sail aboard Ameri-
can rtag vessels and particularly aboard vessels which receive a subsidy from
the Government means that the number of jobs for alien seamen is quite re-
stricted. In times when shipping is slow (that is, whenever international trade
is adversely affected, as it undoubtedly will be by the provisions of this act),
alien seamen may have to remain on the beach for many days in excess of the
number of days allowed. Under former law this ordinarily resulted in no
penalty to the seaman. Even if he was picked up and ordered deported for
overstaying his leave, it was ordinarily possible for seamen to obtain voluntary
departui'e in lieu of deportation. The practice of the Service was to allow
him to choose his own vessel and sail aboard her. Now, however, in cases in
which the Service desires to press for a further penalty, as it may do in the
case of alien seamen who do not cooperate with the Immigration Service in its
various antiunion endeavors, the seaman may find himself convicted of a crime
and fined $500 or imprisoned up to 6 months. After he gets out of jail, he then,
of course, would be immediately deported and he would be in no position to re-
quest any discretionary relief, such as voluntary departure in lieu of deportation.

Another provision of section 2ii2 of the act which is even more prejudicial and
for which there is even less excuse is the provision of subsection (b). That
provides that any immigration officer may in his discretion, if he determines
that an alien is not a bona fide crewman or does not intend to depart on the
vessel wliich brought him, revoke the conditional permit to land which had
theretofore been granted him. After the revocation of such a permit, the master
of the vessel may be required to take such crewman into custody and to detain

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1005

liim until lie is deported from the United States. In order to make it perfectly
clear that this cancellation of a permit and this deportation is to be purely
discretionary with tiie immijxration officer, and without the slightest vestige of
any heariui^ or trial whatever, it is specitically provided that nothinjr in the
section shall l)e construed to require the deportation procedure, as specified in
section 242 of the act, deportation procedure to be applied in the case of a sea-
man whoso permit has been revoked.

This places alien seamen who are allowed to land in the UnitcMl States as sea-
men completely in the power of immi.i,Tation ofl3cials. When the history of the
Immigration Service is recalled, when the use of perjured stoolpigeon witnesses
in the various deportation actions against Harry I'.ridges is recalled, it is ap-
parent that this grant of power to iunnigration oflBcers is fraught with grave
dangers to all .seamen. And if there is any prejudice to a nation which permits
such departures from its normal modes of operation and its normal legal pro-
cedures, then this is dangerous to the United States as a whole.

Of tremendous importance also is the provision in section 25G that it shall
be unlawful to pay off or discharge any alien crewman, except an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, without first having obtained the consent
of the Attorney General. This section purports to be aimed at preventing aliens
from coming into the United States as seamen, jtnnping ship here, and remaining
in the United States. See the discussion by Alfred U. Krebs, counsel for the
International Federation of American Shipping, Inc., and members of the
sul)conuuittees, at pages 161 and 162 of record of joint hearings before the sub-
committees of the Comnuttee on the Judiciary, Eighty-second Congress.

The most cursory reading of the provision demonstrates that it cannot pos-
sibly prevent this. As Representative Walter remarked during the course of
the committee hearings, the immigrant inspector who determines whether aliens
may be granted or denied a conditional permit to land temporarily must make
his decision on the basis of the intention of the seaman. Administratively
when permission is requested of the Attorney General to pay off an alien in the
United States, the immigrant inspector who made the determination with regard
to the conditional permit to land is going to inform the Attorney General for
the purpose of the Attorney General's decision. No other basis for the Attorney
General's decision can be supposed. Unless the Immigration Service is endowed
with some supernatural power, with which the act does not purport to endow it,
the Immigration Service will be no more able to determine whether the alien
intends to jump ship and remain in the United States after this act is passed
than it was before.

The laws require that seamen arriving in ports be paid within a very few days
and be given partial pay in the form of a draw immediately upon arrival, so that
this section cannot achieve the objective of excluding aliens who intend to jump
ship by rendering them penniless.

The effect that tliis section of the statute is very likely to have is that it will
end forever the ability of alien seamen sailing regularly on American-flag vessels
as bona-fide seamen to continue their calling on such ships. Many such alien
seamen have been sailing in hopes of obtaining the necessary residence for nat-
uralization liy service aboard American vessels. A great majority of them un-
doubtedly were attracted to American vessels during the war, when their services
were urgently needed and sought by the Government of the United States. If
sucli .seamen are unable to pay off a vessel in an American port, rest and reship,
it is only a matter of time, and a short time at tliat, before they will be unable to
sail on American flags at all. They are subject to fine and imprisonment if they
overstay their leaves if they should be paid off; they must envisage a period of
continuous sailing without any relief if they are not paid off, because it is ordi-
narily impossible for them to leave the vessel in a foreign port after signing on
in an American port. If they do pay off in a foreign port, they then caimot sign
on an American vessel again. These seamen whose service in torpedo-ridden
waters during the w\ar contributed a great deal to the victory of American arms
are now tossed on the scrap heap.

In addition to the provisions of chapter 6 relating directly to alien crewmen,
the provisions of the act regarding exclusion, including exclusion of aliens arriv-
ing from Alaska and Hawaii, make it extremely perilous for any alien, or any
person of alien birth or who may for any reason appear to be an alien, to sail as
seamen aboard American vessels. In view of the political tests that are applied
by the Uuited States Coast Guard under the Magnuson Act, it is a near certainty
that such attitudes will be reflected by the Immigration Service. It must be

1006 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

expected that many alien seamen will, after the effective date of this act, be
excluded for confidential reasons which are never disclosed to the alien, as pro-
vided in section 235 (c). The provisions of that subsection are explicitly made
applicable to alien crewmen by a procedure almost without warrant for its sum-
mary nature, and its lack of any control by the judiciary. Any alien, and even
any citizen, who may appear to an examining oflScer or a special inquiry oflficer
to be excludable may find his right to enter the United States completely barred.
If this occurs, he is without any redress. If he claims to be a citizen of the
United States, the courts will have no jurisdiction of any attempt by him to
obtain a declaration that he is such a citizen. This is because of revision worked
by this act on the Nationality Act of 1940. Section 360 (a) provides that no
declaratory judgment action to determine United States nationality may be filed
where the issue of any person's status as a national of the United States arose
by reason of or in connection with, or is an issue in, any exclusion proceeding.

Another section of the act not specifically directed at seamen but which
would by its terms apply to seamen is section 235. This allows an immigration
officer to board and search any vehicle, including ships, in which they believe
aliens are being brought into the United States, and to take evidence of or
from any person touching the privilege of any alien or any person the immi-
gration officer believes to be an alien to enter, pass through, or reside in the
United States, and so forth. Then follows a provision that any person coming
into the United States may be required to state under oath the purpose for
which he comes, how long he intends to stay, whether he intends to remain
and, if he is an alien, whether he intends to become a citizen. A further pro-
vision is that any immigration officer may have the power to require the at-
tendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and
documents concerning the privilege of any person to enter, reenter, reside in,
or pass through the United States, or concerning any matter material and rele-
vant to the enforcement of the act or the administration of the Service. These
provisions, if applied to merchant seamen, mean that any seaman arriving on a
vessel may be required to state under oath his purpose in coming to the United
States, and required to state under oath any information he may possess regard-
ing other seamen who may be aliens possibly subject to exclusion or deportation.
If the Immigration Service intends to pursue the policy announced by District
Director Boyd in Seattle, Wash., in December, as reported in the Seattle Times
for September 21, 1952, the Service will be interested in excluding citizens of
the United States who are deemed to be subversive, criminal, or undesirable. In
that case every seaman arriving aboard a ship may be required to testify under
oath against other seamen regardless of citizenship or nationality, and be liable
to contempt of court for a refusal to so testify or to the penalty for perjury
in the event the truth of his testimony is successfully attacked. Furthermore,
since the testimony that is sought may concern any matter material and relevant
to the enforcement of the act and the administration of the Service, no limits
to the scope of such inquiry can be discerned.

These new provisions of the immigration law may well form the basis for
an attempt to delve into the books and records of unions and similar organiza-
tions, particularly of maritime unions, for the purpose of conducting illegal
investigations under guise of enforcement of the immigration law. In the case
of a union or other group or organization which may be in the disfavor of the
Immigration Service or of the administration generally, the attacks that may
be expected from this direction have no bearing whatever on tlie la\\'fulness
of the union's activities or of the deportability of its members. The spectacle
of congressional committees holding investigations of trade-unions at moments
crucial to trade disputes and collective-bargaining sessions is not a new one.
The subcommittee of the senatorial Committee on the .Judiciary which has been
conducting investigations of unions under guise of an investigation of the ad-
ministration of the Internal Security Act of 1950 is but one example. The
activities of the Un-American Activities Committee is another familiar one.
There is no reason whatever to expect that the Immigration Service will not
be engaged in the same sort of activity and, indeed, the experience of some
unions indicates that this is a role which the Service plays regularly.

When it is recalled that maritime unions man vessels which are secondary
only to the Navy as a line of defense of the country, and that extraordinary
measures outside the scope of any law thus far declared by our courts have
been instituted under the purported authority of the McCarran Act, it requires
no stretch of the imagination whatever to envision the use of the new power
given to the Immigration Service to examine into the conduct of strikes, lock-

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1007

■outs, stop-work meetings, and other union actions which interfere with the
operation of vessels. Such investigations under the guise of seeking aliens who
are deportahle hecause subversive, may extend to any member of a maritime
union. No reason for these extraordinary provisions of law can be supposed
except to implement the purpose outlined above.

No other law-enforcement agency, not even the services concerned with the
criminal law, have such sweeping powers of investigation by the use of the
subpena iwwer. Not even officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are
empowered as iiiunigration officers are to, without warrant, stop and search
any vessel or other vehicle in which they believe aliens may be concealed; to
interrogate any person believed to be an alien or any alien as to his right to be
or remain in the United States; to arrest any alien "if he has reason to believe
that the alien * * * is in the United States in violation of any * * *
law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained."
These powers are given the immigration officers by section 2S7 (a). When
considereil in conjunction witli the iiowor to suhp(>na and require testimony
under oath of any person, as discussed above, this means that the Immigration
and Naturalization Service considered as a law-enforcing agency is enabled to
inquire into the affairs of any person, requiring him to answer questions under
compulsion, without presenting any accusation or indictment and without any
warning to the victim of what may be contemplated. In the case of anyone
suspected of being in violation of the law all of the safeguards ordinarily granted
by our law which enable him to refuse to answer any questions until he is defi-
nitely accused, arrested, and arraigned for trial are all swept away. The
Immigration Service may become an inquisition.

NATURALIZATION OF SEAMEN

After discussing the provisions of the act which seriously threaten maritime
unions and seamen, it is pleasant to be able to commend one section of the act.
That is section 330, providing for credit for time served aboard American vessels
in computing residence for naturalization. This partially restores the provisions
of section 325 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940 in effect prior to its amend-
ment by the McCarran Act of 1950. Particularly important is section 330 (a)
(2), which allows seamen who sailed on American vessels for 5 years or more
prior to September 23, 1950, to use such service as satisfying the residence
qualifications of the naturalization sections, without establishing lawful admis-
sion for permanent residence. This remedies an injustice done to seamen by
the McCarran Act of 1950 and gives due credit to those alien seamen who so
bravely manned many American vessels during the days of the submarine
menace and Kamikazi attack during the last war.

Still lacking, however, is a full restoration of the provisions of the Nationality
Act of 1940 as it existed prior to the McCarran Act of 1950. The alien seaman
sailing now aboard American vessels is unable to count the time that he serves
in that manner for citizenship unless he is admitted for permanent residence.
In view of the drastic restrictions of quotas and the fact that seamen particu-
larly are ordinarily in very poor position to obtain quota visas, this means that
for all practical purposes seamen who serve aboard American ships today may
not become naturalized citizens. The division of quotas into several preference
lists by section 203 reduces to practically nothing the quota available for aliens
who do not already have some attachment to the United States which would
entitle them to a preference position. This is particularly true in the case of
aliens from the Asiatic area, among which most of the aliens in this union are
numbered.

The closed-door policy which this act imposes on the United States by the
quota s.vstem has been adequately discussed and condemned by many witnesses
before the congressional committees who held hearings on the act and before
this Commission. It is not the primary subject of this statement. It should
be emphasized, however, that with regard to seamen the quota provision makes
it almost impossible for any alien seaman now sailing aboard west coast ves.sels
to obtain citizenship based on his service.

World War II saw the rise of the United States to first rank among maritime
powers. Our merchant marine is now far in excess of anything it has ever
been before, and is the largest and most powerful merchant marine in the world.
The law has already established a policy of having these vessels manned pri-
marily by American citizens. The number of alien seamen allowed to sail on
American ves.sels is small indeed. Whether the law should in addition to tliese

1008 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

provisions also bar alien seamen who do sail on American ships from citizen-
ship is another question.

Seamen are recognized as valuable citizens. Their lot is a hard one and
our law has consistentl.v accorded them special protection. Thus they are
the wards of the admiralty court and are entitled to certain benefits not given
to any other group of workers ; as for example, the liability of the vessel without
fault in cases of injury caused by unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure.
Presumably alien seamen share in the values which the law finds in citizen
seamen. What reason there can be tlierefore for discriminating against alien
seamen, who are in most instances in no position to obtain quota visas, has never
been explained. It is the position of this union that the provisions of the
Nationality Act of 1940 as they existed prior to the McCarran Act of 1950
should be restored and remain as part of our basic immigration law.

Gladstein, Andersen & Leonard,
Lloyd E. McMueray,
Attorneys for National Union of Marine Cooks and Steicards.

The Chairman. Mr. Charles Pingham, you are scheduled as the
next witness.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. PINGHAM, EEPRESENTING EEV.
ABBOTT BOOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHERN CALI-
FORNIA, NEVADA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Mr, Pingham. I am Charles A. Pingham, 83 McAllister Street, San
Francisco.

I am representing Dr. Abbott Book, who is the executive director of
the Northern California, Nevada Council of Churches. This is an or-
ganization to which belong about 24 of the major Protestant bodies
in northern California and Nevada, and m a word is to the church as
nmch as the chamber of commerce would be to business, to put it in the
vernacular.

The Chairman. How many people are represe]ited in the council ?

Mr. Pingham. That is hard to say. Nationally this is an affiliate
of the National Council of Churches, which has recently published it
represents about 30,000,000 Protestants, and we would represent a
small segment of that membership in this northern part of California
and Nevada. I couldn't state with any accuracy what that might be.

The Chairman. We would be glad to hear anything you might want
to state.

Mr. Pingham. Well, sir, we do not intend to convey that we are
experts in this field at all. I can't in any sense pinpoint any of the
objections. I would like to make three or four general statements, if
I might. This is based pretty largely on the public pronouncements
of the National Council of Churches which was made public sometime
ago.

First of all, we believe this system of national origins and its basic
principle for quota purposes is wrong, because of the fact that it is too
static ; it is somewhat archaic. It definitely seems to be slanted against
certain portions of the world and, based on Christian principles, the
national council and the Northern California Council believes that
it is unduly discriminatory, therefore, and does not provide the flexi-
bility— that is, really the principle — which the present-day situation
seems to demand.

Secondly, the national council and the Northern California Council
believes that it is unduly discriminatory and that the new law should
try to eliminate the discrimination against color, race, sex, and so on.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1009

which it did only in part ; and finally, they felt that there should be a
better system of appeals and hearings on applications for a visa and
deportation procedure, and so on.

One area in Avhich we are particularly concerned has to do with the
business left over from the Displaced Persons Act, in which the na-
tional council and the various cluu'ches alon<j; with all the sister
organizations Avere ver}^ active.

It is felt, and this provision was not taken into account in the new
law, although it was proj)osed, that some legislation should be enacted
providing for taking care of unfinished business that was not taken
care of when the Displaced Persons Act came to an end last year.
That has to do principally with those people who were in the pipeline,
so to si)eak, who were not able to obtain visas by December 30, 1951,
with those people who should have had a larger proportion of visas,
perhaps, and with those ]>eople, at least our fair share, let's say, of
those people who came into the western areas from beliind tlie iron
curtain after Januar}^ 1, 1949, which was the cut-off date of the
amended Displaced Persons Act which did come to an end.

Finally, a word of personal experience. We were fortunate enough
along with many others. We had a small part in receiving some of
the White Russian refugees from the island of Samar here in San
Francisco. As you know, the ships came directly to this port, and
while we must admit that there were some break-down cases, it cer-
tainly is true that the vast majority of the people with whom we dealt
were the most outstanding people from the standpoint of basic
material for citizenship that it has been our pleasure to deal with.

And also, we might say that the national council through its de-
partment of church world service has for many years been involved in
a material-aid program, both clothing and food sent overseas. It is an
arm of the Protestant Church. While they feel that this material aid
goes a long way to help democracy, if they have a little food in their
stomach and are a little warmer, we do feel, sir, that on Christian
principles which our Nation was founded the. items we have mentioned
here would be important and, therefore, we are glad to express our
opinion in that way.

The Chairman. Will you tell us, Mr. Pingham, what has been your
experience in resettling displaced persons in that program and was
there room for them ?

Mr. Pingham. Well, sir, all I can say is this: Of course you under-
stand that we only participated in a small part of this. There were
many, many other agencies involved, but from our own standpoint
there was certainly room for them. As a matter of fact, my office re-
ceives calls daily now of people who would like to haA^e displaced per-
sons and they are not able to get them. They seem, the people we
have had, seem to be anxious to please in every respect, and they seem
to want to comply with every provision so that they can be real citi-
zens. As a matter of fact, they sometimes make you sit up and take
notice and remember some of the things that you may have forgotten.

The Chairman. In your opinion is there a real need that still exists
for the use of displaced persons or expellees or refugees?

Mr. Pingham. Yes, I would say that, sir. Of course, I am speak-
ing for one segment of society now. Our work has been almost
entirely through the churches and from that standpoint we are con-

1010 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

tinuously at this moment getting calls from churches and church
groups and church people who would like to have displaced persons
and would sponsor them if the opportunity were presented.

The Chairman. Well, what has your experience shown with respect
to the kind of people who are wanted ? Are they farming people or
skilled people, or what?

Mr. PiNGHAM. Well, of course, there has always been a problem
on the basis of skills, of the professional people. They have defi-
nitely been at a disadvantage. The majority of people that have
been ]~>laced have been in one of three or four categories, sir. Farming
people, for example, couples who might go into a farm community
on a farm and the man would do work on the farm and the woman
would work in the home; domestics in large number, or a combina-
tion domestic- janitor-custodial jobs, caretakers, things of that kind
have predominated. Custodians and caretakers for churches and
church groups, church organizations and church buildings and divin-
ity schools, and so on. There have been some skills, printers to a
certain extent. There have been a number who have gone to work
for such — well, the airlines out here at the airport, in lesser skilled
ways. Those are predominantly the categories in which they have
fallen.

The Chairman. Well, in your experience, the areas that you know
about, would you say that the need for labor is greater in rural areas
than it is in urban areas?

Mr, PiNGHAM. Well, predominantly our call has been from, shall
we say rural or semirural areas surrounding this bay area and away
from the bay area. They seem to have difficulty in getting people
together out into those areas some times, to go to those areas, and
the displaced persons for the most part have been quite willing to
do that. They have been very adaptable and they work, and have
worked out very well; not 100 percent, sir, but as a vast majority.

Commissioner Finucane. In your present calls you have been re-
ceiving for these DP's, do they fall into the same categories, farmers,
et cetera?

Mr. PiNGHAM. Eoughly, sir, that is correct.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. PiNGHAM. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. Is Mrs. Druzilla Keibler here?

STATEMENT OF MRS. DRUZILLA KEIBLER, REGIONAL SECRETARY,
LUTHERAN WELFARE COUNCIL OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Mrs. Keibler. I am Mrs. Druzilla Keibler, 2731 K Street, Sacra-
mento, Calif., regional secretary of the Lutheran Welfare Council
of Northern California, which I am representing here.

I have a prepared statement I wish to read on behalf of my
organization.

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it.

Mrs. Keibler. In connection with the scheduled hearing before the
Commission on October 14, 1952, in San Francisco, I submit the fol-
lowing observations and recommendations :

The files in the Sacramento office of Lutheran Welfare Council of
ISTorthern California today revealed that of approximately 90 family
units of displaced persons and ethnic Germans approximately 33i/^

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1011

percent own automobiles, 10 percent own real estate, and that they
are 100 percent employed.

The files further indicate a backloo: of unfilled orders for approxi-
mately 500 workers from Europe, predominately domestics.

I have analyzed the proposed special immigration leoislation desig-
nated H. R. 7676 and S. 3109 and respectfully recommend revisions as
follows :

1. Special nonquota immigration visas to certain refugees, persons
of German extraction expelled from Soviet-dominated countries,
natives of all sections of Germany, including Berlin, natives of Italy,
Greece, and the Netherlands, and for other humane purposes.

2. Provisions: (a) Grant 222,000 visas per year— 120,000 to per-
sons of German extraction expelled from Soviet-dominated countries,
not limited by dates of entry into western zone ; 40,000 to German na-
tionals in Germany, including Berlin; 7,500 to Greek nationals in
Greece; 40,000 to Italian nationals in Italy and Free Trieste; 7,500 to
nationals of the Netherlands; 7,000 to refugees residing in certain
designated areas (Estonians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians,
Slovaks, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Armenians, Czechs, Hungarians,
Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes) .

(b) Do not require assurances for prospective immigrants to be ex-
ecuted by citizens providing for housing, employment (too difficult to
obtain, a source of friction and maladjustment).

(c) Require character references, literacy tests, and written report
on each person who would be considered for admission under this act.
Do not require good faith employment oath before granting visa (often
a disadvantage to immigrant).

(d) Do not give preference to farm and other workers possessing
scarce skills needed in United States. (Democracy allows freedom
of occupation.) Do not give preference to blood relatives of people
in United States. However, relatives of American citizens might w^ell
be sent to same original locality of good advantage — but without ob-
ligation to or for either.

(e) Provide regulations governing the Commission to be established
to administer the act, to include an adequate number of social workers
for proper handling and follow-up (possible ratio 1 to 1,000).
(Suggest written report on follow-up annually for 4 years, then fifth
report to recommend for citizenship or deportation. If deported, al-
low for reentry after 1 year.)

(/) Exclude Communists and subversives.

(g) Enable the President to provide facilities for the temporary
care, registration, transportation, vocational training, education, and
resettlement of all refugees, as needed.

(h) Become law for a period of 10 years ending June 30, 1963, im-
mediately upon passage by Congress.

Additional recommendations for both nonquota and quota im-
migration :

1. More orientation needed before immigrant arrives in United
States.

2. A minimum of English schooling should be required, either be-
fore or immediately after arrival.

3. Must become citizen at end of 5 years or be deported, exceptions
possible under certain circumstances, as outlined beforehand. Reen-
try possible after 1 year under quota immigration.

1012 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

4. Eaise the quota immigration quota, generally.

5. Do not require affidavits of support for quota immigrants. Send
in care of social workers for distribution and placement.

Perhaps we need a permanent Committee on Immigration who reg-
ulates immigration on the basis of need, both as to the numbers we
can absorb here and the need in the other area, and ask for approval
of Congress at each session of the estimated need for any particular
year. This could eliminate quotas entirely and create good will among
nations. If we set up a definite quota system this year it may be
obsolete next year.

The Chairman. Could you give us an idea of how many are in the
organization you represent? The local one?

Mrs. Keibler. In the Sacramento office. Well, I would like this to
be as a personal observation from work with these people, because our
organization will be represented later today.

The Chairman. I see. That is just your own idea?

Mrs. Keibler. Yes, from handling these people. We have in the
Sacramento areas, I have the names and addresses of 96 families on
this list, which I am going to give to you, half of which are DP's who
came before a year ago and I have only been in that office 1 year. The
other year represents a group that I personally have found employ-
ment and housing for, and I greeted them when they came and I feel
like I know them pretty well.

The Chairman. Thank you.

Mrs. Keibler. Thank you.

(The list referred to by Mrs. Druzilla Keibler follows:)

LATVIANS

Balodis, 4851 Eighth Avenue, Sacramento (bought house).

Celle, 12291/2 P Street, Sacramento.

Cimdins, 1000 G Street, Sacramento.

Drinkens, Sacramento (bought house).

Grinbergs, 510 Forty-second Street, Sacramento (bought house).

Grundmanis, 1011 F Street, Sacramento.

Krasts, 610 Tenth Street, Sacramento.

Kalpaks, 1011 F Street, Sacramento.

Kreismanis, 2015 D Street, Sacramento.

Kveps, 2731 G Street, Sacramento.

Lamberts, Rio Linda, care of M. E. Malone, Route 1, box 600.

Laursons, 2761 Montgomery Way, Sacramento.

Laxdins, 1721 D Street, Sacramento.

Lusis, 612 Twenty-tifth Street, Sacramento.

Lusis, 1949 Bell Street, Tiny Tots School, Sacramento.

Melbiksis, 325 Twenty-first Street, Sacramento (bought house).

Pulsts, 1S20 G Street, apartment 4, Sacramento.

Pampe, 317 Washington Street, Placerville.

Ravejs, 612 Thirteenth Street, Sacramento.

Savelis, 1624 Twenty-first Street, Sacramento.

Schellers. 2227 K Street, Sacramento.

Sils, 17021,4 V Street, Sacramento.

Skults, 2426 E Street, Sacramento (bought house).

Skambergs, 3870 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Sacramento.

Sprogis, 1624 Twenty-first Street, Sacramento.

Sprogis, Vilma, 2026 N Street, Sacramento.

Turaids, 2404 G Street, Sacramento (bought house).

Tpenieka, post office box 1026, Grass Valley, Calif.

Vilumnsons, 242614 F Street, Sacramento.

Zeltins, 3611 Del I'aso Boulevard, Del Paso Heights.

Leitis, 1716 G Street, Sacramento.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1013

Kalnins, 1020 Q Street, Sacramento.
Kalnins, 1929 Twenty-third Street, Sacramento.
Palis, Helena, Route 1, box 107, Dixon, Calif.
Eklerton, care of Turaids, 2404 G Street, Sacramento.

LITHUANIANS

J. Kappas, 4101 Norton Way, Sacramento (bought house).
J. Puiska. 1880Vj O Street, Sacramento.
S. Skirmantas, 2075 I'ortola Way, Sacramento.
A. Snrvilla. looO'/i O Street. Sacramento (born here).
Dombi-owski. :>012 Twentieth Avenue, Sacramento (bought house).
Graditius, Sacramento (.houglit house).

Rehemagi. Kalju, care of Superintendent Motive Power, Southern Pacific, Sac-
ramento.

HUNGARIANS

Hopp, Jakol), care of Robert Yelland, Sr., Clarksburg, Calif.
Kecskes, 514 Eighth Street, Sacramento.
Nemes, 1625 O Street, Sacramento.

ETHNIC GERMANS

Avemaria, Jakob, Route 1, Box 503, Red Bluff, Calif.

Becker, Daniel, 5091/2 Oak Street, Roseville, Calif.

Bachner, George, Route 1, Box 1380, Rio Linda, Calif.

Bartoschek, Paul, 505 East Pine Street, Lodi. Calif.

Brakowskl, Leo, 412 Pleasant Street, Roseville, Calif.

Dech, Heinrich, Route 1, Box 169, Gridley, Calif.

Eisbrenner, Reinhold, 822 North Hunter Street, Stockton, Calif.

Engel, Christian, 4929 Fifteenth Avenue, Sacramento, Calif.

Engel, Rheinhard, 1715 O Street, care of Martha Dmitruk, Sacramento, Calif.

Folkendt, Stefan, RED 5, Box 100, Stockton, Calif.

Friese, Hans Walter, 6292 Broadway, Sacramento, Calif.

Gumnor, Guenter, Route 5, Box 271, Stockton, Calif.

Heier, Gottfried, care of Fred M. Sutter Ranch, Rancho Del Encino, Cottonwood,

Calif.
Herrlich, Margaret, 604 Twenty-third Street, Oakland, Calif.
Herrmann, Karoline, 216 East "Vine Street, Lodi, Calif.
Hintz, Gottleib, Post Office Box 27, Durham, Calif.
Hoffman, Elfriede, RED, Box 150, Clarksburg, Calif.
Hohenwald, Annamaria, 1720 North San Joaquin Street, Stockton, Calif.
Hopp, Jakob, care of Robert Yelland, Sr., Clarksburg, Calif.
Johnson, Plerbert, 612 Twenty-fifth Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Strihk, Olgert, 612 Twenty-fifth Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Jung, Albrecht, Route 1, Box 126-A, Clarksburg, Calif.
Kepp, Gottfried, lOOOVa Sixteenth Street, Sacramento, Calif,
Kniesel, Itichard, RFD, Folsom, Calif.

Koehler, Erich, 1008 Twenty-eighth Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Krause, Herbert, 2731 K Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Littau, Alexander, .545 North Sutter Street, Stockton, Calif.
Luhs, Pauline, 612 Twenty-fifth Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Maerzluft, Anton, 341 South Stockton Street. Lodi, Calif, (bought house).
Martini, Michael. Post Office Box 387, Williams, Calif.
Muller, Oskar, 575 Lincoln Way, Auburn, Calif.
Orban. Johann, Box 83, Sheridan, Placer Co., Calif.
Pelz, Reinhold, 412 Pleasant Street, Roseville, Calif.
Pletz, Alfred, 21131/2 North Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Pryskalla, Paul, 14.31 East Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Rath, Alfred, Route 5, Box 271, Stockton, Calif.
Reffle, Philip, 537 West Flora, Stockton, Calif.
Ries, Josef, 1317 Twentieth Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Scheller, Otto, 2227 K Street, Sacramento, Calif, (listed under DP's),
Schendzielorz, Engelhard, Route 4, Box 455, Lodi, Calif.
Schlegel, Alexander, 233 South Church Street, Lodi, Calif.
Schmidt, Emil, Moring Road, Stockton, Calif., care of Warren Atherton.
Schreiber, Ella, 821 Forty-second Street, Sacramento, Calif.

1014 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Schuster, Michael, 618 South East Street, Santa Rosa, Calif.

Siebert, Otto, 529 North Sutter Street, Stockton, Calif.

Slasports, Laimdota, care of James J. Brennan, Loomis, Calif.

Spitzer, Eduard, 227 West Flora Street, Stockton, Calif.

Tolkmit, Albert, 51 West Ninth Street, Stockton Calif, (bought house).

Treichler, Johann, 1556 Virginia Street, West Sacramento, Calif.

The Chairman. Is the Keverend Kenneth E. Nelson present ?

STATEMENT OF REV. KENNETH E. NELSON, EXECUTIVE SECRE-
TARY, DEPARTMENT OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RELATIONS, DIOCESE
OF CALIFORNIA, PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE
UNITED STATES

Eeverend Nelson. I am Eev. Kenneth E. Nelson, 1055 Taylor
Street, San Francisco.

I am executive secretary of the Department of Christian Social
Relations of the Episcopal Diocese of California, which I represent
here. That is a local office of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States of America, but it comes under the jurisdiction of
the Diocese of California, as such.

But our church met in what we term a general convention last
month, which meets every 3 years, and they took specific action
regarding immigration and naturalization, and I want to present this
both as my personal opinion and those of the Episcopal Church, but
bearing primarily on the fact that we here on the west coast are
interested in the problems of the Asians, tlie orientals, as well as the
Latins.

I would like to read the statement.

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it.

Reverend Nelson. This statement presents my personal opinions
and those of the Episcopal Church.

Fortunately, our church met in Boston within the past month and
passed special legislation regarding immigration policy. This action
calls for, "A generous immigration policy to help deal with the prob-
lems of refugees and overpopulation in many sections of the world."
It further states that "a policy can be developed which will help to
deal with these problems in a just and equitable way, at the same time
preserving the social and economic well-being of the United States."
The statement says further that "The McCarran Act of 1952 does not
represent an adequate revision. It is discriminatory, geographically
and ethnically; it is cumbersome in execution; and its regulations
regarding denaturalization and deportation are unjust and difficult
to administer. Our major eifort will be toward revision of this basic
law by the next Congress."

Those are some of the statements by the church. Now I would like
to make these four observations and in all probability they are in line
with the policy that Mr. Pingham mentioned earlier because they are
in line with the National Council of Churches in the United States
of America.

1. Congress should make the quota system more flexible. For
various reasons the quotas assigned to many countries are not really
being filled. A pooling of these, or an adjustment of unused quotas
in order to facilitate family reunion, to offer asylum to persecuted

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1015

victims of totalitarian regimes, and to provide skills which our country
needs, seems to be a reasonable asking.

2. it would seem fair that Congress remove provisions regarding
immigration and naturalization laws which are based upon considera-
tions of color, race, or sex.

3. A system of fair hearings and appeals which is ?o characteristic
of American democracy should be established by Congress relative
to the issuance of visas and deportation proceedings. Certainly, pre-
cautionary measures may be required to protect our Nation against
undesirable persons but this should not hinder or violate the American
conception of justice.

4. 1 believe our church would welcome the establishment of a
national commission to study the problem of population pressures
throughout the world and the possible bearing of these pressures upon
our innnigration policies.

May I thank all of 5^our for the privilege of being heard.

The Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Swen M. Saroyan is the next witness.

STATEMENT OF SWEN M. SAEOYAN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO AID HOMELESS ARMENIANS

Mr. Saroyan. I am Swen M. Saroyan, 300 Montgomery Street, San
Francisco.

By occupation I am a lawyer and I am the vice president and one of
the coorganizers with Mr. George Mardikian of the American Na-
tional Committee To Aid Homeless Armenians, commonly known as
ANCHA.

This national committee, may it please the Commission, was organ-
ized in San Francisco in 1945 after we had been advised of the presence
of approximately 4,500 persons of Armenian descent in the Stuttgart
area of Germany and Bavaria and Italy. Before the passage of the
DP law this active committee organized local committees in New
York, Buffalo, Jersey, New Britain, Boston, Detroit, Pontiac, Chicago,
Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Fresno, for the purpose of executing
assurances, finding jobs and housing, and the organization was suc-
cesful in resettling approximately 3,900 of the 4,500 DP's.

Even though I represent ANCHA, an Armenian organization, gen-
erally speaking the terms to which I refer are applicable to all immi-
grants and immigration.

Will the record please show that I do not purport to be an expert
in the field of immigration and nationality law for the purposes of
this presentation. The Armenian immigrants' problem and his gen-
eral aspiration to emigrate to the United States are about the same
as that of all aliens, even though taken as a separate group the Arme-
nian group may have a unique characteristic.

I also wdsh to make it clear to this Commission that the premises
upon which I base my presentation has in mind all the interests of the
United States and not of any one nationality group or combination of
groups. I also have in mind the positive contribution that immigrants
have made and are making now for the safety, welfare, and interests
of this country.

I make this as a basic premise which I do not believe requires any
argument, though perhaps there may be those who in their ignorance

1016 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

of American history may think the point is arguable. The substan-
tive proposals which I wish to make are these :

First, I could not believe that we should have a numerical limita-
tion upon immigration. The present qualitative safeguards in my
opinion are sufficient so as to secure for our country only those immi-
grants who will continue to contribute to the national interest, and
who are not likely to become public charges and who are neither
criminals nor subversives.

Our commission will recall that our country flourished on and was
greatly enriched by alien immigration without quota limitations prior
to the 1920's. Before the quota concept was dreamed of we got along
fine as far as quality immigration was concerned.

As an example, take our immigration from the Western Hemisphere,
that is, Canada, Mexico, and South America. Immigration from these
countries has never been limited by quota restrictions. It just goes
to prove that the presently existing qualitative standards as far as
the Western Hemisphere immigration is concerned fully protects
our national interests. Even though immigrants from the Western
Hemisphere have been and are now nonquota immigrants, each im-
migrant has to meet our qualitative standards, such as medical re-
quirements, securing individual affidavits of support, establishing
that he is not likely to become a public charge and that he is not a
criminal nor a subversive.

I believe that the success of this nonquota system for the West-
ern Hemisphere immigrants warrants its application to the whole
world so that this red tape of nationality restrictions, quota waiting
lists, supervision and administration by two or three bureaus and all
the red tape can all be eliminated.

Secondly, in my opinion, with the exception of visas secured by
fraud, the deportation process should be eliminated. Most of the
various grounds for deportation are adequately covered by our crim-
inal statutes, so why should the double jeopardy of deportation apply-
on aliens admitted for permanent residence ?

When an American citizen commits a crime he is charged, tried,
convicted and sent to jail. Why shouldn't an alien be given the same
treatment, that is, jail, if he is convicted of a crime, and not be sub-
jected to a double jeoj^ardly or deportation?

Thirdly, in my opinion one and only one Federal agency should
handle immigration. There should be no overlapping. The present
system of check by the consular officers and double-check by INS,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, is inefficient, and works a
hardship and has its anomalies. One good check should be better
than two or three bad ones. It is bad when different interpretations
and instructions are given by two or more agencies in the case of im-
migrants, where one agency clears the immigrant and the other agency
bars the immigrant.

A minority group organization, as the organization I represent,
even though it is originally set up for displaced persons immigration
work, cannot escape the hundreds of immigration complaints that
it receives from all parts of the world. We have on innumerable oc-
casions been advised of the gross underhanded irregularities on the
part of minor consular officers in, say, Turkey ; also Beirut, Lebanon,
the last city having the largest congregation of my people.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1017

Having in mind the administrative provisions of the 1952 act where-
by minor immigration and consuhir officers are empowered to act as
prosecutor, judge, and jury, I am wondering what further adverse
effect the law is going to have at the most important lower level where
the prospective inunigrant for the first time comes into direct con-
tact with what he has always dreamed of as American freedom,
equality, and justice.

In my further opinion, fourtlily, there should be one quasi-inde-
pendent bod}^ set up to handle all appeals in immigration and naturali-
zation and visa and passport cases. Of course I admit a forward
step has been taken in the establishment of the Board of Immigra-
tion Appeals 20 or 25 years ago, even though its jurisdiction is limited
and its results or rules are subject to reversal by the Attorney General
of the United States.

The jurisdiction and independence of the court I propose should be
clearly defined and established. It should have final authority in all
the security tjq^e of cases, so that no longer can the investigative
services exercise paramount judicial functions and aliens no longer
be denied admissions without hearings, solely on the basis of anony-
mous letters which the security ofiicers have chosen to call classified
detention information and thereby refuse to disclose the basis for
their rulings.

I Avish to make a few passing remarks in respect to my national
group, which I believe is also true with several of the minority national
groups. Even though there are approximately 250,000 to 300,000
Armenians in the United States today, under our antiquated immigra-
tion law of 1924 which has been perpetuated by the 1952 act, the
Armenian people do not have a nationality quota but must come in
under their country-of-birth quota, being either Turkey, Greece, Ru-
mania, Bulgaria, or Russia or some of the other minority countries.
Now even though today Turkish people are allies of this country under
the North Atlantic Treaty and have joined us in protecting the
world against communism, we allow only 225 Turks into the United
States each year, 308 Greeks, and 289 Rumanians and approximately
the same number of Bulgarians. Therefore, under ordinary circum-
stances, under the present law it would have taken ANCHA, our
organization, between 30 to 50 years for as many Turkish, Greek, or
Runumian or Lebanese-born Armenians, to have entered under the
quotas, as it did under the displaced-persons law.

This is due to the inequitable provisions of the quota law which
allows so few southern and eastern Europeans. We have in so many
words said to these southern and eastern Europeans that, in our opin-
ion, they are not as good people for immigration purposes as the
English and the Irish and the Germans, and when there is no reason
for that theory and especially when the real need for immigration
actually exists in these central and eastern groups and not in the north.

In closing, a few remarks in respect to the amazing inequities under
the act that have been perpetuated under the 1952 act. Under the 1924
act 150,000 immigrants are admissible, one-seventh of 1 percent. The
increase in our population has changed that to one-tenth of 1 percent,
and since the English, Irish, and German quotas are unused, it makes
it one-fifteenth of 1 percent of the population per year. Of the 138,000
exiled Poles in Europe the quota under the act is 6,500 ; of the 23,000

1018 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

subjugated Balkans or Baltics the quota is TOO a year; of the 30,000
Rumanian escapees, 289 a year.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank this Commission for allow-
ing us to give this presentation.

Commissioner Gullixson. As I understand, your thought would be
that the gates to American citizenship should be controlled by the
qualitative test?

Mr. Saroyan. That is correct. That is so in the 1920's, and is also
true as far as the South American

Commissioner Gullixson. Among those qualitative tests you would
not eliminate the illiteracy test ; you didn't mean that ?

Mr. Saroyan. Some consideration should be given to literacy tests.
I believe I would insert that. I don't think that is very important in
its aspect.

Commissioner Gullixson. Would you base — that is, make the lit-
eracy test in the English language or in the applicants' language ?

Mr. Saroyan. No ; in their own nationality. Anyone who is literate
in his own nationality can certainly make himself literate in a very
short time. We are proposing that today down in the valley. They
have congregated there and all going to English school at niglit.

Commissioner Gullixson. Then it is not your thought that the lit-
eracy test be eliminated ?

Mr. SaroyxVN. No ; it was not.

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : You tell us about the situation
with the Armenians who have no nationality status or no relation to
the quota, and in that respect they are in the same position as, for
instance, the Ukrainians.

Mr. Saroyan. That is correct.

The Chairman. Their country has been divided up between other
more powerful nations.

JSIr. Saroyan. That is right.

The Chairman. So that when they come here or have been coming
they have been assigned to the quota of the country of birth, irrespec-
tive of what their true nationality was. What proposal would you
make to change that ?

Mr. Saroyan. Well, I assume it requires a bit of analysis, but it can
be placed on a basis of nationality, I believe, rather than the country
of their birth. Now, you take Armenians; today they come from
Russia and Greece and Turkey. Well, there is no use of me repeating
the history of Armenian people — as far as the Turks are concerned, but
we have to be allowed to remain in that 225 figure and if the consular
offices in Turkey think the Armenians who apply there are for immi-
gration, they go; and if not, they don't. But you can imagine how
many Armenians are allowed under the Turkish quota. How are
you going to remedy that situation ? The only way I know of is plac-
ing them on the basis of nationality, with Turkey, China, Russia,
or Greece, because they have their own quotas.

The Chairman. Were you not arguing against the quota system
earlier?

Mr. Saroyan. I am arguing against the quota system, but I can't
just argue for heaven at one time. I am just wondering if Congress
will ever set aside the quota system, and if they didn't there is always
a happy medium. I am 100 percent for nonquota and that is Utopia
at the moment, I think.

COMMISSIOX OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1019

The C'iiAiKMAN. Do you think that i^ a happy nuHliimi to go along
M-ith '.

Ml'. Saroyax. Yes; I think so. To increase the quotas substan-
tially and then change the method on which dirt'erent nationalities
come in and base it possibly on nationality.

The (^iiAiK.MAX. If you are going to try to introduce nationalities
that have nothing to do with the countr}^ itself, and assuming that
an over-all number be admitted each year, how are you going to dis-
tribute unckn- your theory I

Mr. Saroyax. This is just one suggestion I have. Just assume for
the sake of argument that you are to increase the present-day quota
substantially. You can by a subdivision quota provision take care
of the Estonians, Armenians, or Latvians.

The Chairman. Just how are you going to take care of them ?

Mr. Saroyax. Proof has to be shown tliat the person applying for
innnigration to the United States is of Armenian descent or of Latvian
or Estonian descent. Aside from your quota, assuming a quota of
Turkish people of 1.500, j'ou also have a quota

The Chairman. How are you going to arrive at that ?

INIr. Saroyax. I don't know how you are going to do it. That has
been analyzed and worked out.

The Chairmax. You seem to be in favor of some kind of quota
system, but it is not clear to me what kind.

]Mr. Saroyax. I am in favor of nonquota system, but if there has
to be

The Chairmax. Nonquota, but that is a L^topia you said you don't
expect to reach, and then you are in favor of quota systems that would
let the Armenians in, but it does not seem to me you have explained
how.

Mr. Saroyax. I think I know how.

The Chairmax. I want to know how you would do it.

^Ir. Saroyax. Toda}^ there is no Armenian quota at all. I as-
sume I would make an exception to the act to provide for those
nationality groups over and above the quota, say 250 or 500 a year.

The ChairMxVX. How are you going to reach 250 or 500; what is
that going to be based on ?

]\Ir. Saroyax. Say Armenians from Lebanon, 100; in Greece, in
Shanghai

The Chairmax. Do you just pull them out of the air ?

^Ir. Saroyax. Out of the air at the moment.

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Saroyax. ]\Ir. Chairman, you don't expect me to tell you in 15
minutes of testifying before this Commission?

The Chairman. But this bill was passed last June, I think, and
those who voice criticism of it have had some time to think about what
they would substitute for it if they don't like it.

]\Ir. Saroyan. AYell, I am not trying to be facetious. I don't think
you could expect any lay witness to know. I told you in my prelimi-
nary that I am not an expert, but I know there is something wrong,
and it has been done, ancl that is something that requires hours and
hours of work in many conferences.

2 5 .3 r) 6— .'52 65

1020 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

As fas as I am concerned, m^^ opinion would be no quota, and if
that Utopia cannot be reached then I think the quota system should
be made more equitable than before.

The CiiAiRMAx. Thank you very much. Mr. Saroyan.

Is Rev. Bernard C. Cronin here?

STATEMENT OE REV. BEENARD C. CKONIN, DIRECTOR OF THE
CATHOLIC RESETTLEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SAN FRANCISCO

Eeverend Cronin. I am Rev. Bernard C. Cronin, director of the
Catholic Resettlement Committee of the Archdiocese of San Francisco,
1825 Mission Street, San Francisco, which is the organization I am
representing here.

I have a statement I wish to read.

The Chairman.* We will be glad to hear it.

Reverend Cronin. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the
Catholic Resettlement Committee of the Archdiocese of San Francisco
appreciates this opportunity to air its views on the immigration policy
of the United States of America.

The committee wliich I represent views the immigration policy of
our country as highly significant in the discharge of our national
responsibility in the matter of cliarity and justice, national develop-
ment, and world leadership.

In the interest of charity : A warm welcome to the oppressed from
abroad is one means whereby a nation can fulfill the God-given com-
mand, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Never before have
we of this Nation been possessed of so great an opportunity to fulfill
this injunction than toclay — both by reason of the bounty we possess
and the need of the dispossessed.

In the interest of justice : Distributive justice on a world plane is no
less imperative for universal peace than the equitable distribution of
natural resources on the domestic scene. The inequitable distribution
of human resources today proves a boon to Communist forces just as
masses of dispossessed peoples have always appealed to the demagog
bent on disruption.

In the interest of national development : From the 38,000,000 immi-
grants to this country between the years 1820-1930 was distilled the
great American character which made this Nation the strongest and
freest nation in the world. The admission into this country of peoples
who know what it is to lose independence and freedom should help to
sustain the American character.

In the interest of world leadership : An indispensable responsibility
of leadership is example. Granted that the surplus population and
refugee problems threaten world security, more is required than mere
sympathy over their plight. Resettlement consistent with our na-
tional interest would be consistent with our promises of new life under
democracy.

In short, the times demand tliat our immigration policy be geared
to charity and justice, national development, and world leaclership
if we as a nation are to fulfill our mission of peace on earth.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1021

We regret to say that, in our opinion, the immigration policy of
the United States of xVmerica as embodied in Public Law 414, the
McCarran-Walter Act, is not timely. In our considered opinion : It
sustains the pliilosophy of exclusion; it perpetuates self-interest to the
exclusion of legitimate claims to a just share of God's bounty; it
ignores the immigrant contribution to the development of this coun-
try; it marks the United States as another hostile part of a hostile
world.

Specifically, by maintaining the national-origins formula, this law
will admit oid}' a small })roportion of the 150,000 total population on
which the quota list was predicated. Moreover, it thereby rejects as
woitliy material for United States citizenship the kin of thousands of
immigrants from eastern and southern Europe who have contributed
so splendidly to the development of the West and especially to the fame
of the city of San Francisco. By continuing the principle of freezing
all quotas originally included in the Displaced Persons Act, some of
the most courageous, most daring and freedom-loving people who
have escaped the iron curtain will be barred from the land of the free
and the home of the brave.

In conclusion, let me say that we do appreciate the tremendous
amount of work that went into Public Law 414. May we suggest,
however, a change in the national-origins philosophy, the pooling of
quotas, and the liquidation of mortgaged quotas under the Displaced
Persons Act. Such amendments, we do believe, would be consistent
with democratic ideals and would further the interests of world peace.

Commissioner O'Grady. Father Cronin, do I understand correctly,
that you are opposed to the national-origins formula and that you are
expressing pretty much the official view of the church as a whole in
San Francisco ?

Reverend Cronin. That's correct.

Commissioner O'Grady. Then does this pretty much represent the
point of view of the Archbishop of San Francisco?

Reverend Cronin. That's correct.

Commissioner O'Grady. Father, would you tell ns how many per-
sons were resettled in your program of displaced persons?

Reverend Cronin. Approximately 1,300.

Commissioner O'Grady. Approximately 1,300.

Reverend Cronin. That is within a radius of 90 miles of San
Francisco.

The Chairman. And did you have any difficulty in finding places
for them ?

Reverend Cronin. Oh, yes; but they are all working now.

The Chairman. They are all working now?

Reverend Cronin. Yes ; they are doing very well by and large.

The Chairman. Is there any existing demand for that type of
person ?

Reverend Cronin. Yes. Now the relatives who are here want to
bring their relatives who are escaping now from behind the iron cur-
tain, every day we get such requests.

The Chairman. I am thinking though of the Americans who are
here — is there any need for the kind of services that they can perform,
either in the city or in the country ?

Reverend Cronin. Oh. definitely, especially in the domestic, and
farm, and agricultural fields.

1022 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Is Mr. Samuel A. Ladar here ?

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL A. LADAR, REPRESENTING THE JEWISH
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO AND 7
OTHER ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS "

Mr. Ladar. I am Samuel A. Ladar, attorney, 111 Sutter, San Fran-
cisco. I wish to present a statement on behalf of the Jewish Com-
munity Relations Council of San Francisco and 7 other associated
organizations, and then I would like to make a few remarks.

The Chairman. Your statement will be inserted in the record, and
we will be pleased to hear what you have to say.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. S. A. Ladar follows :)

Gentlemen, the undersigned, in availing himself of the privilege of presenting
to you this statement of views on immigration and naturalization, does so in
behalf of the following organizations and agencies in this area.

Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco

Jewish Welfare Federation of Oalvland, embracing the Oakland Community

Ilelations Council and the Oakland Welfare Fund
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), S. F. Branch
San Francisco Committee for Service to Emigres
Jewisli Welfare Fund of San Francisco
Regional Office Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
San Francisco Chapter, American Jewish Committee
Federation of Jewish Charities of San Francisco

To point out, within limited space and time, all of the evils and shortcomings
of our present immigration and naturalization legislation in the United States
is not an easy matter. In a word, we hold that existing policies are in con-
tradiction to our Declaration of Independence which affirms that "All men are
created equal."

Thus is expressed the cardinal belief that all persons are to be regarded as
equally capable of intelligence, freedom, and social usefulness. Eacli individual
is entitled to the right to be judged on his own merits.

But these principles, we hold, are repudiated by certain phases of our present
immigration legislation which, in effect, assert that persons seeking residence
in this country are to Ije judged according to breed like cattle and not on the
basis of character or fitness.

We contend that the national origins quota system and the concept of penal
deportation must be abolished ; also, that the internal administration of our
immigration processes must be improved.

Let us consider first the national-origin quota system which we believe to be
discriminatory, un-American, and racist in character. It was adopted in 1924
and has been in use ever since. It permits the admission of approximately
150,000 people a year and, except for nations of the Western Hemispliere, fixes
quotas for eacli country.

Through tlie years, study of this system has disclosed repeatedly that the
authors of the quota plan deliberately contrived to encourage immigration of
the English, French, Irish, Germans, and other Western Europeans and to
discourage all other immigration. Relying on a theory born of l)igotry and
prejudice, supporters of the system have contended that persons of other
national origins represented inferior biological stocks and possessed ethnic
qualities making them unassimilable.

Asserting again our contention that people should ))e judged as individuals
rather than as members of whole groups, we contend that the national-origins
quota system should be eliminated and superseded by a policy making it possible
to establisli an administrative or executive commission to iix annual quotas
taking into account numerous factors such as individual and national need,
mental and physical ability, family status, or special skills. Determination of
this commission would be based on the absorptive capacity of our economic
«nd social system and would allow periodic readjustment of the total be ad-
mitted each year.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1023

Naturally, we are co,mil/an( of tlie prdlilcm of refujxees and suri)lus poi)iiIa-
tioiis. We believe that these dislocated peoples present a continuing eniergency
whlch will face the free world for years to come. We l)elieve tliat this problem
siiould not be approached on the basis of piecemeal emergency legislation but
rather should be considered in our permanent immigration laws so as to give
special attention to distressed areas by increasing the total number of immigrants
to l)e admitted annually and l)y reserving a substantial priority within that
number for persecutees or refugees.

In the matter of deportation as provided for in our present legislati<ni, it is our
belief that existing laws are in direct opposition to the principle that once a
perscm is admitted to the United States for permanent residence he should
have the privilege of remaining liere unless his entry was made fraudulently or
illegally. Deportation as a penalty is mijust and frecpiently punishes innocent
people.

Again, distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens iii our im-
migration laws must be eliminated as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Let me point out, too, that the core of the American system of justice is that
every person is entitled to a fair hearing. Public Law 414 fails to afford to
inmiigrants or aliens the necessary judicial protection which accompanies the
concept of fair hearing by omitting any provision for a board of immigration
appeals and a visa review board.

Referring now specifically to the McCarran-Walter Act already enacted in
the hnv and soon to become effective, we present for your consideration the
following facts which we believe to be harmful and contrary to the best interest
of the country :

1. Does not pool unused quotas. Thus thousands of visas that might be u.sed
by freedom-seeking individuals are wasted.

2. Adds many grounds for exclusion, thus maldng our laws more restrictive
without furthering the national welfare. For instance, l)y barring any alien
couvicted of two or more offenses involving prison terms of 5 years or more in
his native land, it would bind our laws to the standards of other nations, some
of them totalitarian.

3. Adds many arbitrary grounds for deportation, such as (a) committing even
a minor offense, no matter how long the alien has lived in the United States;
(h) becoming a public charge, no matter how long the alien has lived here; (c)
violating any technicality on entering the United States, no matter how inno-
cently the alien did this or how many years have elapsed since the offense; {d)
engaging in any proscribed political activity in the United States, even if the
alien sincerely repudiated this activity long ago.

4. Curtails the Attorney General's discretion to suspend deportation in cer-
tain deserving cases.

5. Allows deportation of an alien to any country willing to accept him, even
if this might subject him to harsh conditions of life.

6. Continues those provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 which have
embarrassed our international relations by excluding world-famous scientists.

7. Makes it more diffici;lt for deserving aliens here on temporary visas to
obtain permanent status.

To us who advocate an elimination of the inequalities and injustices of our
immigration and naturalization law, it may well be asked how it is that, in the
approximately 2r> years that the national-origins quota system has been on our
statute books, there have been no public complaints against the formula nor any
concerted movement for its recall. Also,- it may be asked whetiier, in view of the
fact that the Eighty-second Congress reenacted the formula as a part of the Im-
migration and Naturalization Act of 1952, despite Presidential veto, does it not
seem as if the American pul)lic is satisfied.

To me the answer is twofold. First, the IMcCarran Immigration Act of 1952
was not adopted without the strongest and bitterest opposition by all major
religious, racial, nationality, labor, and civic organizations throughout the comi-
try. Secondly, if the Senate vote overriding the President's veto had been taken
at a time when opponents of the measure could be present to cast their votes,
the bill would liave l)een defeated. To name only a few. Senators Kefauver,
Langer, and Lodge, who were committed to vote against the bill and to sustain
the President's veto, were physically unable to return to Washington in time to
cast their votes.

We have been asked from time to time to clarify our position in regard to
deportation. Let me repeat that our position is that, except in cases of fraud or
illegal entry, permanent resid«'nt aliens should not be subjected to the penalty

1024 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

of deportation, although naturally they remain subject to all of the penalties
for violation of our American criminal law.

Unless we are to provide that all aliens nmst become citizens within a certain
time after they enter this country, we must recognize that our permanent resi-
dent aliens take on the status of adopted children who, although they should
be punished wdienever they deserve punishment, cannot be ejected from the na-
tional home.

No one, of course, would suggest that aliens should be required to become citi-
zens, for the simple reason that we would not welcome such action by other
countries in the case of American citizens in these lands. It should also be re-
membered that not only the aliens benetit by their residence in the United States.
Once they are here, these aliens contribute to the wealth of our Nation through
the payment of their Federal, State, and local taxes ; by giving employment ; or in
other ways contriliuting to tiie strengthening of our Nation.

Criminal adults would not qualify under the moral-turpitude laws for admis-
sion to the United States. The present crop of gangsters to which Attorney
General McGranery is addressing himself now through deportation channels
probably came to this country as youngsters ; and their subsequent depredations,
as repreliensiltle as they may be, cannot in any way be attributed to the fact that
they were aliens or naturalized citizens.

Mr. Ladar. I have a few words that I would like to present. Mr.
Chairman and members of the Commission, I have already stated
to you in my statement the organizations for whom I appear. I am
cognizant of the fact, of course, that the B'nai B'rith, being a national
organization, and the American Jewish Committee, being a national
organization, that they have either directly or indirectly had state-
ments made to your Commission in other cities. We have followed
locally the contents of those statements, and we are very much aware
of the criticisms which have been made of the McCarran-Walter bill,
which is about to go into effect. On the basis of what we know has
already been said to you, we thought it best if we refrained from
what would necessarily be a rather monotonous repetition of the criti-
cisms based upon the national-origins quota system, on the matter
of the use of deportation as a penalty, on the matter of the breaking
down of statutes of limitations, and the other points which have been
so fully and, we believe, so ably presented to you.

However, it so happens that here in San Francisco we have had
an unusual quantity of experience with immigrants under the dis-
placed-persons law, and in our opinion the displaced-persons law
represents in a way a placing into operation of the type of immigration
system which we, I. believe, would like to see put into effect on a
permanent basis. There was a breaking down of the national-origins
quota system under the displaced-persons law. For example, there
was a liberal and a more human treatment of immigrants than would
be the fact under the proposed McCarran-Walter immigration law.
So we thought that an elaboration of the statement which we liave
filed would give you these few brief facts, these few bits of evidence,
as it were, for the record, which might be helpful in your work.

Now I personally have been a member for a number of years of
Governor Warren's visa commission on displaced persons here in
California. I personally have worked in close cooperation in Cali-
fornia with the department of employment in the course of my work
on the visa commission on displaced persons. I have been chairman
for approximately 10 years of the emplojnnent committee of the San
Francisco Committee for Service to Emigres. In that capacity I
think that I have had approximately 10 years of close cooperation
with the social-service organizations of the various religious groups

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1025

that have worked in and around San Francisco, and I happen also
to be a member of the community relations council of the city of San
Francisco.

Now I therefore bring some practical experience to the record here.
In the last 5 or G years, gentlemen, we have met and worked in this
comnuniity with approximately 1,250 heads of immif^rant families.
Most of these innniijrants were, so far as their national origin was
concerned, from Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Greece,
and other so-called eastern and southern pAU'opean countries — _coun-
tries which have not had very favorable treatment under the national-
origins quota system.

]Mr. RosENFiELD. Excuse me, Mr. Ladar, will you identify wdiom
you are speaking for of the groups you represent ?

Mr. Ladar. The organizations I represent are set forth in my
prepared statement — 1 am not representing the State visa commis-
sion here ; I would like the record to be clear on that, but I have had
a great deal of experience with that commission; I have been treas-
urer of that commission for a number of years.

Commissioner O'Gkady. Has there been much discussion in local
groups of this matter?

Mr. Ladar. Xo; we have not had — at least I have not participated
in any such gatherings, but I have had a great deal of actual detailed
operation and contact in connection with immigrants. Now I can
say to you, gentlemen, that 95 percent of these immigrants have be-
come, and for a number of years now have been, self-supporting. As
you probably know, they are not eligible for public assistance for
a nmnber of years after they come here. We know for certain that
we would hear from them if any assistance were needed during tlie
period of their first 5 years in San Francisco.

Now, in the matter of citizenship, which is an important one, we
know that less tJian 1 percent of them have failed to inunediately apply
for citizenship and thereafter to follow^ through as quickly as possible
to attaining full naturalization. We know that through the contacts
we maintain through our social-service workers and our cooperation
with the law-enforcement agencies in this connnunity — that not a
single instance has occurred of the commission of a felony with respect
to tlie immigrants that have come into this communitj' whom we have
serviced, and they run, I think I mentioned, approximately 1,250 heads
of families. We know that no refugee delinquency case has resulted
with respect to the children of these families that I am talking about.

Now, so far as their Americanization efforts are concerned, we know
tliat they enroll by the hundreds literally in classes for the study of
Americanization and English. They spend their after-working hours
in taking advantage of special classes that w^e have made available;
and the conuuunity has made available for rapid im]:)rovement of their
English, their knowledge of American history, and their knowledge of
American business methods.

We knoAv their record with respect to employment, which we con-
sider quite important. They have been quick to accept and to a(;t upon
the principle that their economic adjustment must begin from the bot-
tom of tlie ladder. They have accepted employment in the positions
where there w^as a need for manpower and wonuin])ower, and instances
of that are that a large number of them have gone into janitorial work,
even though they had had much better economic status and employ-

1026 COIVIMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

ment in the land from where they came. They have become nurses'
aides ; they have become practical nurses ; they have gone into physio-
therapy ; and some of them have become nurses, apprentices to trades-
men, and I'ancli and farm employees.

Now we bring that evidence to your attention to bear out the point
that they have gone into the fiekls where there was a need for man-
power. The making of the statement is buttressed by our actual expe-
rience in the field. We do not have at the present time a single em-
ployable person on our list, and we are constantly under request from
various employers and from employment centers throughout the com-
munity to furnish them with people in the fields where we have been
very helpful in getting them employees in the past.

Now we have had an.other interesting ex]:)erience which I think bears
upon 3^our work too. The Jewish community has discovered that
there was a need for self-employed ventures in many instances, such as
the starting of small chicken ranches, the shoe-repair shops, and small
places of business in the various neighborhoods of that type. We have
gotten up a fund which has aggregated around $40,000 that was avail-
able for small loans of $100 to $500. We have had a number of years'
experience of that now. I can say to you that we have had less tlian 5
percent of such loans which have not been repaid — a tribute to the
character and the stability of the people whom we have assisted. We
take no security on the loans, so that there was no compulsion for re-
pa^anent in these cases.

Now it has been quite gratifying to us, too, throughout the years,
that these newcomers have been quick to contribute to the local chari-
ties and to enter upon the work of the social-service organizations in
the community as fast as these newcomers have gotten on their feet.
Now some of these newcomers have brought children with them.
These children have now grown, in many instances, to maturity. Lit-
erally several hundred immigrant children have now served in the
Armed Forces, children of these newcomers ; some have become doctors
and dentists and have served in the Armed Forces in that capacity.

Now I want to make it clear that I am not speaking entirely of my
experience with the Jewish community. While I don't represent the
displaced persons commission here, I know from my experience with
that commission that what I am telling you here with res])ect in par-
ticular to the Jewish immigrants is also true of many of the innni-
grants of other religious beliefs whom I have assisted and worked with
in getting into the places where emjiloyees were needed, and I have
seen the character and the stability of those people.

Now to us this furnishes proof of the wisdom of a liberal immigra-
tion policy and of the wisdom of what I like to think of — the inscrip-
tion on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your
huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." It is our belief that these
facts are proof of the fact that that inscription is evidence of a worth-
while dividend-paying policy that ought to be written into the law.

Thank j^ou.

Commissioner Finucane. Mr. Ladar, the 1,250 family units — was
that by the Jewish groups, or was that by the

Mr. Ladar, That is exclusively the Jewish organization.

Commissioner Gullixson. Do I understand you make the general
suggestion that the displaced-persons method might be applied to a
solution on a larger scale?

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1027

Mr. Ladar. As a matter of policy.

Commissioner Gullixsox. Now mi<iht I ask tliis:Have you given
any tliou<ilit as to how tliat miolit be adjusted to the miseries and the
M()rld-wide pi'ohlem confrontino- us, for instance, across tlie Pacific?

Mr, Ladak. 1 don't quite undei-stand your question.

Commissioner Gullixsox. That is, taking the displaced-persons
pattern, how woukl you apply it to Asia ^

Mr. Ladar. Well, I think an over-all quota or number of persons
admissible to tlie country ouglit to be set up and that persons ought
to be admitted under that figure on the basis of tlie needs of the coun-
try and the needs of tlie person. Tliat is the policy that I have in
mind.

Commissioner O'Gkauy. Do you mean the need abroad?

Mr. Ladar. That the needs of the United States as w^ell as the needs
of the people who are in distress — I believe tliat that was the policy
generally that was followed under the Displaced Persons Act.

Commissioner O "Grady. And did you say that the immigrants your
organization helped under the DP Act have adjusted well and have
begun at the bottom of the ladder, no matter wdiat their previous
training^

Mr. Ladar. I can tell you that that is true in San Francisco.

Commissioner O'Grady. And do you think that is true of those that
have been brought in by other organizations too ?

Mr. Ladar. I think it is true. I know that I have had a certain
amount of experience, as I told you, in working with the displaced
persons commission. We found that there was need for agricultural
workers in certain areas, and under that act we set out and obtained
these people and brought them in here, and they went to work in those
jobs, and they have grown up on those jobs.

The Cllvirman. Thank you very much.

Rabbi Alvin I. Fine, you are the next witness.

STATEMENT OF EABBI ALVIN I. FINE, REPEESENTING THE BOARD
OF RABBIS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Rabbi Fine. I am Rabbi Alvin I. Fine, and I represent the Board of
Rabbis of Xorthern California.

I have a prepared statement I would like to read.

The Chairman. You may do so.

Rabbi Fixe. The question of our country's immigration policy and
the laws enacted to carry out those policies is not a simple matter. On
the contrary, it is a matter of great complexity involving many factors
closeh^ related to the economic, social, political, and international
issues of American life. To attempt any oversimplification would
only lead to compounding the complexity and would also lead to a
failure to arrive at any useful and constructive conclusions.

Fundamentally, there are really two questions involved. First,
what should be our general attitude or policy tOAvard immigration?
Second, what kind of legislative and administrative structure would
be best suited to carry out this general policy ? The former, of course,
is a matter of principle; the latter, of course, is a matter of method.

With res})ect to the principles reflected in our immigration policy,
it appears to me to be necessary to understand and ap[)reciate, first

1028 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

of all, both the history of the birth and growth of our Nation and the
motivating ideals and values of its philosophy and aspirations. The
strength of a nation resides in the nature of its people as well as its
institutions. Historically the American population is an immigrant
population. Our Nation was founded by immigrants, and it has
grown in strength and in spiritual as well as material prosperity with
each successive wave of immigration that sought the opportunities of
a free life in America. Moreover, I think that it may be said that
the rise of the American Republic has been, and its future continues
1o be, not just the creation of another state but, rather, tlie collective
endeavor of many peoples to create a truly free society based on cerraia
fundamental moral concepts of human dignity. In this respect the
nature of the American population is perhaps unique in the world.
The immigration policy of such a Nation with such a history should
reflect the nature of the growth of its population and should certainly
be consistent with the underlying principles derived from its history.
One might, therefore, conclude that, generally speaking, the American
attitude and policy with respect to immigration should be liberal in
nature and scope. Since the First World War, however, the contrary
has been true. Our immigration policy has been restrictive and
exceedingly narrow in its fundamental attitude and scope. The pres-
ent law, recently enacted, in my opinion, speaking for the board of
rabbis of northern California, deviates even to a greater degree than
previous legislation from the kind of policy that would be consistent
with American history and principles.

So much for the basic policy of inmiigration. With respect to the
second matter concerning legislation, I think it is important to recog-
nize that no law, no matter how conscientiously conceived and skill-
fully devised, will be ideal. However, I think it is reasonable to
expect that, even if a law falls short of attaining the ideal, it should
strive in the direction of the ideal, whereas our present law reflects
an attitude that seems to contradict American ideals at almost every
point.

Although the American philosophy rests upon the concept of the
worth and the rights of the individual, our immigration policy aud
law are fashioned on a discriminatory concept of race, nationality,
and so forth.

I should like to rej^eat that the problems involved in this question,
particularly with respect to legislation, are exceedingly complex.
Even in seeking to conform more closely to the ideals and principles
of our national life and history, no law can ignore the many problems
and changing conditions of domestic and international afl'airs. How-
ever, to be realistic about these problems and to I'ecognize the need for
certain practical limitations and controls in administering a liberal
immigration policy is certainly entirely different from a policy which
is restrictive and based fundamentally on fear and suspicion. The
former — namely, a liberal immigration policy consistent with Ameri-
can ideals and principles — recognizes immigration as a constructive
factor in our national life and seeks to keep the doors open as much
as possible. The latter essentially regards immigration as evil and
seeks to close the doors as much as possible.

I think, furthermore, that the conflict between these two attitudes
toward immigration is closely correlated with the conflict between
other opposing points of view in the interpretation of American

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1029

(leinocrjR-y. One ^\ll() does not interpret the American Constitution
as jiliaranteeino- equal ri<ihls to all of its citizens, reojardless of race,
color, and creed, is not likely to have a very liberal attitude toward
jmniitrration. An oi'iianizat'ion ^vhich is restrictive and practices dis-
crimination is not likely to favor a liberal immigration law.

I shoukl Ike to make a few concrete suggestions A,vith respect to
immigration legislation,

1. An American innnigration law. consistent with American history
and principles, should indicate a favorable rather than a negative
attitude toward immigration. AVhatever limitations or controls that
it might be necessarv to embody in the law should be devised to make
the law fair, orderly, and constructive rather than restrictive. In
brief, I believe our innnigration law should be hunuine rather than
hostile.

2. Insofar as it is possible within the limits of orderly immigration,
the law should strive toward the elimination rather than the tighten-
ijig of preferences or discriminations against any group.

;>. One of the most important aspects of an American immigration
law shorild provide for a haven of refuge, when the necessity arises,
as it fre(iuently has in our time. In my experience in the armed serv-
ices during World War II, I saw some of the vast and needless human
tragedy that resulted fiom both the restrictive nature of our immigra-
tion policy and the even more restrictive administration of the law by
consular and immigration authorities.

4. From an ideal point of view, it would be better to eliminate
the quota system. However, in the face of practical problems, quotas
might be necessary, certainly these quotas should not be based on any
discriminatory principle. Further, it should be possible for any un-
used quotas to be fillecl by others in any given year. The purpose of a
quota should be the necessity of providing for orderly immigration
rather than as a principle of discrimination.

5. It seems to me that it is in our own best interests that our
inmiigTation law should be most careful to preserve family units and
the integrity of family life. Under the quota system, as it operates
presently, and has operated in the past, based on national origin, many
ijidividuals have been faced with a tragic choice, and many families
ha\e been destroyed as a consequence.

G. It seems to be apparent to many that some provisions of the
present law, ostensibly motivated to protect American security against
subversives, are strangely silent with respect to Fascists, Nazis, and
other totalitarian agents.

7. This statement has said nothing with regard to the question of
naturalization. I think only this much need be said at the moment:
No law of any kind can be regarded as consistent with American
principles or the American Constitution, if it establishes, in effect,
gradations of citizenship. Our laws should establish and protect the
equality of the naturalized citizen, making no distinction between him
and the native-born citizen, with respect to privileges, obligations,
and penalties.

In conclusion, I should like to say that it is the opinion of the Board
of Rah'bis of Northern California that on all of these points, as w^ell
as many others unmentioned, both in spirit and in nature, the present
law scores in the negative. It is a bad law, both technically and in
the light of American principles.

1030 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you.

Is Mr. Edward H. Heims here ?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD H. HEIMS, INVERNESS, CALIF., AN

INDIVIDUAL

Mr. Heims. I am Edward H. Heims of Inverness, Calif.

I do not represent anybody at the moment. I have been the chair-
]nan of a committee on immigration of the immigration section of
the Commonwealth Club of California in 1950, but I have no right to
talk in behalf of any other members of the club. I only can refer
to the report published at that time, which has been accepted by a
majority of the section.

I have no prepared statement and am willing to answer your
questions. I, personally, am interested, I would say, in the following
questions : Limitation of numbers of immigrants, in which limitation
if at all; secondly how the selection of immigrants should be done —
these are the two main questions. I may say that all that I would
have to say — the first as to the long-term immigration policy of the
United States — does not refer to the problem of displaced persons
and refugees, which might have to be treated, I would say, much more
liberally according to very special considerations. Neither would I
be competent to talk about any matters from the security point of view.
But the two other questions — if I first may talk about the limitation
of numbers: You always hear the argument from others, from the
people who do not want immigration, but I think it can very clearly
be proven today that productivity in this country increases much
faster than any population ever can increase. It is strange to say
that productivity, the production of goods increases in a geometric
measure by the simple reason that every invention breeds new in-
ventions; so, you have the picture of geometrical increase. If you
take any statistics — you can start in any year you want — I think the
fiscal production in the United States has doubled since 1939 or so.
Certainly, the population has not doubled. But, whichever period
you take, you always find the same picture. So, for the United States,
the problem of the population would increase so fast that goods can-
not be produced fast enough should be out. It is not even right for
agricultural production.

I have been a farmer the last 12 years, and I know how much it is
possible just by using the accepted measures which the Department of
Agriculture, or every college, or every country farm adviser, would
teach to multiply the present production Avithin the United States.
Without au}^ difficulty on my place now, which is 40 miles from San
Francisco, in 1 month more milk is produced than when I took it over
during a full year, and that can be done just by using the ordinary
methods — bringing it up together, and feeding it properly, and so on.

The CHAiRMA?«r. What is your regular business ?

Mr. Heims. Formerly I have been a jurist. I have been a banker.
I was managing director of the National Mortgage & Investment Corp.
for more than 10 years. I have been formerly, in my younger years,
a German Government official for 4 years in the (Terman Foreign
Office. I have publislied a few books on criminology, delinquency, and

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1031

llo^v, after I liave retired more or less, for llie last 12 years I live 40
miles from here on this farm.

Commissioner O'Gkady. Is it a dairy farm?

]\Ir, Heims. It is a dairy farm.

The Chairman. How lon<>- have you been in this country?

Mr. Heims. Since the spring- of 1937 I immifjrated permanently,
but I knew this country very well before. I Avas first here as deleoate
to an International Prison C'ouoress in 1910 in AVashington, and toured
the whole country Avith this Penitentiary Congress, and afterward
was managino- director of this American company — I had to be back
and forth. I left Germany in 193)) for Amsterdam — London first —
and in the beginning of 1937 I came over for good, acquired American
citizenship in due course, and never have been back to Europe since.

The CiiAiR:\rAX. You Avere chairman of the innnigration committee
of the Commonwealth Club ?

Mr. Heims. The ConnnouAvealth Club had an immigration section,
and the section had two connnittees, and both committees drew up the
report. I was the chairman of the so-called committee B, but the re-
port of this committee became the majority report. The main recom-
mendations of this report— which I don't want to read here because
I will just give it for your files- — Avas, first: that they Avanted to limit
innnigration to an amount of the population — that means 300,000.
I, personally, avouIcI be more liberal, but I just liaA^e to report the point
of vieAv of this committee.

Mv. RosENFiELD. 300,000 a year ?

Mr. Heims. 300,000 a year. Secondly, that the main point Avas that
the selection should be independent of any quota; that the selection
should be independent of quota, race, religion, nationality

Commissioner O'Grady. Did you develop any measures of selection ?

Mr. Heims. Yes. We tried to find a measure of selection, and we
thought that noAvadays the sciences of psychology, sociology, and
anthropology are far enough advanced to Avork out: objectiA-e tests,
Avhich should be independent of the personal vieAv of, say, the consular
officer. Also, I tried to find out from competent sources about it. For
instance, I talked about it Avith the man Avho has Avorked out the pres-
ent Army tests, and he Avrote me a letter. It is Mr. Henry Chaimcey,
president of the Educational Testing Seiwice in Princeton, and he
writes :

I was naturally especially interested in your recommendation that tests be
used in the selective-immigration program that is recommended. There is no
question in my mind that tests effective for this purpose can be devised. The
research necessary to develop suitable iests could be merely the application of
the knowledge and experience that has been acquired in the field of testing over
the past 1.") or 20 years and should yield satisfactory results.

XoAv, to avoid misunderstandings, the idea Avas not just to make an
intelligence test, because it is not intelligence alone Avhich should be the
deciding factor, but that with all the equipment of modern scientists
tests can be Avorked out measuring iutelligence and all the other factors
of the total personality.

Connnissioner O'Cirada'. What if you get peoi)les that have no
skills — as would be common to many from tlie Middle East ^

Mr. Heims. I don't tliiuk il would be a question of skills.

Connnissioner O'Ctirada'. Some of the places don't have even the
most elementary skills. They Innc a [)rol)lem reptiii'ing their Avagon

1032 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

wheels, and they haven't become accustomed to the use of tools. How
would you apply it to such people ?

Mr. Heims. Say, our tests, for instance, now which are worked out
were so-called nonvariable tests, and it is possible to test little cliildren,
little babies, or little children of 3 or 4 years can be tested for certain
qualities anyway, so, that can be overcome. Mostly, these people
wouldn't want to immigrate anywaj'. If they want to, and there
should be found amongst them, certainly, some very outstanding per-
son, according to all measures we have, why shouldn't we let him
immigrate? He would learn his skills here. It is not the skills he
brings. I, personally, am of the opinion we should not select so much
according to the skills a man has acquired, according to the temporary
labor requirements he can fill in this country — that is a very temporary
thing. I think in the past the large immigration of Chinese, of Ne-
groes, and so on, Avhich gives anyway now occasion to frictions and
makes so much of our problems, has been caused because one Avanted
to fill temporary needs, and we have now the task to adapt these people
to our way of life, and we seem to succeed, but we all know how hard
this problem has become.

So, I think we should select not because we need just people who are
able — I don't know to v/hat kind of mechanical skill better than at the
moment the supply of labor can do it here — but people who have the
real innate constitutional abilities to develop into desirable per-
sonalities.

Now^, in this report, all the different occupations which are possible
to consider against this point of view we have tried to consider. Cer-
tainly, we don't want to have one part of a family immigrate. We
always have to consider the family as a whole. And there are similar
problems which come up, and which have to be solved in a reasonable
and i^ractical way.

But as I see section 203 in the McCarran Act, where it says that the
first 50 percent of the quota area should be reserved for immigrants
whose services are determined by the Attorney General to be needed
urgently in the United States, because of the high education, teclinical
training, specialized experience, or exceptional ability of such immi-
grants, and to be substantially beneficial prospectively to the national
economic, cultural interest, or welfare of the United States, I would
have several objections against this wording. First, it is clearly
within the quota, and accordirig to our conception it should replace
the quota. Secondly, the judgment is completely left to administra-
tive agencies, to the consular agent very much, and there is no objec-
tive way to arrive at this result, and we don't know how that in the
future may be subject to politics, to the influence of, say. Congressmen
and so on, and it should just be the purpose to make the innnigration
policy independent of influences which should not have anything to
do with it.

Commissioner O'Grady. Is that your basic objective to the process
of selectivity ?

Mr. Heims. In that way it can be abused ; as it is worded here it can
be abused very much. The selectivity here is based on the fact that
the immigi\ants right away can render highly valuable services to this
country. I think it is more important to have personalities which are
desirable for this country, which, in the long run, if you would have

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1033

imnii^-ation of especially good people, would be beneficial to the de-
Aelopnient of the American population in itself. Partly, we were
moved by the fact that in our population there is the differential bii'th
rate. That means; that it seems that those people who are able to render
the most valuable services, or liave proven to be here, a <j:ood part of
the population of that tyiH' have the least nujnbei- of children, and
that thereby the popuhition in this country would be bound within gen-
erations to decrease in quality. Some immigration can be used to offset
that trend, for instance, by saying that those people who are admitted
should be at least the average of the American population. If you only
give that as a standard, then the average of this innnigration, of
course, M'ould be already above the minimum standard and you would
have reached quite a bit.

But, if, what is likely, Congress would decide anyway on a numerical
limit of imniigj-ation, you just would have to tight for th.ose kinds of
requirements which fill this figure, which can be done by testing ex-
perts; the Army does that all the time. If they just say, for instance,
in these colleges that oidy the upward 80 percent or 50 percent or 70
percent are left out from the draft — it is a very easy procedure.

I would like to give vou these reports. I would like to give you the
cop\^ of this letter of Mr. Chauncey, and, if I may, 1 would like to give
you a copy of some n<;tes 1 made in preparation of the report about
the implementation of this testing, which I could not put into the
report because we did not have enough space.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Heims, would it be possible for you to let us
have a copy of this report^ for each member of the Commission — that
would be seven copies?

]\Ir. Heims. Very gladly.

Mr. RosENFiELi). If you can send it to our ofKces in Washington the
Commission will be very liappy to have a copy of the report from as
distinguished a body as the CommonAvealth Club.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Heims.

Mr. Walter Zuger, you are the next witness..

STATEMENT OF WALTER ZUGER, REPRESENTING E. V. ELLINGTON,
DIRECTOR OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, STATE
COLLEGE OF WASHINGTON, AND ALSO A. A. SMICK, CHAIRMAN
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE DISPLACED PERSONS COMMISSION

Mr. Zuger. I am Walter Zuger, and I represent E. V. Ellington,
director of the agricultural extension service. Stave College of Wash-
ington, of which I am also a meuiber; I also have with me a letter
written by Prof. A. A. Smick, a member of the agricultural extension
service at State College of Washington and chairman of the Washing-
ton State Displaced Persons Commission. He asked me to submit it
for the record, and I would like to present it.

The Chairman, Professor Smick's paper will be inserted in the
record.

1 The ConitnonweaUh. pt. 2, United Statps ImmiRration and Population Growtli, vol.
XXVI. No. 40, San Francisfo 1!), Calif., November 13, 1950.

1034 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

(The letter of Prof. A. A. Smiek. chainiuui. Washington State Dis-
placed Persons Commission, is as follows :)

Pullman, Wash., October 9. 1932.
Mr. Harry Rosenfield,

Executive Director, Immigration and ls!aturalii:ation Commission,
San Francisco, Calif.

Dear Mr. Rosenfield : It is my understanding that you are conducting a liear-
ing in San Francisco on October 14 in an attempt to get tlie tliinking of a cross
section of citizens regarding our present immigration laws. Since I will not be
able to be present at the hearing, I am taking the liberty of sending this letter
to you at San Francisco with the request that it be included as a part of the
testimony that you have been able to secure from citizens in the Pacific coast
area. As you know, I liave been chairman of tlie Governor's Committee on Dis-
placed Persons in the State of Washington for the past 2 years. Althougli I
am speaking as an individual citizen, I do want to make it clear that I sincerely
believe that I am expressing the point of view of every single member of our
committee in the testimony that I am submitting. I make this statement on
tlie basis of the rather lengthy discussions that we have had on the matter of
the present immigration legislation.

In my estimation the present legislation on tlie statute books does not ex-
press the basic philosophies and beliefs of the majority of our American citizens.
I am lirmly convinced that the present legislation violates the American tradi-
tion in a number of ways. To be more specific, I believe, the violations are as
follows :

1. The present law placed certain individuals and groups of individuals in a
very unfavorable position. The law provides for deportation of individuals who
have committed any number of acts either willfully or without being aware of
the implications of their act. It is my belief that every person should have the
right accorded to all individuals in America and should be given the full protection
of our judicial system and not be put in a position of second-class citizenship. I
agree that full power should be given to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to keep out or to deport undesirable aliens or others who are a threat
to our way of life. At the same time, however, I feel that the rights of indi-
viduals must be protected if we are to preserve the heritage that has been handed
down to us by our forefathers. Traditionally in America we should hold to the
philosophy that a man is innocent until proven guilty. The provisions of the
present law almost completely reversed that procedure and placed the burden of
proof on the person involved. That is, assuming that he is guilty unless he can
prove his innocence.

2. It is my feeling that under the provisions of the present law we are setting
up a procedure without any consideration for the actual facts in the case. A very
tight quota is set up for immigration from various countries to America without
any regard to the basic demands for certain types of labor in industry, agricul-
ture, lumliering, fishing, etc. It is my feeling that it would be very wise to make
an analysis of (uu- labor needs in the various fields of endeavor and then attempt
to adapt our immigration laws to meet the needs of our various groups for labor
more adequately.

3. The retention of the quota system in my estimation was very luifortunate.
This quota system discriminates against certain national groups, particularly
those from southern Europe. In so doing, there is also put into effect discrimina-
tion against certain religious groups. Such a provisicni is definitel.v not in line
with the American tradition, and I am unalterably opposed to such legislation.
By keeping it in effect, we are discriminating against many of the refugees who
have l)een forced to leave these countries and are now belsinil tlie iron curtain.
They represent a potential resource that could be advantageously used in the
battle against communism. At the same time, by allowing the migration of such
groups to this country, we would be helping to solve a problem in Europe that if
allowed to continue might create a situation that will result in a major social
unheaval and be at least partially responsible f(n- their world war III or the
extension of the iron curtain.

4. I know that, under the stress and strain of a national emergency, ensotions
play too large a part in the decisions made by our legislators. I sincerel.v hope
tliat it will be possible to have a reconsideration of some of the provisions now
in the present law. Even the most ardent supporters of the present bill tliat has
been placed on the statute books agree that tliere were some weaknesses in the

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1035>

legislation. I hope that it will be possiljje to secure the support of those Individ-
xials as well as the ones who orijiinally were opposed to tlie principles involved;
in some sections of the Mc('an-an-WalIer bill.

I want to take advantage of this opportunity of testify inu publicly that by far
the larsjest majority of all the persons resettled in tiie Slate of Washington under
the Displaced I'ersons Act liave become model citizens and an asset to our
community. I hope that our legislation can be changed so that more of these
potential citizens can be allowed to come to this country to live useful lives
instead of being forced to '•rof in some foreign land where there is no future
for them.

Sincerely yours,

A. A. S.MICK,

Chairman, Waslihiffton t>tate,
Di.s placed Persons Committee.

Tlie Chairman. And you represent ?

Mr. ZuGER. I represent E. V. Ellington, director of the agricultural'
extension service, State College of Washington.

The Chairman. And you are connected with the State college your-
self in what capacity '^

Mr. ZuGER. That's correct. I am finance officer at present. My back-
ground and training is in agriculture in the Pacific Northwest. I was
with the emergency farm labor program 5 years during World War II,
My background is having been raised on a farm in southwestern Wash-
ington.

Connnissioner O'Grady. You are an agriculturalist ?

]Mr. ZuGER. Yes.

Commissioner O'Grauy. You are not a rural sociologist ?

Mr. ZuGER. No ; I am not.

The Chairman. Fine, you may proceed.

Mr. ZuGER. I have given the first part of my talk here already.
What I would like to do is to bring out primarily a few of the per-
tinent factors pertaining to agriculture. That is my background. I
no not pretend to speak for the industry nor the professions,, but
agriculture, particularly in the State of Washington.

The Chairman. Does the record show where the college is ?

Mr. ZuGER. It is at Pullman, Wash.

Commissioner O'Grauy. Is that in eastern Washington?

Mr. ZuGER. That's correct, Pullman, Wash. We are about 80 miles
south of Spokane.

Conmiissioner O'Grauy. Are you going to speak about agriculture
both in eastern and in western Washington 'i

Mr. ZuGER. Yes; that's right.

What I would like to say is that agriculture has some peculiar prob-
lems that probably are somewhat in variance with the information
that has been given this morning. We have 160,000,000 people
right now. We are increasing at the rate of about 21/0 million a 3'ear ;
since 1940, agricultural i)roduction has increased by some 40 percent.
Kiglit now, the United States Department of Agriculture is telling us
that our farms must produce 40 percent per acre more food, and fiber
by 1975 than is now being produced. In other words, 40 percent
increase from 1940 to 1950, and from 1950 to 1975 an additional 40
percent per acre.

They are i)utting it this way, and I am sure that you gentlemen have
heard it: That by 1975 for every four plates we have 011 the table
here in the United States now, Ave must add a fifth plate.

2535G— 52 66

1036 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

In the past three decades our farminji' methods have changed from
horse and mnle power to an ahiiost complete mechanization. There
are less people engaged in farming today than at any time in our
history. Agriculture has made tremendous strides in increasing pro-
duction of all kinds through the use of improved varieties of crops,
the adoption of better farming and management practices, and in-
creased use of machinery — all with less and less labor. There ap-
pears to be no reason for a change in this trend in the near future. I
know of one hop farm in Washington which used 2,000 workers in
1040 to harvest the crop. Through mechanization this labor need was
reduced to 400 workers in 1952. I could name you many, many similar
instances of this in our State of Washington.

From the time of our earliest settlers, new lauds were available for
settlement almost for the asking. This is no longer true. Agricul-
ture is presently engaged upon a trenmedous program called grass-
lands farming — it is a part of a world-wide program — in an effort to
attain better use of available agricidtural lands. Some new land is
heiu.g brought under cultivation through drainage and irrigation
projects. However, the acres of new land being brought under cul-
tivation does not offset the loss in acres of some of our best land being
taken for urban expansion, development of industrial plants, defense
needs, and many other nonagricultural uses. Many parts of our
coinitry are already facing problems of water supply both for domes-
tic and irrigation purposes. This is a further limiting factor on our
ex])ansion toward increased agricultural production.

Agriculture is, in fact, being told that in the very near future we
must change from an economy of surpluses and production controls
to an economy of scarcity of essential food and fiber to feed and
clothe our rapidly increasing population.

Considering these factors from the standpoint of agriculture,
should we not at this point take the necessary time to study carefully
our current and our long-range labor needs? Should we not attempt
to determine now what our future problem may be, before proposing
to increase the flow of immigration into the United States through the
changes in our present immigration and naturalization laws?

I have not touched on other phases of the present laws since they
have been covered by Dr. Smick, whose training in sociology covered
those.

I would just like to raise these questions so that I can personally be
sure that the Commission is aware that there is another side. My
background is one in which I am a second generation of immigrants.
My grandfather came from Switzerland. I think some of these things
I liaA^e attempted to bring out are in the minds of a lot of our people.

I find myself on both sides of the table. I can recognize the humani-
tarian aspects of the deal, and yet I think we have some more serious
problems to consider. I think now is the time to consider them.

That is my presentation.

The Chairman. What did you mean when you said you are "on
hoth sides of the table"?

Mr. Zugf:r. I am saying that we have agricultural production prob-
lems, how to feed and clothe these people. That is one side of the
thing. Agriculture in the United States, or in particular what I am
familiar with in the Northwest, has already increased 40 percent, and

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1037

"\ve are told it imist incicase another 40 percent. There is a limitation
on wliat we can do in a*i"ricultin'e or what we can or cannot do in
])ro(liiction.

Connnissionei- O'Guady. Take the picture in New En^hmd regard-
ing immigration. They have made a living for themselves of fairly
up-to-date agriculture. Tliey have their fruit and vegetable farm-
ing. They are farming to a large degree. That is standard to all
Xew England areas. Do you considei- that a possibility and an outlet
for some more ]HM)ples^

Mr. ZiciKK. AVell, for my thinking, that is an alternative that ^^e
can do; yes. If you want to break iij) the lands — the big producing
facilities into small units on a subsistencA^ basis — yes; that could be
done.

Commissioner O'Grady. Aren't you doing it in western Wash-
ington ?

Mr. ZuGKR. That is what we are saying. AVe are taking lands out
of western Washington faster than we are bringing them in.

Commissioner O'Grady. What about the timberland where people
are now in increasing numbers? I have seen these folks go out there
and clean out the sttimps and make a pretty good living on rather
small farms with diversified agriculture, vegetables, and some dairy-

Mr. ZuGER. I think you will find, Father, that most of those people
are depending for a good portion of their living from income working
off the land.

Commissioner O'Grady. I think those I have talked to in western
Washington are thinking basically about farming as a way of life.
It seems to me you are thinking in terms of big farmers and that we
are going to become bigger and bigger. But isn't there another de-
velopment here that is going on in the South and other sections of the
country where the tendency is to have smaller farmers?

Mr, ZuGER. What you say is very true about the small farms in
western Washington, The agriculture extension service is the county
agent program. Are you familiar with the county agent program?

Commissioner O'Grady, Yes ; I think I know about that,

Mr. ZuGER. The western Washington area is gettin.g more and more
requests from people on those submarginal areas, wdiicli we think
should never have been taken out of timber and should go back into
timber, for "How in the world am I going to make a living on this
place? I just cannot raise enough to raise my family and send the
children to school and pay taxes and eat." That is the kind of
questions we are getting.

Commissioner O'Grady. But how much direction have they had in
setting up their farms? You are familiar with the operations of the
Farmers Home Administration in Washington, I assume.

Mr, ZuGER, Yes,

Commissioner O'Grady. And you know the demands all over the
cotmtry for expansion of that program in building up these small
farms so they just don't go in there iiulorsed. They have guidance
so that they have an economic holding and have practical guidance in
dealing with that soil and building it up so they can make it up into
subsistence. I think that is something your extension service hasn't
been able to do very well with that sort of farming.

1038 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Mr. ZuGER. But the Farmers Home Administration in our State
has not gone into that submarginal area. They have made sure there
has been enough land before they will loan a new man starting out
anything. They are making sure he has a unit in which he can pro-
duce.

Commissioner O'Grady. But I have observed that they help him
to build that up.

The Chairman. Let me ask you : Is the burden of what you are
saying about being on one side of the table or the other that you are-
recommending we don't have any more immigration to the United
States?

Mr. ZuGER. No. What I am trying to say is this : That I think we
should take the necessary time now, rather make our changes in
the law based on the type of hearing or material that is being pre-
sented today. If it takes us 5 years or if it takes 10 years, let's see
where we are going and what the future is. Can we support all of
these people ? Let's do it now.

The Chairman. Now, under the existing legislation there is provi-
sion for some 154,000 every year

Mr. ZuGER. Yes.

The Chairman. So that that is what may happen if we don't do
anything in 1 year or 5 years.

Mr. Zuger. That is right.

The Chairman. And so we could within that number of some 154,-
000, which under existing law would come in anyhow except maybe
from those countries which don't use the quotas assigned to them, con-
sider such changes as would not affect the total picture that you are
thinking about but might affect the method we employed to determine
who should come in in that number. Is that your thought?

Mr. Zuger. Yes.

The Chairman. You would be in favor of that?

Mr. Zuger. Yes.

The Chairman. But you don't think, as I understand it, that there
should be any increases until we are sure that what we are doing is
in the interest of the United States over a long-range period?

Mr. Zuger. That is what I would like to see.

Commissioner Gullixson, Might I ask, what is the size of a typical
southeastern Washington wheat farm?

Mr. Zuger. Oh, about a half section would be the average size. They
will range from 100 acres — I am talking of the wheat land — to 200^^
acres in a farm.

Commissioner Gullixson. What Mould be the chance of an immi-
grant getting his feet on the ground and in a lifetime possessing one
of those farms with his equipment too ?

Mr. Zuger, I wish I knew. I do know this : That on my father's-
farm it takes about $35,000 worth of equipment to get started farm-
ing. The land there is right now selling from $175 to $225 an acre^
I think you would have to have at least a half section to start. You
can't support $35,000 worth of equipment on a half section or eveiL
a small portion of that.

Commissioner Gullixson. How large would the typical irrigatioiL
farm be in the Columbia Valley?

Mr. Zuger. In the Columbia Basin, about 68 to 72 acres is what
it will run. There your equipment investment to get started on il

COMMISSION OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1039

farm. I think, would be $15,000 or $16,000, and to cret started with
jour buildings and things. You have a rather substantial indebted-
ne.ss for irrigation construction and water charges immediately. It
is not easy.

Commissioner Guojxsox. Is there priority as to rights to go into
these TO-acre farms?

^Ir. ZuGER. Just in certain sections, in those owned by the Gov-
ernment of the United States where there are some drawings for
veterans. There are considerable private lands there.

The CiiAiiorAN. Thank you very much.

Is Mr. Jack Wong Sing here ?

STATEMENT OF JACK WONG SING. ACCOMPANIED BY SAMUEL YEE,
KEPRESENTING THE CHINESE CONSOLIDATED BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION AND CHINESE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF SAN
FRANCISCO

Mr. Sing. I am Jack Wong Sing, an attorney, 550 Montgomery
Street. San Francisco. I am accompanied by Mr. Samuel Yee, and
we are appearing in behalf of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent
Association and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of San Fran-
cisco.

We have a prepared statement for the record, which I wish to sup-
jDlement with a little talk.

The Chairman, We will insert your prepared statement in the
record and you may proceed with your talk.

(There follows the prepared statement submitted by Jack Wong
Sing in behalf of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association :)

Statement of Views of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association

This written memorandum is offered to si;pplement the oral presentation
to be made before the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion expressing the views of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association
relative to the objectionable and inequitable features of Public Law 414 of the
Eighty-second Congress which revises the laws relating to immigration, naturali-
zation, and nationality to take effect on December 24, 1952. This organization
represents the Chinese people in western America.

The features of the new law for which we hope that your honorable body will
see fit to recommend corrections and amendments are as follov/s :

I. lack of judicial review and DETER^rINATION OF NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP

Under present existing laws, the pertinent provisions of section 003 of the
Nationality Act of 1940, as amended (S U. S. C. 903) reads as follows:

"If any person who claims a right or privilege as a national of the United
States is denied su^h right or privilege by any department or agency, or execu-
tive official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United
States, such person, regardh'ss of whether he is within the United States or
abroad, may institute an action against the head of such departniont or agency
in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia or in
the district court of the United States for the district in whicli such person
claims a permanent residence for a judgment declaring him to be a national
of the United States * * *."

This section of the law was originally written by the then Senator Warren
Austin on the theory that "a citizen of the United States, wheresoever located,
shall have the right to have l)is status as such determined judicially and to come
to the United States for that purjiose." The filing of a suit under this section
of the law is the only recourse in which a person, in tlie United States or abroad.

1040 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

after a denial of his riglit or claim of citizenship by an administrative agency,,
may institute an action to judicially determine his citizenship status.

Section 3G0 of the new immigration law specitically abolishes the relief afforded-
to a person covered by said section 503 of the present Nationality Act.

This new act abolishes court action to those individuals abroad whose claim.'
of nationality and citizenship may be denied by arbitrary and capricious action
of an American consular officer and the safeguard of judiical procedure is
eliminated. In the case of a denial of a person's claim to citizenship by the
Immigration Service and the Attorney General on an application for admission
to the United States, the new act likewise deprives such a person of a judicial
determination of his citizenship whereby all the rules of evidence and procedure
would be strictly adhered and the fundamental rights of a person are protected.

For the past several years, American consular officials abroad have been,
authorized to issue travel' affidavits in lieu of United States passports to permit
a subject to come to the United States to present his claim of citizenship for
investigation and determination by the immigration authorities, who are in
possession of files and records covering the entire family history, and who are
in a better position to examine the witnesses in the United States. Upon the
refusal of the American consul to allow the subject to proceed to the United
States for this purpose, the subject has a remedy of resorting to the United
States district courts for a judicial determination by the filing of an action under
section 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended (8 U. S. C. 903). Section
104 (a) (3) of the new act gives the Secretary of State complete control over
all questions relating to the manner in which the powers, duties, and functions
of consular and diplomatic officers are to be administered and gives the Secretary
of State the sole power of determination of nationality and citizpnship of a
person not in the United States and such action is not reviewable either by the
Attorney General or the courts. It would seem also, that this determination of"
a person's claim of citizenship is being taken out of the hands of the Immigration
Service and the Department of Justice into the hands of the Secretary of State,
leaving it solely to the discretion of the consular service and the Department
of State to determine such vital and important issues such as nationality and
citizenship. Thus, the fate and destiny of an American citizen abroad rests
solely in tlie hands of officials who could abuse their discretionary power and
be arbitrai-y and unfair in their actions without any recourse therefrom.

In the case of Kicock Jan Fat, petitioner, v. White (2-53 U. S. 455), the court
states :

"The acts of Congress give great power to the Secretary of Labor over Chinese
immigrants and persons of Chinese descent. It is a power to be administered
not arbitrarily and secretly, but fairly and openly, under the restraints of the
traditions and principles of free government applicable where tlie fundamental
rights of men are involved, regardless of their origin or race. It is the province
of the courts, in proceedings of review, within the limits amply defined in the
cases cited, to prevent abuse of this extraordinary power."

This is particularly so when the proceedings before the consulate are taken
ex parte, without benefit of representation or counsel, and without the control
and regulations of rules of procedure and evidence. It can readily be seen
that a mere exercise of arbitrariness and bias would affect the entire destiny of
the individual and such deprivation of citizenship is without due process. But
wliat recourse under the new immigration act has an individual in this pre-
dicament? None whatever.

It has always been the fundamental principle of our democratic Government
to provide for an inherent right to judicial remedies for citizens whose status
and claim are challenged l^y such an administrative body. Citizens have always
been entitled to their day in court.

We do not believe that it was the intention of the advocates of this new
legislation to foster and countenance such an undemocratic situation. Thus,
it can be seen the need and necessity to reinstitute and continue the provisions
of section 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended (8 U. S. C. 903) as a
safeguard and protection of the fundamental rights of a citizen and to prevent
the "loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living,"'
Ng Fung Ho v. White (2.59 U. S. 276, 42 S. Ct. 492, G6 L. ed. 938).

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1041

II. CHILDREN BOKN SUB-SEQUENT TO MAY 24, 1934, AHUOAIl REACHING AGE 1 G BY

DECEMBER 24, 1952

Section 201 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, provides the
conditions for tlie retention of citizenship ot persons born abroad subsequent
to May 24, 19o4, of one citizen luirent and one alien parent as follows:

"That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its
outlying possessions l>y the time he reaches the age of 10 years, or if he resides
abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the 5 years'
residence in the United States ov its outlying possessions before the age of 21
years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease."

Section 301 (b) of the new act of V.)7,-2 carries forward substantially those
same provisions of section 201 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940 except the
time limit of the foreign-born cirizen born subsequent to May 24, 19;)4, to
commence residence in the I'nited States is extended to his twenty-third birthday.

"Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under
paragi-aph (7) and subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless
he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of 23 years and
shall, immediately following such coming, be continuously physically present
in the United States for at least 5 years * * *."

This act has given an opportunity to those citizens of the United States whO'
would have lost their citizenship on becoming 16 years of age by failing to take
up their residence in the United States to have until the twenty-third birthday in
order to arrive in the United States to retain their citizenship. However, a prob-
lem is created to those citizens who wei'e born subsequent to May 24, 1934, and
have already reached their sixteenth birtliday sometime between May 24, 1950,.
imtil the etlective date of this new act on December 24, 1952, and who have failed
to arrive in the United States due to circumstances beyond their control. Al-
though the new act gives the fortunate ones that are under 16 years of age an
additional 7 years in which to retain their status as citizens, the act does not
clarify or mention the status of those already past their sixteenth birthday iu
that the language of the savings clause 405 (c) of the new act states that it would
not restore citizenship to those who have heretofore lost same under any laws of
the United States.

We do not believe that it was the intention of the drafters of the law and of
Congress to create such an anomalous situation and it is respectfully urged that
a clarification thereof be made.

III. THE INEQUITIES OF THE QL'OTA SYSTEM TO THE CHINESE PEOPLE

One of the purposes of the new law on immigration, nationality, and naturaliza-
tion purports to break down all racial barriers to immigration. This act as it now
stands, continues without change in the national quota origin that was enacted
for the 1924 law, and the feature that still exists is the retention of the method
of computing the annual quota based on the foreign-born ratio of iiopulation
existing in the United States according to the census reports of 1920. This quota
system has long since been out of date and still discriminates against many of the
people of the world. The original purpose of the quota system was to control
and reduce immigration to the United States, but from the present day govern-
mental viewpoint of a restrictive and regulatory device, it has shown numerous
limitations and is now outmoded. The quota system has ignored the i-ealities of
immigration problems in granting too large quotas to countries which do not need
and use them, and in granting too small (piotas to coiuitries that do use and need
them. Statistics from the National Committee on Immiiiration Policy shows that
between the fiscal years of 1930 to 1940. instead of 2,61(),000 inunigrants being
admitted to the United States as provided by the quota system, only 560.000
persons actually arrived. This is less than 30 pei'cent of the total possible quotas
utilized.

In 1919 and 1921 when the principle of allotting quotas on the proportion of
people represented by the various nationalities were introduced by the congres-
sional conunittee hearings, the plan did not include quotas for Asiatics and those
people ineligible for citizenship, and consequently these people were banned.
It w«s only subsequently under President Roosevelt's Proclamation No. 2603
that the arbitrary figure of 105 iiersons p^r annum was set up as the quota basis
for the t'hinese. This quota for the Chinese people who comprise one-fifth of
the population of the world, is inequitable and discriminatory, particularly to a
people who have alv.ays been traditionally democratic and friendly to the United

3042 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

States. The quota of 185 for Japan with a much smaller population is over 75
percent greater than that of China, and the Chinese quota of 105 is only 5 more
than the niinimum granted for any country regardless of how small such country
Is. An exception also to the method of computing quotas based on the V.i'IO census
Teports is the computation of the quotas for the areas covered within the Asia-
Pacific trianf;ie. When you consider that the Asiatic population comprises one-
third of the population of the world, it would seem that some more equitable
method can be devised in the determination of annual quotas for immigrants that
'would not be at variance with the American ideals of fair play and based more
•on the needs of human beings.

Another objectionable- feature of the quota system is that all persons are
charged to the quotas of the countries of their birth with the exception of the
oriental people. With the Chinese people it does not matter wherever they were
born, or how long their ancestors have moved away from the land of their origin,
they are still charged only to the Chinese quota. For example, a Chinese person
or even one with 50 percent Chinese blood, whether born in France. Britain,
•Germany, or anywhere else, would still always be chargeal)le to the Chinese quota
-of 105 persons, but a non-Chinese person born in China, irrespective of the parents'
nationality, is chargeable to the quota of China being in the area covered by the
Asia-Pacific triangle. It is only to the Asians that this discrimination applies,
.■and as stated by President Truman in his veto message, "this discrimination is
without justification."

With recommendations that will lead to a removal of such inequities in the
■quota system, we will have succeeded in another step toward eliminating racial
"barriers from our immigration laws. William S. Bernard, in his book, American
Immigration Policy. iiul)lished under the sponsorship of the National Committee
on Immigration, states as follows:

"It certainly nmst be viewed as a matter of utmost immediate importance that
■no legislation should be left on our statute books which liars any individual from
the rights of citizenship or admission to the United States, as an immigrant on
racial grounds."

We are attempting to present in a brief and succinct form our views of the lead-
ing features of the new Immigration and Nationality Act of 1052, which we
sincerely l)elieve are inequitable, unfair, and undemocratic and which we fer-
vently hope will be recommended by your honorable body for revision, correction,
•or amendment.

Mr. Sing. ISIr. Chairman, members of the President's Commission
on Immi oration and Natnralization, jVIr. Yee and myself have been
asked to represent the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association
to present their views to your Commission on the inequitable parts
about the McCarran Act.

The orp:anization represents all the Chinese people in the western
part of the United States. They cover both the aliens and the citizens.
TS'^e are primarily interested in three phases of the McCarran bill which
•deal with both the citizens and the aliens abroad still in China now.

The first one we are concerned with is the lack of judicial relief
and determination of nationality and citizenship upon a denial by
an administrative body. Under the present laws today, as Senator
Warren Austin originally wrote it — he wrote section 503 of the
Nationality Act on the theory that a citizen of the United States,
whether he is abroad or whether he is in the United States, whose
status as a citizen is denied by an administrative body should be en-
titled to a judicial hearino; on his citizenship status, and by filin<v
an action under section 503 of the Nationality Act of 1040, as amended,
the person is allowed to come to the United States for the purpose of
judicially determining- his citizenship. Section 360 of this new immi-
gration act abolishes this right from all those citizens who are now
living abroad.

In the case of a denial of a citizenship right by the American consul,
under the new act there is no recourse of the courts. It has been the

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1043'

policy for the past several years for the American citizens abroad to
apply to the American consuls for permission to come to the United'
States, and after they get to the United States it is then that the
Immiirration Service takes over and examines them and examines the
-witnesses for their status as an American citizen. The Immigration
Service is the ])i'()per person to take this task since it has all the
family history hies and all the records. Under present existing law
if the American consulate should refuse this right to an American
citizen to proceed, we have our remedy to hie an action in the United
States district courts and in such a suit that is hied we have a judicial
examination. Under the McCarran Act, section 104 (a) , this act gives
the sole power to the Secretary of State to determine issues such as
nationality and citizenship.

It would seem that under this section a person's claim of citizen-
ship is taken out of the hands of the Lnmigration Service into the-
hands completely of the American consuls abroad and the State De-
partment. Under section 104 it provides that the actions of the
State Department cannot be reviewed by either the Attorney General's
office or the United States courts. So we concede that in a situation
as this a citizen's status abroad goes completely in the hands of an
administrative body. This is particularly so because the hearings
before the American consulate abroad are taken ex parte. They are
taken without the beneht of representation and counsel being present
and there is no control of the rules of evidence and procedure.

The Chairman. We have been told that by other witnesses we have
heard, but what do you propose be done about it ?

Mr. Sing. Fine. It has always been the fundamental principle of
our democracy to give all citizens their day in court.

The Chairman. We know that.

Mr. Sing. So to give them their day in court we should reinstitute
section 503 of the Nationality Act back into the ]\[cCarran Act. This
will give the persons and citizens abroad the right of judicial de-
termination of his rights. That is the first phase that we are inter-
ested in.

The second phase that we are interested in is for a clarification of
citizens abroad who were born after May 24, 1924. Section 201 (g)
of the Nationality Act of 1940 provides that for an American citizen
who has one alien parent and one citizen parent to retain his citizen-
ship must be in the United States by his sixteenth birthday. The new
section, section 301 (b) of the McCarran Act, carries forward the
same provisions, practically the same provisions, as the old bill with
one difference. It extends the period from 16 to 23 in which a citizen
abroad may arrive in the United States and not lose his citizenship.
This act then has given an opportunity to those who have not reached
their sixteenth birthday to have seven additional years, but a problem
is created to those who have already reached their sixteenth birthday
now or up to December 24, 1952.

On one hand, the McCarran Act says it applies to all persons born
after May 24, 1934. and on the other hand, it says that the new act will
not restore citizenship to those citizens who have heretofore lost the
same. AVe don't believe that it was the intention of the writers to
discriminate against the citizens that belong to the same class of per-
sons that are born after May 24. 1934, and we would like to have a

1044 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

clarification of the law so as to cover all persons born after May 21,
1934.

The third phase the Chinese people are interested in are the inequi-
ties of the quota system, especially of the Chinese people. Much has
iilready been said not only this morning but probably all over the
JS'ation too as to the inequities of this system, so it would be unneces-
sary to reiterate all the same arguments over again. However, I just
might add that the retention of the national quota system that was
enacted for this 1924 law is now out of date. The original purpose
■of the quota system was a regulation device or for purposes of reducing
immigration. From a present-day governmental view^point, I mean,
it is outmoded and it has shown many limitations. The quota system
gives too large quotas to those countries who don't use them and don't
need them. It gives too small quotas to those who use them and need
them. Statistics will show that for the fiscal years from 1930 to 1946
only 30 percent of the possible quotas vvere utilized. This was because
the countries that had too large quotas weren't able to use them all up.
"When they computed the principle of computing the quota system
based on the ratio of population of people in the United States dur-
ing the years of 1919 and 1921 when they had these Congressional
hearings, this plan did not include any quotas for the Asiatics or for
the people who were ineligible to citizenship, so these people were
back.

It was under President Roosevelt's administration that the figure
of 105 persons per annum was given to the Chinese people as their
quota. The quota for the Chinese people is inequitable and discrim-
inatory. The Chinese people comprise one-fifth of the population for
the world and they have always been traditionally democratic and
friendly toward the United States. The Japanese quota of 105 per-
sons with a much smaller population is 75 percent greater than that
of China. The Chinese quota too of 105 persons is only five more than
the bare minimum that is given to any country regardless of how
small that country is.

Another exception to the computation of the quota system based on
the racial population is the manner of determining the quotas for the
people who are in the Asia-Pacific triangle. Even then, when you
consider that the population of this group is one-third of the popula-
tion of tlie world it would seem that a more equitable method can be
set up for the quota system which would meet more of the human
needs.

The final objectionable feature we have of the quota system is that
all persons are charged to the quotas of the country of their birth with
the exception of the oriental f)eople. With the Chinese people it
doesn't matter where they are born and it doesn't matter how long
their ancestors have moved from China, they are still charged not only
to the country of their birth but to this Chinese quota of 105 per-
sons. A Chinese person born in France, a Cliinese person born in
England and being a French subject or an English subject is not
charged to the French or British quota, he is charged to the Chinese
quota. But a non-Chinese person born in China, irrespective of his
parentis nationality, is still charged to the Chinese quota that is in
the Asia-Pacific triangle.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1045

So, it is odIy to tlip Asians tliat this discrimination applies and, as
President Trnnian says in his veto message, this discrimination is with-
out justification.

We liave just attempted in a vory brief manner to ])resent a few of
the views of tliis AfcCan-an bill and the San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce of Chinatown has also asked that they go on record as sup-
porting the views that I have presented today.

The CuAiioiAX. All right. Thank you very much.

Is Mr. Lim P. Lee here;?

STATEMENT OF LIM P. LEE, JUDGE ADVOCATE, CATHAY POST 384,
AMERICAN LEGION OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Lee. I am Lim P. Lee, 1524 Powell Street, San Francisco, judge
advocate of Cathay Post ')84, American Legion, of California. I am
also past commander of that post.

On behalf of Cathay Post 384, 1 wish to read a prepared statement.

The Chairman. You may do so.

Mr. Lee. Mr. Chairman, honorable commissioners, Cathay Post,
284, American Legion, of California, is the largest body of Chinese-
American veterans of World Wars I and II in the United States,
heartily endorse the views of Attorneys Jack W. Sing and Samuel E.
Yee, the previous speakers, and official representatives of the Chinese
Consolidated Benevolent Association of America. However, we are
particularly interested in an amendment to Public Law No. 414 as
they affect a group of war veterans of Chinese ancestry in the United
States.

Although Cathay Post has maintained a general interest in the Mc-
Carran bill, we are particularly interested in section 329 (b) (2) of
the Humphrey-Lehman substitute bill, known as S. 2842, which is not
in Public Law No. 414. This is the particular section we are inter-
ested in :

A person filing a petition (of naturalization) may be naturalized regardless of
the existence of an outstanding finding of deportability, if such finding is not
based upon the charge of crime, subversion, or immorality ;

because a number of the veterans cannot be naturalized due to an out-
standing order of deportability issued by the United States Immigra-
tion Service.

I was in Washington, D. C., on May 19, 1952, when the McCarran
bill was being debated on the Senate floor, and I made representation
to California Senator, Senator Nixon, trying to get section 329 (b) (2)
in the McCarran bill. I explained to the Senator and the administra-
tive assistant of the Senator that w^e have quite a few World War II
veterans with fraudulent birth certificates, and. due to misguided ad-
vice, thev should not be penalized and be ordered deported. This
order of deportability is a bar to their naturalization.

As a veterans' organization, we have not taken partisan side on this
McCarran-Walter bill otlier than to try to secure the best possible
"break" for some of our comrades who have been ordered to be deported
by the Immigration Service, and hence a bar to their right to be nat-
uralized as boFia-fide citizens of the Ignited States. Due to poor advice
this group of veterans secured fraudulent birth certificates instead of
petitioning the court for naturalization, took out an American pass-

1046 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

port, and upon their return to the United States they are deportable^
due to fraud and perjury.

If section o29 (b) (:2)'of the Humphrey -Lehman bill is amended to
Public Law No. 414 it would ^o a long way to restore a right taken
away from a group of World War II veterans. These GI's are loyal
to the United States; they fought for their adopted country, and many-
wear combat decorations. All they ask is the right to submit a petition
for naturalization through the proper court, and let the court decide
whether they can be citizens of the United States or not. Under the-
present law, because of an outstanding order of deportability, they
are denied the right to submit any petition.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr, Louis Ferrari.

STATEMENT OE LOUIS FERRAEI, REPRESENTING AMERICAN COM-
MITTEE ON ITALIAN MIGRATION, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER

Mr. Ferrari. I am Louis Ferrari, attorney, 151 Upper Terrace, San
Francisco, Calif., representing the American Committee on Italian
Migration, California Chapter.

The Chairman. You may proceed.

ISfr. Ferrari. I am here to speak to you gentlemen on this problerab
as I view it from the standpoint of California, and I think I know a
little about it after having lived here some 72 years.

I believe that the naturalization laws at the time they were passed
undoubtedly must have had some reason behind them, and for the pur-
pose of my discussion I am willing to assume that way back in 1924
or 1926, wiien this agitation for restricted immigration took place, th&
people wlio passed them had some reason to do it.

With that belief, I believe that certain things have happened since
then that shows that their judgment either was faulty or that things
that happened afterward didn't go according to the way they thought
they would go.

First of all, the law as it was passed was intended to be an alloca-
tion, a reallocation of the immigration. As I understand it, it wasn't
intended to limit the immigration but to reallocate it. As a matter of
fact, what has happened is that the law has turned out to be practically
an abolition of immigration, and that is particularlv so with regard tO'
Italy.

The new act practically follows the old act. So, I say that any
legislation that doesn't take into consideration the facts that have oc-
curred and the fact that the legislation hasn't met the needs for
which it is passed is erroneous and it ought to be corrected.

Now take, for instance, Italy. It now has a quota of 5,800, I think.
Well, by technicalities and this man can't come and this man can
come, as I understand it, th.e actual number tliat come are practically
50 percent of that. Now, then, you have the other quotas of nations
that don't use them. Therefore, the law practically proliibits and says
we don't want any more immigration.

Another change has taken place that I think ought to be consid-
ered, nd that is the change in this Nation of ours. At the time the act
was originalh^ passed we were a Nation minding our own business
and trying to solve our own internal problems, problems of agricul-

COMMISSIOX OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1047

lure aiKl our problcMus of this, th:it, and the other. We Mei-en't too
much conceniecl in wluit Avas jzoing on in Europe or any other phice.
Fate has put its hand upon us and said, "You are now the header, the
Xo. 1 Nation of the (UMuocratic nations that are opposing the totali-
tarian form of <j;(>verninent." AVe have accepted that leadership, and
it seems to me. having done so, Ave have to do something about it.

Now. Avhat is tlie i)rohlem ^ Here is Italy, Avith a population of 47
]nillion ])eople and an acreage of land smaller tlian that of California
any by no means having the resources or tlie facilities to sup})ort that
population. We have poured money into Italy through the plans that
lui\-e been devised. In my humble opinion, that money is not going
to have the effect that it ought to have if the present restriction on
immigration is kept. The purpose, I assume, of makin<^ those ex-
penditures is to have an ally, to have a friend, to have somebody allied
Avith us Avho can either challenge the aggressor to keep aAvay or, if
he does come, can help us take care of it. Italy is an ally Avith a
present overi)o]Milatod condition and is absolutely useless to us. Her
OAvn internal i)roblenis are such that that population condition exists
on that acreage, and if Ave Avant an ally that can tight and can be of any
use to us Ave have got to put Italy on a basis Avhere this terrific prob-
lem of oA'erpopulation Avon't make her efforts annulative.

Moreover, she is right on the threshold there betAveen the tAvo con-
tending forces. We all knoAv that connnunism thrives on poverty. To
keep that oA-er])opulated condition, I think, is simply making it almost
certain that Italy Avill have to go maybe the other way. Noav, I don't
think the Italian i)eople Avant that. They are liberty-loving people,
iind if left alone they would be AAdioleheartedly Avith the democratic
nations, but you can't have a man who is starving — you can't have a
family Avhere the man is Avorking 12 or 14 hours a day and can't make
a living — and still have a successful ally.

XoAv, Avhat is tlie condition in California? I liave a feAV statistics
here Avhich to me Avei-e astounding. I dug them up the other day. I
didn't knoAv that the facts Avere as these statistics shoAv, First of all,
at the last count the population of California is 10,580,225. The rural
farm population is 546,000 and the percentage of the rural farm popu-
lation to the entire population of California is 5.2 percent. Com-
]iare that to the United States. The United States at the census that
I had avai]al)le to me shoAA-ed a poi)ulation of 150,9()7,000, Avith a
rural population of 23,577,000, or 22 percent. In Italy, Avith a popu-
lation of -lO.OOO.OOO, there are 45 percent Avorking on the farms. These
Avill appear in my statement Avhen I pre|)are it. AVe also have in Cali-
foi']iia u.nder iri'igation (>, 189,944 acres. In the next feAv months, Avhen
the Avater is available in some of the projects that we have already been
completed, it Avill be more than 1,000,000 more acres under water
available for farming.

Now, I don't knoAv Avhether you gentlemen are familiar with (Cali-
fornia, but all you have to do is go up and down California and every-
Avhere you Avill find a crying demand for skilled farmers. The fact
is that the farms are absolutely ci-ying for labor and people to Avork
them, but I am not so much concerned on that. I believe that Ave
should have a good Avholesome immigration in this State of people who
Avork their OAvn farms instead of having farms of 10,000 and 15,000
acres. Let's get them doAvn to reasonable proportions, to something

1048 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

like 150 or IGO acres, and have people working the farms. We can
thereby immeasurably increase the productivity of this State. Wer
can do a service to the world, and certainly if you are going to win as
a leader it is by means of production ; ancl California, in my opinion,,
hasn't started to produce yet in the farming industry and the cattle-
raising industry. The ground hasn't been scratched. We are just in
our infancy.

I believe my recommendation would be that we experiment witk
these immigration laws for a period so that this overpopulate«l situa-
tion can be r'jlieved so that the demand for farm labor and other
skilled pursuits can be met ; and then, when that is done, if we think
maybe it ought to have another look taken at it, let's do it. But there
is a demand, in my opinion, tliat something be done to liberalize the
immigration laws so that these countries, these southern European
countries, can be relieved of overpopulation so that we can obtain the
necessary labor and that we will have prosperous and friendly areas
in the great woi'k that we are trying to accomplish.

I thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

We will now recess until 1 : 30 p. m. this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the Commission recessed until 1:30
p. m. of the same day.)

HEARINGS BEFORE THE

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION

tuesday, october 14, 1952

San Francisco, Calif,
twentieth session

The President's Commission on Immigration and Natnralization
met at 1 : 30 p. m., pursnant to recess, in Civic Center Building, San
Francisco, Calif., Hon. Philip B. Perlman, Chairman, presiding.

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

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

The Chairman. The Connnission will now come to order. This
afternoon we will hear first from Mr. Harry D. Durkee, who is ac-
companied by Dr. George C. Guins and Col. L. W. Meinzen.

STATEMENT OF HARRY D. DURKEE, REPRESENTING THE LU-
THERAN RESETTLEMENT SERVICE IN SAN ERANCISCO; L. W.
MEINZEN, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, LUTHERAN RESETTLE-
MENT SERVICE IN SAN FRANCISCO ; AND GEORGE C. GUINS,
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALI-
FORNIA

Mr. DuRKEE. I am Harry D. Durkee, 6715 Canyon Trail, El Cerrito,
Calif., representing the Lutheran Resettlement Service in San Fran-
cisco. I am accompanied by Col. L. W. Meinzen, 3707 Atlas Avenue,
Oakland, Calif., president of our board, and Dr. George C. Guins, a
political scientist of the University of California, where he teaches a
course in the legal order of the Communist states.

It is a real privilege to appear before the President's Commission.
Our representation from the Lutheran Resettlement Service will be
broken up into three jiarts. One is a discussion of the guiding prin-
ciples for immigration legislation, which Colonel JNIeinzen will take,
and, secondly, a discussion briefly of some of the issues involved, and,
thirdly, a personal testimony from the view of a political scientist
here, Dr. Guins.

Colonel Meinzen. Mr. Chairman and members of the Connnission,
our work here is made very much easier by our presence here this
morning and having heard the testimony of quite a few other people.

1049

1050 COMMISSION OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

As most of them, so do we believe that our immigration hiws now be-
ing studied should receive a very careful study with the view toward
a new approach to the whole question. We believe that our immigra-
tion laws should be an enlightened and a liberal approach to the prob-
lem of immigration from two different levels : the problem as it affects
us, the United States of America and its citizens, and also peoples of
other worlds and other nations ; in other w^ords, the homeless and sur-
plus population of Europe and other countries.

We believe, under section I, paragraph 2 of Executive Order 10o9-2,
liere, that a priority in immigration should be set up giving first pri-
ority to those people who have cleared or been cleared through innni-
gration processes under the DP xVct — yes, I think we called it the DP
Immigration Act of 1948 — and have been found qualified in every re-
spect except the one, that our own Government ran out of quota
numbers on them. We believe they should have the first priority.

We believe also that consideration should be given to those persons
A\ ho were not classed as DP's and refugees under the DP Immigration
Act but who have since become DP's and refugees by their escaping
from the iron-curtain countries.

We believe, finally, that we should and we can establish, after care-
iul thought and with proper limitations, a long-range permanent im-
Tnigi-ation law which will be free of the many objections that have been
voiced before this Commission this morning. We are particularly in-
terested in this idea of pooling unused quotas. If one nation does not
use its full quota, we believe that it is only fair and proper that the
unused portion of its quota be assigned to another country which
hasn't a sufficiently large quota but which is able to produce the type
of immigrant we want. Of course, that is always considering the fact
that any immigrant, regardless of his origin, must meet our immigra-
tion requirements.

I think that should complete my remarks, unless you wish to ask
some questions.

Mr. DuRKEE. ]Mr. Chairman and members of the President's Com-
mission, we are also aware too that we need to be practical in outlining
•some general principles; that there are some issues to be dealt with
before additional legislation. We have tried to take up a couple of
them from tlie point of view of our own local office here in California.

No. 1, there is room in this country for more immigrants. In our
northern California office from our experience alone we have on hand
now some 500 employment opportunities which we have had to reject
because of no people to place them with. Forty-five percent of these
are for farm laborers; 40 percent for domestics, and 15 percent for
■others.

Secondly

Commissioner O'Grady. What type of farm opportunities are you
getting ? Are they on small farms ? Are they for migratory workers ?

Mr, DuRKEE. Most of them are listed as farm laborers. They are
permanent employees though, which would discount the migrant
opj^ortunities.

Commissioner O'Grady. But, are they rather small farmers?

]\Ir. DuRKEE. Large farmers are using them and keeping tliem on a
permanent basis. They are repairing fences and so forth. They are

COMMISSION" OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1051

holding them on that way to keep them for the summer. By and large,
they are for smaller farms.

Commissioner Gullixson. Are they living with families or

Mr. DuRKEE. Yes.

Colonel Meinzen. Many of the people are trying to replace migrant
labor -with this type of labor. Migrant labor is very unsatisfactory.

Commissioner O'Grady. Isn't migrant labor for speciiic things, for
crops tliat ripen at a particular point?

Colonel Meinzen. For instance, in the fruit instance over in Sacra-
mento and San Joaquin Valleys. They want a small number of people
to spend the year there. People now must rely on more migrant labor,
which is unsatisfactory. I don't mean to say that migrant labor is
not satisfactory altogether, but for these specific purposes like the care
of machinery, care of the ground, repair of buildings, guarding prop-
erties and supplies and crops in the field and various things like that.
"We have demands for some very large farms around Bakersfield to
some very small ones in the Sacramento Valley.

Mr. DuEKEE. And then, to get at the problem of whether or not
these immigrants will be good citizens and can they adapt themselves
to American society. One of the means we have tried to see the picture
as a whole was the sending out of a survey in the form of a question-
naire to some 800 families which we have here and of approximately
400 replies we have the following interesting facts : All have applied
for citizenship; SO percent expressed great joy and deep gratitude for
their jobs and for this new homeland ; 95 percent have expressed keen
interest in the prepolitical campaign, many having definite ideas about
the candidates, and I think that is healthy ; 40 percent have purchased
automobiles and nearly 10 percent are buying their own homes; and
not one family is without employment.

A third issue that we tried to throw some light on as sociologically
and psychologically sound is to have a flow of continuous immigration
to this country. One, we will be relieving the economy and suffering
in Europe. We will be creating an atmosj^here of hope. The world
looks to us, of course, in leadership and w^e are the most able ones to
provide it, and leaving them in Europe they become easy marks for
communism while here they become stanch resisters of the same.

Then, for the criticisms of our present laws, which I know has
been ably coped with by other agencies. But we certainly want to
emphasize these things: The present law is discriminatory, as it is
against Chinese and southern Europeans. It does not reveal to the
free world our democratic ideology.

For our concluding statement We would like to refer to the report
made by Mrs. Kiebler earlier as supplemental to this one. She
testified this morning.

Then, we would like to offer the testimony of Dr. Guins, of the
University of California, with his insights of it from a point of view
of the political scientist.

Dr. Guins. Let me emphasize my main point. Revision of a law
is always a very complex procedure, and I am afraid that in the first
case this revision will require months and months. All Congressmen
and Senators who supported the provisions of the existing law will
object to any kind of amendments, I am sure, because they are con-
vinced that certain points of view are correct. The difference of

25356—52 67

1052 COMMISSION ox IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

opinion between some Congressmen and Senators will be subject for
discussions.

In the meantime we must pay attention to the crying needs that
exist at the present. "We cannot turn our back to the thousands of
people whom I know, for example, in China are doomed to disaster
and who are waiting for a helping hand. Therefore, it is not correct
to speak about the need in immigrants. We must speak about the
right of our prosperous country to turn its back to these misf ortunate
people. If we are discussing 'this problem from this point of view,
then I think I have the right to say that there must be adjustments
to the current needs of the world. For this purpose it is necessary
not only to revise the existing law but to issue a temporary law which
can open widely the doors to this country to the refugees from behind
the iron curtain who cannot find the means for existence in China and
who cannot find any sources of existence if they will not have visas
i]i order to leave these countries where they are living at present.

So, from my point of view, legal provisions must be so flexible as
only it is possible to issue a law concerning immigration with flexible
provisions. And, concretely, from my point of view, it is necessary
to repeat the principle which was already accepted in this country :
To establish a certain number of visas for 2, 3 years according to
which people who are waiting for the possibilitv to arrive in this
country could get his visa as quickly as possible. Besides this certain
number of visas for several yeai-s, it is necessary to change some pro-
visions of the existing legislation from the point of view of the pro-
cedure for the distribution of these visas. Distribution is too bureau-
cratic, and because of this bureaucratic system, which certainly have
some reasons for normal period of time but are not reasonable at
present because of the deficiencies of this provision, mainly people
become objects of speculation.

For example, in order to arrive in this country and get a visa a man
has to get a visa to Ecuador or Brazil or some other country where he
cannot leave because otherwise lie cannot receive admission in Hong
Kong. Arriving in Hong Kong he must leave the city and the country
where here he gets visas. To get visa he must pay $300 or $500.
Sometimes that means parting with liis whole fortune to go to coun-
try where he has no friends, no relatives and wait again for time when
he will get a visa in the United States.

We can give a visa wliich is based on some precaution which is not
to let people who are undesirable to come into this country, but if
these people are in our country who are reliable and can assure and
and give guaranty for political rehabilitation, some potential immi-
grants who are asking for visas, then send visas directly to consul
m Hons Kong and let them arrive directly to this country.

The Presidential Commission, in front of which I sit, can continue
its function not only for the revision of law but also for the dis-
tribution of visas for some years in the next future with the aid
of church organizations and national organizations in order to meet
the current needs of the moment. We are living under conditions
which are very precarious. We cannot foresee what will happen in 2,
3 years and we must think more about the present than about the
distant future.

That is my main point of A'iew, Let me give you my prepared
memorandum in which I give you some more details on my views.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1058

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record.

(The memorandum submitted by Prof. Geor<re C. Guins follows :")

1. Are more immigrants needed V Is there room in tliis eoinitry for more immi-
grants?

Under the existing conditions some other questions have to be put forward :
Is it a moral duty of a prosperous nation to have a great number of people
doomed to disaster and desperately waiting for a helping handV Is there u
possibility to seeure shelter for some part of those people without a damage
to our own country?

2. Is it sound to have a continuous flow of immigration to this country?

It is hardly possible to S(jlve such a problem for an indefinite time, especially
imder the present conditions. It would be expedient to invest the President of tlie
United States with a right to suspend for a certain period the admission of im
migrants or to limit it and to present his reasons to the Congress for a final
decision.

3. Does the United States have a continuing responsibility to admit a fair
]iroportion of refugees and other immigrants to this country?

As far as the United States are engaged into the world politics they have 1o
support their moral prestige and to give a good example to other natiotis as well
as to encourage people wliich remain anti-Communists and potential allies in
the struggle for freedom and justice.

4. Are would-be immigrants facing unnecessary difficulties in gaining en-
trance to this country?

Admission of peoples who belong to the category of refugees must be simpli-
fied. In case of reliable sponsors in this country a siiecial screening is hardl.y
necessary at the place of the refugees' residence or, still worse, at the next
consulate of the United States. The existing regulations force people in China
to get vi.sas to various countries of South America and to waste their last
means for getting these visas and useless travelings.

5. Do present laws and procedures safeguard the immigration of families as
units?

No. They are often disunited. Parents, for example, arrive in this country
leaving their son or daughter with whose support they had existed.

6. Are the possibilities of deportation serious threats to the security and welJ
being of immigrants?

Probably not. But deportation of the naturalized people is incompatible will'
(heir rights as citizens.

It is necessary to secure immigrants against arbitrariness or misinterpretation
of tlieir former conduct and in case of denunciation. It is necessary to pay at
tention to the difference of legal systems in the world of democratic states and
in the world of Communist-controlled states, where such acts as production of
goods of a low quality, nonfulfillment of contract agreements, tardiness, loitering
on the job, even refusal to accept appointment are considered as crimes against
the socialist fatherland.

7. Should the quota system be revised?

Yes. The existing quota system can be justified as far as it opens a possibility
to get a visa for people of all nationalitit s and at the same time protects the
interests of this country against a potential overpopulation. It is, however, not
a flexible system and does not correspond to the needs of our turmoil age. If a
certain number of visas for every year of the next 3 years had been ( ablished,
the distribution of visas could be assigned to the special immigration committee
with the participation of the church and refugee organizations. The distribution
had to be adjusted to the factual data of the Department of State as regards
political events and number of aspirants.

8. How do we feel and tliink about immigration laws?

We think that a revision of the existing immigration laws is not an urgent
problem. It is more necessary to issue a temporary and transient law in order
to meet the needs of the present situation: political and religious persecutions,
economic dfficulties of the overjiopulated countries, revolutions and wars, racial
conflicts, etc. Such kind of law is urgent. liater it could be included, if neces-
sary, into an ordinary legislation in the form of some possible exemptions.

Mr. DuRKEE. Thank you very mucli. If there are any questions I
would l>e fflad to try and answer them.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Durkee, the Commission has hoard a diversity
of views, best exemplified by views given it this morning. On tlic

• 1054 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

one hand, the Commission hears of the dire need for agricultural em-
ployment and other kinds of employment, and, on the other hand, the
Commission hears that in the long-range picture there is no need, or at
J east there may be no need, for agricultural employment in the future.
Wliat is your view on this question?

Mr. DuRKEE. The reason we made the statement in the first place is
that since the slowing down of the program we have had requests in
our office by telephone, letter, and in person for various kinds of labor.
We have tried to estimate the contacts that have been made and the
inquiries that have been made, and it seems to us that we have some
500 requests that we have had to reject in just the past months. That
would indicate to us that there would be need for that many workers,
about half in agriculture.

Mr. EosENFiELD. Do you know if that same pattern prevails in other
religious groups ?

Mr. DuEKEE. I would guess it would approximate it, surely.

Mr. RosENTiELD. Do you think that the kinds of problems that
northern California meets are different from those that Washington
meets, which were discussed this morning, and therefore the diversity
is due to the difference in agricultural development ?

Mr. DuRKEE. Perhaps tliere might be some difference there. I can
speak only from a northern California point of view.

Colonel jNIeinzen. Mr. Durkee was not here to hear the statement
of the gentleman from Washington. I would say that the difference
lies in this : I am somewhat acquainted with Oregon and Washington,
not in the last few years, but I was there quite awhile before the war. I
think that western Oregon and western Washington, where they have
these little farms of specialized produce, would probably have the
same trouble California would, whereas eastern Washington would
be compared with wheatlands in North Dakota and Minnesota, where
they have large farms. I believe he said about a half section is aver-
age, whereas iiere that isn't the case.

I think that answers your question on that.

i\Ir. RosENFiELD. Are you saying that in large agricultural centers
of the wheat type that is likely to be the kind of situation that Mr.
Zuger from Pulhnan, Wash., told us about this morning but that in
the smaller type of farms there is and will continue to be a need for
farm labor?

Colonel Meinzen. That is my personal experience; yes, sir. Of
course, I have no experience in the great wheat-growing countries.

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.

Is Miss Watson here ?

STATEMENT OF ANNIE CLO WATSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SAN FRANCISCO

]\Iiss Watson. I am Annie Clo Watson, executive director. Inter-
national Institute of San Francisco, 1860 Washington Street, San
Francisco.

I have a prepared statement I wish to read.

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

Miss Watson. Since Public Law 414 will not become legally effec-
tive until December 24 and since the regulations for its interpretation

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1055

unci administration have not yet been released, the International In-
ir^titute is not in a position to judge the act in operation. xVt the out-'
set. therefore, we are strongly reeomniendino; that this ])reliniinary
study now being made by the Commission should be followed by a
continued and comprehensive Nation-wide examination of the act
including both its basic assumptions and the operational aspects of
its provisions with reference to their ell'ect upon (1) innnigrants and
their families who are already in the United States, (2) prospective
immigrants who may be subsequentl}' admitted or excluded, and (8)
the status of naturalized citizens.

That the immigration and naturalization laws of this country have
profound bearing upon the well-being of our total population as well
as our relations with other countries goes without saying. However,
this statement of the International Institute will refer primarily to
concerns which have grown out of our 30 years of experience in social
service to innnigrants of San Francisco on their problems of resettle-
men.t and social integration.

We recognize in the new laws some advantageous provisions of which
the removal of race discrimination from naturalization requirements
is one; brevity of time permits our enlargement only upon those
aspects of the law, the inequities of which are clearly evident now
before it goes into effect ; some, in fact, have actually stemmed from
the old laws. We would like to mention five of these :

(1) Public Law 414 has been highly publicized as eliminating dis-
crimination based on race and national origin. This it has done, as
we have said, in naturalization, a step partially offset by the denial
to Asian peoples of equal treatment in the field of immigration. All
innnigrants from Europe and other countries under the quota regula-
tions are charged to the quota of the country of their birth, but per-
sons with oriental ancestry are charged to the quotas of the countries
of Asia, wherever they may have been born, or however long their
ancestors may have made their homes outside of the country of their
origin. Under the new law all the countries of Asia are given small
quotas for their nationals — a step in the right direction if it were not
that, as we have pointed out, natives of other countries, whose ancestry
is as much as 50 percent Asian, shall be charged to these small quotas.

The creation of an Asia-Pacific triangle of nations and Asia-Pacific
quotas is thus a perpetuation of the old pattern of designating certain
peoples as undesirable or ineligible. The unfortunate international
aspects of such restrictions tend to give inferiority of status to native
Americans of Asian ancestry and thus to retard their successful com-
munity integration. When we take a look at the fine contributions
being made to our country by Americans of oriental origin we have
to conclude that such provisions serve no constructive ends and are
unworthy of us as a Nation.

(2) "We make a special plea for the Filipinos who since the inde-
pendence of the Philippines have had equality with P^uropeans under
the old quota system but are pushed backward into the Asia-Pacific
triangle by Public Law 414. This means that after December 24
a person of Filipino ancestry, no matter where lx)rn. and regardless:
of his citizenship, is always charged to the quota of the country of
ethnic origin (Philippines), and not, as are all the European people,'
to the country of his birth.

1055 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The unfavorable consequences, both at home and abroad, of this
Avdiise seem hardly justified since even under the old law the niaxi-
mum annual quota for the Philippines barely exceeded 100 This
IS a regrettable gesture made by our country toward a people, the
Filipinos, who have paid in blood and sacrifice for their attachment
CO our democracy and our flag and especially toward Americans of
Filipino origin of whom there is an increasing number in the United

States.

(8) Mexicans, Central Americans, Cubans, and Canadians— people
uf "contiguous territory"— are adversely affected by section 244 (5)

(b) which denies to them what is granted to other aliens, the full
privileges under certain circumstances of suspension of deportation.

The theory back of this provision is that it is easy for them to
return to their countries and to reenter legally. The facts are that
(a) such trips are expensive, taking money from American-born fam-
ilies who need it, (b) there may be long delays in consular processing
;it the borders causing jeopardy to jobs being held m this country,

(c) there is much anxiety in families so affected, and (d) there is
no absolute guarantee that the person will return. This provision
is by administrative directive already in effect as evidenced in the
instances in which the local offices of the Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion Service have recently denied the privilege of suspension of de-
portation to Mexican persons living in the United States and sup-
porting American-born families. Such denial, inspired by the pro-
vision (1) is causing hardship in families known to us, (2) is not
conducive to their better assimilation, (3) will probably affect most
Qumerously those people whose only "crime" was that they crossed
the border' to find work. It is also out of line with our "good neigh-
bor" policy.

(4) The new law grants first quota preference (the first 50 ])ercent
ol the quota) to alien workers whose skills are needed in the United
States. We think that the old, fundamental principle of our immi-
gration legislation which was inspired by the criterion of uniting
the "family" should be maintained; we believe that the skills of a
prospective new immigrant should be considered but not to the point
at sacrificing the first, basic need of keeping the family together
especially when some members of it, who may even be United States
citizens, are residing permanently in this country. We know fam-
ilies, from countries with small quotas already heavily mortgaged to
.«dmit displaced persons, who by this provision will he permanently
separated. Although the principle of uniting the family has been
recognized in the new law, it is in reality a mere gesture since it
will not help the quotas of the small countries which need it most.

(5) The passage of this law with new measures relating to revo-
cation of naturalization has already had the effect of creating uneasi-
ness among naturalized citizens and those approaching naturalization.
As a social agency we are especially concerned over the effect which
these new policies may have on the immigrant family with American-
born children. One of our big unsolved social problems in this country
is the high degree of maladjustment among "second generation" youth
who are prone to throw off parental authority, to disrespect parents
liecause they are different and old-fashioned. To detract further from
the status of foreign-born parents by legal strictures will add to the
feelings of insecurity and tend to weaken family ties which need

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1057

to be strengthened in every possible way. Also tlie general effect of
inakiiig all of our naturalized citizens feel like and become "'second-
class citizens'' will in no way serve the best interests of the American
peojjle.

We recommend, in conclusion, that the sections of the law appli-
cable to new citizens, to people of the Asia-Pacific triangle, to people
of contiguous territory, to the possible separation of families, be
studied with a vicAv of amending them without undue delay.

Thank you for the opportunity granted us to present this report.

The Chairmax, Tliaidv you very much.

Is ]\Irs. Margaret Cruz here ?

STATEMENT OF MARGARET CRUZ, REPRESENTING THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS OF LATIN AMERI-
CANS

JNIrs. Cruz. I am Mrs. Margaret Cruz, 425 Franklin Street, San
Francisco, Calif., representing the Advisory Committee on Employ-
ment Problems of Latin A mericans, I have a prepared statement I
wish to read, and I have dealt particularly with section 22-i of the act.

The Chairman. "We will be pleased to hear you.

Mrs. Cruz. Since the United States is a Nation which has been
built by immigrants from every country in the world, it is of the
greatest importance that our immigration and naturalization laws
and regulations be based on principles of respect and justice for all
people. The connnents and I'ecommendations Avhich follow are re-
spectfully submitted in the interest of eliminating discrimination and
improving the new law (Public Law 414) in its application especially
to naturalized citizens :

(1) Since the present law preserves the quota system based on a
national origins plan, we think it should apply to all nations alike.
The creation of an Asia-Pacific triangle of nations and the establish-
ing of a dilTerent quota plan for those nations is discriminatory. If
this plan is continued, it will undoubtedly lose friends for us in Asia
where we need them and in addition will tend to give feelings of
inferiority to native An.ierieans of oriental origin. Such a situation
will be of no advantage to anyone and we recommend the removal from
the law of all discrimination based on race or nationality.

(2) We are strongly opposed to all provisions of the law which
weaken the position or detract from the security of naturalized citi-
zens. The welfare and strength of our country depend largely upon
the loyalty and devotion of the naturalized citizen as well as the native.
We cannot build unity among neW Americans unless they can have
feelings of being firmly rooted and of really belonging. We recom-
mend that the j^rovisions of the law applying to naturalization be
carefully studied with a view of strengthening rather than weakening
the place of the new citizen in American life.

(3) We consider particularly regrettable those provisions of the
law which adversely affect peo]de from "contiguous territory" —
Mexicans. Canadians, Cubans, and Central Americans. Section 244
(5) (b) denies to them what is granted to all other aliens, the ])rivilege
under certain circumstances of susi)ension of deportation. This in-
equality is probably based on the idea that it is easy for them to

1058 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

return to their countries and to reenter locally. The facts are {a)
that such trips are expensive, taking money from families who need
it, (h) that there may be long delays in consular processing at the
borders causing jeopardy to jobs being held in this country, (c) that
there is much anxiety in families so affected and (d) that there is no
absolute guaranty that the person will return. This provision will
create particular and widespread hardship among Mexicans who have
crossed the border in such large numbers to meet demands for a labor
supply. We can ill afford thus to offend our nearest neighbors, and
to impose harsher restrictions on their nationals than on others seems
particularly unjust.

We appreciate this opportunity of appearing before the Commission
and in closing we are glad to call attention to two good features of the
law: (1) the provision for extending the privilege of naturalization
to all persons regardless of race, age, or nationality, and (2) the
provision liberalizing the requirements of naturalization for older
immigrants of long residence here. These are in keeping, we believe,
with the best traditions of our country.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Is Prof. Varden Fuller here?

STATEMENT OF VAEDEN FULLEE, ASSOCIATE PKOFESSOR OF
AGEICULTURAL ECONOMICS, TJNIVEESITY OF CALIFORNIA, AND
FORMER EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT'S COM-
MISSION ON MIGRATORY LABOR

Professor Fuller. I am Varden Fuller, associate professor of agri-
cultural economics, University of California, formerly executive secre-
tary to the President's Commission on Migratory Labor, 2-7 Giannini
Hall, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.

The Chairman. You may proceed.

Professor Fuller. I do not represent any particular groups or or-
ganizations. I am speaking for myself at your invitation. I under-
stand the reason or basis for my invitation to come and testify is to
bring to your attention some of the portions of the report of the
President's Commission on Migratory Labor wdiich may seem to be
particularly applicable to the questions you have under consideration
now.

Obviously, a Presidential commission on migratory labor is not pri-
marily concerned with questions of immigration, but there were ques-
tions touching into immigration law and administration which the
Commission was obligated to report upon after having surveyed the
facts relative to those, and primarily these questions pertained to the
administration and enforcement of the immigration law, particularly
on the Mexican border. The other aspect was concerned with the
temporary admission of the otherwise inadmissible aliens as temporary
workers in agriculture.

I call your attention to two chapters in the report of the President's
Commission on Migratory Labor, Migratory Labor in American Agri-
culture (U. S. Government Printing Office: 1951), of which I have
provided your staff director with copies. Those are the sections of
the report of the President's Commission on Migratory Labor which
may be of particular interest to you : chapter 3, beginning on page 37,

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1059

nl)()ut alien contriu-t labor; and (■liai)ter 4, beginning on page 69, about
the wetback invasion or the flood of illegal aliens across the Mexican
border. Those are the two topics that I understand you would be
particularly interested in — some discussion of the question of ad-
mission of otherwise inadmissible aliens for tem]:)orary woi'k, and it is
on that subject I will direct my remarks.

We commenced our practice of admitting inadmissible aliens not
pursuant to the regular ])rovisions of the immigration law, but rather
to the section of the ninth proviso. We connnenced that in World
War I, but not on a large scale. The more important history in that
respect were actions taken as emergency measures during World War
II, in which under the ninth proviso waiver we have begun again to
bring rather large numbers of peoi)le f I'om Mexico, from the Caribbean
area, and some from Canada also into the United States for temporary
employment in agriculture and railroads, primarily ; that is, primarily
those two ratlier than other occupations.

Now, these admissions were handled under the terms of inter-
governmental agreements, negotiated between the Government of the
United States and the respective foreign republics. Those intergov-
ernmental agreements provided for general standards and conditions
under which the importation would take place. Also as a part of the
war emergency measures the people who were brought in were handled
administratively by the United States Government agencies. That
is to say, the United States continued to represent these people and to
administer the minimum terms of the agreement. Now, the numbers
of people who were brought in were under the w^artime emergency
measure, you will find summarized up to the conclusion of the war
program in chapter 3 of the report, wdiich you have and I won't
mention them. They were in the low thousands, as far as the British
West Indies is concerned and fifty to one hundred thousand as far as
Mexico is concerned.

We have continued, since the termination of World War II, this
program of temporary admissions under the ninth proviso. The
wartime phase of the program is substantially different in may re-
spects from that during the war. First of all, as far as the Mexican
aliens are concerned, they were admitted for both agricultural em-
ployment and railroad employment, and immediately following the
termination of the war the railroad phase w'as discontinued and the
admissions have continued only wuth respect to agricultural
employment.

In the postwar phase of the importation program we have not had
intergovernmental agreements with any of the republics of the British
West Indies. We have with Mexico, and incidentally at the insistence
of Mexico and not at the insistence of the United States Government.
This intergovernmental agreement with Mexico has provided for the
minimum standards and conditions under wdiich the importation
would take place, providing for minimum standards of housing, of
employment, minimum employment guaranties, guaranties of being
paid prevailing wages, and similar guaranties. We have not con-
tinued the practice of intergovernmental agreements with the countries
of the British West Indies, primarily because those republics have
not insisted that we do have the intergovernmental agreements.
Agreements do exist covering those importations from the British

1060 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

West Indies, wliicli are Bahamians and Jamaicans and whose employ-
ment is confined primarily on the eastern coast. Agreements do exist,
but they are agreements which are negotiated between private groups
of United States farm employers and Governments of the Bahamas
and Jamaica.

There is a rather substantial difference, which I am sure you will
appreciate, between an agreement negotiated government to govern-
ment, as in the case of Mexico, as against an agreement between
government agencies and private employers on the other side. Under-
standably, the British West Indies' agreements are substantially more
lax and less rigorous than the agreement with Mexico.

Those are two of the differences in wartime emergency phases and
postwar phases, and another of considerable importance is that
whereas during the war period the United States Government did
guarantee the performance of agreements and did maintain very sub-
stantial facilities for transportation and for seeing to it that all of the
terms of the agreement were observed — in the postwar phase of it that
has not been true. The United States Government is an active agent
in the employment process of these temporarily admitted aliens and
has served only a very nominal role. Most of the enforcement has
been left up to very few agents and Government hasn't taken a very
active hand in that.

Still another characteristic of the postwar phase is that actually in
the postwar years the volume of admissions has been substantially
larger than it ever was during the war. That is not true in every
year, but it is true of approximately 2 of the 4 years. The last 2 years
have been the largest of all. We have had something in the vicinity of
200,000 Mexicans only.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Still on the basis of intergovernmental employ-
ment ?

Professor Fuller. With Mexico it is intergovernmental, but with
the Bahamas and Jamaica it is not.

Mr. RosENFiELD. That is legal immigration ?

Professor Fuller. That is so far as the Attorney General makes it
that under the ninth proviso. The ninth proviso leaves a lot of dis-
cretionary power in the hands of the Attorney General. It is legal
as long as the Attorney General says it is.

This sums up the main difference which characterizes the use of
contract migratory labor since the wartime phase. I think you will
appreciate the differences in conditions and in the size and in the role
of the Federal Government that are substantially different than they
were in the war phase of it when it was originally conceived.

I am sure that this Commission will be more interested in policy
questions than in the many facts in the situation, so I will turn to what
perhaps may interest you more. That is, what policy conclusions
might one find in this process of importing otherwise inadmissible
people for temporary work. First of all, I am sure that, particularly
in view of some of the remarks whicli have been incorporated in pre-
vious testimony, you wish to knovv' whether the contracted alien labor
fills a labor shortage or a labor need which could not be filled in any
other way. In other words, do we have a genuine labor shortage?
That, incidentally, was one of the questions which our Commission
was asked to try to answer. Unfortunately, that is one of the kinds of

COMMISSION OX IMMKJRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1061

questions, of Mliicli we liave liiaiiy these days, to M-liich there is no cer-
tain answer.

I think it is a A-ery unsophisticated person wlio will come out. and
say, excei)t in very local and temporary situations, there is an absolute
labor shorta<>e which is al)solute in some certain maiinitude of so many
jH'()])Ie. In oeiieral. that question cannot be answered in that way, in
my iumible opinion, because the determinates of what makes a supply
o{ labor, what makes the demand and the size of them — they are mat-
ters which ai-e i-elatiye magnitudes and relatiye conditions and not a'fe-
solute ma«initU(U»s. l^otli laboi- sui)])ly and labor demand are elastic
matters which may chani>e and can be chanoed. Hence, it is very hard
to say that we haye so many ])eople available or that we need so many
and that there is a ditference and that here is a shoi'taire. It is very
diilicult to do that.

There are some aspects of the question of labor demand, particularly
with reference to this group, that I think need to be taken into con-
sideration. One of the most important of these is this: That we
frequently hear references to the need of Mexican aliens and other
types of aliens for agriculture, just as though American agTicultur-e m
total, all the almost (> million farms in the United States, w^ere de-
peiulent on this particular type of labor. Now, that is a long way
from being true. Actually, the employment of this type of lalDor is
concentrated on substantially less than 100,000 of the Nation's faFtfts.
In other words, you are talking about farms representing no moi-e
than '2 percent at the most, of all the farms in the United Statey
being interested in this particular type of labor.

Conunissioner O'CJrady. You are talking about Mexican labor, arc
you now ^

Professor Filler. I am talking about Mexican and Jamaican and
Bahamian.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Let's make is clear that you are still talking about
the permitted and regulated ones and not the. so-called illegal ones.

Professor Fuller. I am having nothing to say about Avetbacks. ¥7t>
have no illegal immigration except the Mexicans across the river.

It is a false })remise tliat United States agriculture is dependent on
this particular group of people; that is, the people Avho are demanded
lor the piu'i)ose these are. It is a very small group. It Avas no particu-
lar connection with the vast majority of the farms in the United
Stat4:'S. It has no connection Avith the livestock type farm, or the.
dairies or the poultry farms, and so on, because they don't use them.
It is substantially limited to a relatiA^ely small number of fairly large
farms that are concerned Avith groAving cotton, sugar beets and the
sugar beet farms aren't all large, but they come together.

Commissioner O'Grady. Aren't they very small for the most part'^

Professor Fuller. But they have associated together and become,
large by association, and that is also true in the fruits and vegetabley.
So that is one of the things that is of some importance, perhaps, th^^
role these particular folks play.

NoAv, another point to be considered in the long look at this particu-
lar thing, as far as its policy aspects are concerned, is that it seems
to me one needs to draAv a distinction betAveen Avanting to have peoplt)
for a particular temporary purpose and not Avanting them to be citi-
zens, as against Avanting more population basically in an industry
such as, in this case, agriculture. It is definitely so that agricultural

1062 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

interests and community interest too don't particularly think of the
Mexican alien or the Jamaican or Bahamian as a person who should
come and stay and be citizens and be members of the community. That
is not intended, so in effect the demand for this type of labor is to
have a person to come and do the particular type of work which is
mostly stoop labor, very hard labor in the fields, and then when
through with it to be gone and out of the way.

Now, I am not drawing that necessarily as my own conclusion. Our
Commission, in the testimony it took, was told time after time that
that was one of the principal advantages of the alien labor : That you
had him when you wanted him and when you didn't want him any
more you didn't have to have him around nor his family either. That
is very closely paraphrased to testimony that we had many times from
agricultural employers and from other people representing agricul-
tural communities and these particular product and commodity
groups.

Well, those are some of the aspects of labor demand which makes
it very hard to answer the question : Do they fill a real need ? They
fill a real need conceived in a particular way. Whether there are
other ways of filling that need is a question that is still wide open
as far as I am concerned, that is, some of the questions of labor supply
which relate to this matter of "Do the imported aliens fill a real need?"
It returns, for one thing, to the demand question which I have dis-
cussed already. Another is the supply question, how many, and do
we have sufficient citizens here already? There again, it is a very
relative question and very hard to come to a definite concrete con-
clusion about it and hard to understand.

We do know that migratory and residential seasonal labor are not
fully employed. For a good many of them unemployment is their
principal occupation. They don't get but 70 to 100 days, and most
favorably 150 days a year. Some of this is inherent in the very sea-
sonal process of agriculture and can't be avoided. After all, certain
things don't go on all year long. However, there is quite a bit of evi-
dence to indicate that if we really wanted to as a nation we could get
a good deal more out of our domestic labor supply than we do, and
perhaps enough to cover the vacuum that is filled by bringing in the
aliens. We don't know because we don't experiment with those things.
We have the sort of society where we use the other course rather than
experiment with using our own people more effectively.

Another aspect of this same question is tliat — I think someone may
have discussed it this morning when I wasn't here — we have a large
number of farmers, a large population of farm families in the United
States who constitute what is often referred to as the "low income
segment." Those are the people who don't produce much and have
very small farms. There aren't very many of them who contribute
to the commercial production of the country. They are located pri-
marily in the South here in the United States along the Atlantic
seaboard.

• During the Second World War we did make temporarily an attemi)t
to use some of that population, of which there are 2 or 3 million. We
don't really know how many there are of them who might be there.
We tried to use some of those people in some of the emergency farm
labor programs, but an amendment was put into the legislation very

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1063

early in the *rume— I think probably in 1943 — which prevented the
Governnient from doino- anythino- to try to move or solicit any of those
folks to come ont and work elsewhere.

The CiiAiRMAX. Whv was that?

Professor Fullei;. AVell, sir, that I think probably represents the
position of the sonthern employer interests in wisliin<^ to hold their
population at home regardless' of whether they might be more ad-
vantageously used elsewhere.

Commissioner Finucane. And regardless of whether they are em-
ployed as nuich as they could be during the season ?

Professor Fuller. "^I think the question of how well employed was
quite irrespective to putting in that amendment to the law. I think
the southern people just wanted to hang on to their population and
not let it go.

So, there is a large resource there that we haven't really tapped. We
don't know really what is there, and we haven't experimented with it,
A lot of people say there is a lot of labor there, and the people wouldn't
move anyway. The most honest answer to contentions on both sides is
that we don't know and we haven't tried to find out. Still, we liave
gone the other way and relied on Mexico and the Caribbean to make
up our manpower deficits in this particular field.

Another aspect of this same sort of question is that we do have a
rather large available population of workers who are citizens in Puerto
Rico. In the postwar years Puerto Ricans have begun to come to the
mainland in the low thousands, 4,000. I think the highest it ever got
to was around 9,000 to 10,000 a year. They come over and go back
and they, incidentally, too are covered by agreement even though
they are citizens and are free to move. Their own territorial govern-
ment in San Juan negotiates an agreement under which the Puerto
Rican people come here to work. The Government representatives
in Puerto Rico have testified and urged repeatedly that more of their
labor is available and should be used. We didn't use it during World
War II. There were several excuses, but I think it comes down to
this : There were a lot of interests in the United States which simply
did not want Puerto Ricans here because they could not be returned.
The Commission uncovered correspondence and memoranda which
supported that particular conclusion.

Well, I think perhaps I have brought into perspective some of the
things you can answer and would have to have the answer to before you
could answer the question of wdiether the temporarily imported aliens
under contract are filling a real gap or not. As I said earlier, this
temporary admission of inadmissible aliens was undertaken as an
emergency matter. That was 10 years ago. We have had it with us
every year since in one foim or the other.

So, the question naturally emerges: Is this the kind of emergency
tliat is going to get permanent. That is not quite an academic ques-
tion either, because the farm employer interests have expressed them-
selves before Congress and before the executive branch of the Govern-
ment already to the effect that there ought to be a permanent farm
labor program of this sort. So then, that brings up the question : Is
this the type of problem and type of solution that one wants to solve
permanently in this way?

Tliere are a lot of people m the United States who argue this is a
|)erfect solutioji: that tliis is fine, because our little brothers from the

1084 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

vsouth can come in and then go back and we will get our work done,
and it is a favor to tliem because they earn more here in an hour or
day than they do otherwise in a week. And so on the argument goes.
Some of the more moderate of the employers think that this should
be recognized as still an emergency measure and that there needs to
lie a different and more constructive long-run solution of it.

Offsetting what seemed to be a solution, as far as the employers'
interest is concerned, in getting this work done in this particular way,
itrff some considerations which I would like to bring to your attention.
One is that this is a labor supply, and even though we say to bring in
200,000 doesn't cost more than about 1 percent of all the agricultural
employees and about 15 percent of migratory and seasonal ones — re-
gardless of its smallness and relative insignificance in the total picture,
there is the fact that it is a labor supply which is somewhat hazardous
HI this respect, that its availability has to be negotiated for every year
and sometimes oftener. That is to say, there is a long and extended
and complicated process — particularly where Mexicans are involved
with the intergovernmental agreement — of negotiating this agreement
under wdiich immigration must take place.

The second point is that it is expensive. We have a substantial
[)ortion of the State Department and very substantial proportions of
staff of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a large pro-
portion of the staff of the Department of Labor, both in Washington
J) lid in the State offices, working on some aspect of the program,' pri-
uiaiily, of course, in terms of the administration to see to it that pre-
v^aiiing wages and so on are paid. I have offered to wager people in
Washington in the State Department that the total governmental cost,
the outlays by the Government, that are incurred in procuring this
labor supply are at least equal to the total payroll brought in. I don't
know how they ever answered that question. So far I haven't had
any takers on that offer. The total cost of obtaining this labor supply
is as large as the wages paid the people when they get here. That is
my personal opinion. I haven't had any takers yet.

Commissioner Finucane. On that, do you think it would be fair to
let the users of this labor bear that?

Professor Fuller. I doubt if my ideas of equity should come into
this hearing. That particular suggestion has been made to farm
groups and they say "No."

Commissioner Finucane. If it were done, do you think it would
leduce the number of requests to import INIexican labor ?

Professor Fuller. I think it automatically works that way. If the
price of something is double or triple you buy smaller quantities of
that than you used to.

Commissioner Finucane. If the labor is absolutely essential to that
farmer, would he still not have to buy it, the same as we are buying
bread?

Professor Fuller. If instead of $20 the cost w^ould be $250, 1 should
ihink transporting of Mexicans w^ould

Commissioner JFinucane. Would leave the Mexican labor less?

Professor Fuller. I should think so.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Or would it be more illegal ?

Professor Fuller. Yes. Well, the border patrol would need suf-
ficient men to guard the border.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1065

I think probabl}' the hist aspect tliat ought to be considered in taking
the long-range view of whether this is the kind of emergency that we
ought to aUow to become a permanent emergency is to raise the ques-
tion of what are the present and potential etl'ects of this sort of labor
program, not only on the domestic labor but also on the type of agri-
culture which we say that we want in the United States. As far as
the etl'ects on domestic labor are concerned, the effects tend to run in
two directions. One is that with the Mexicans in particular, where
we have an agreement which establishes minimum conditions and em-
ployment guaranty and a provision that prevailing wages will be paid.
Since that occurs with respect to the alien labor primarily from Mex-
ico, I say again on account of the intergovernmental agreement, and
not any place else in the entire employment in the United States with
respect to migratory and seasonal labor, the very negotiation of that
agreement can't help but in a way intiuenee standards u])\var(l. Some
people can argue that this has the effect of perhaps improving prevail-
ing standards for American workers who are citizens. On the other
hand, I feel that whatever tendency there is in that direction on the
part of or through the negotiations with Mexico that there is a con-
trary tendency to hold down wages by virtue of this type of importa-
tion and to delay the improvement of working conditions. It is al-
most inescapable that that should be done because after all if you
bring in people to take over work that somebody else might, if condi-
tions were sufficiently favorable, be induced to take, then there is a
replacement. You have created an addition to the labor supply, and
it doesn't take a very fancy economist to know, or businessman either,
that when you increase the supply of any particular commodity or
service the price is pushed down or held when it otherwise might rise.

Now, there are some statistical facts to verify that. We know that
wages in agriculture have tended to get wider and wider over the years
from the wages that are paid in industry. Before World War I wages
and conditions of agricultural employment were not too far away from
the generally prevailing standards in industry. Since then there has
been a widening gap. There is a picture of it on page 131 of the
Migratory Labor Commission's report. There has been a widening
gap in the prevailing standards of wages in industry and in agricul-
ture, so that as a result agriculture is attempting to acquire a labor
supply on more and more unfavorable and less competitive terms.
So that in an environment where already the domestic portion of our
population who are doing this sort of work are not fully utilized, they
obviously are in need of some kind of improvement in- their working
circumstances. In this kind of environment we have introduced the
importation of the alien laborer.

As far as the other side of the picture is concerned, the interests of
the farmers' testimony to the President's Commission on Migratory
Labor tended to imply that all farmers, big and little alike, were
interested in this sort of thing, but I regret to say that we did not hear
very much directly from the small farmers. Their position was given
to us vicariously by people who represented on the whole larger em-
ployment interests, either because they were operators of larger farms
or because they were representatives of associations of small farmers.
But the evidence seems to point that this kind of importation program
cannot but be in the long run somewhat hazardous to the interest of

1066 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

family farinei's. The process is simply this, and we observed it in the
Great Lakes States, where over a period of many, many years, several
decades, the canning companies there had acquired their vegetables
primarily from independent small farms. The farmers had raised
the stuff and the canner bought it and sold it. In recent years of this
labor importation something new has happened. The canning com-
panies have gone out and rented or bought land and they are able to
buy or rent because they can pay better prices than are prevailing or
can be paid by other farmers either in terms of rent or in terms of
price of the land. Then these very same canning companies go to the
Department of Labor and say, "Let's go to the Bahamas and Jamaica."
And there you can see what could happen. It is over a fairly large
range. It is not now, but it might very well be. To have this labor
imported, not to become citizens but to perform a particular kind of
service, to me seems very doubtful if it is in our long-term interest.

Mr. RosENFiELD. I just waut to inquire whether the diiRculties you
have expressed to tlie Commission in terms of an over-all policy basis
are or are not complicated or accetuated by the illegal migration which
you said you are not discussing?

Professor Fuller. Your question is, "Are these policy questions with
respect to the legal portion of it ? Are they prompted by the migration
of the illegal movement?

Mr. RosENFiELD. That is right.

Professor Fuller. Certainly, I didn't leave the illegal end out by
reason of thinking it unimportant or that it had no effects. On the
contrary, the volume of illegal movement is several times more than
the legal. Whereas we have had a quarter of a million, at most, of
legally contracted people, no one knows for sure but we may have as
many as a million INIexican wetbacks, and getting up into the Great
Lakes States. The volume of illegal immigrants makes the adminis-
tration of the legal ones much more difficult than it would be otherwise.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Professor. We appreciate
your coming down here and discussing that problem with the Com-
mission.

Professor Fuller. I do want to say and to make sure it is imderstood
that what I have had to say about the admission of aliens under
these terms has nothing to do with what I consider to be the basic
immigration problem.

The Chairman. Yes. Thank you.

Is Mr. Donald Vial here?

STATEMENT OF DONALD VIAL, REPEESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL

Mr. Vial. I am Donald Vial, and I represent the California State
Federation of Labor — California branch of the A. F. of L. — 995
Market Street, San Francisco.

In submitting a prepared statement for the California State Fed-
eration of Labor I want to point out that the federation is not in-
difTerent to the national immigration laws. In selecting this topic of
the entrance and employment of illegal aliens from Mexico we did so
because we feel it is a particular problem in the West. We feel that it
is an immigration law enforcement problem and we feel it is the

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1067

greatest problem in tlie West at present. I don't want to go into it at
any length in this oral statement.

The CiiAiRJiAx. We really don't expect to be going into that at any
length. The President's Commission on Migratory Labor was created
to study that especially, and we are not going to do it all over again.

Mr. Vial. We thought we would submit the statement to you. We
realize the President's Commission on Migratory Labor has fully
covered the labor end, but we do feel that there is a need for some
legal enactment to properly enforce immigration laws in addition to
the recent law that was passed in Congress, Public Law 283, dealing
with illegal aliens entering this country, making it a felony to harbor
and conceal illegal entrants.

The Chairman. I am afraid that will not be of any particular value
to what we are doing. However, your statement will be inserted in
the record. Thank you for appearing.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Donald Vial in behalf of the Cali-
fornia State Federation of Labor follows :)

Statement of the California State Federation of Labor on Entrance and
Employment of Illegal Aliens From Mexico

The American Federation of Labor in California is serionsly aware of the
potentials for good or evil which attend the immigration policies of our Federal
Government.

While the attached brief pertains almost exclusively to a sectional phase of
immigration, it does not indicate an indifference to broad national policy. How-
ever, since the purpose of the current hearings is to probe local applications
of Federal law, the California State Federation of Labor has chosen to develop
a survey of immigration as it relates to the public welfare of the West.

The brutal exploitation of illegal entrants from Mexico, the so-called wet-
backs, calls for immediate and effective remedies. The commodity interests of
corporate farm powers should not be permitted to endanger the good-neighbor
philosophy which has so long prevailed between the people of the United States
and the people of Mexico.

It is to this critical subject that the American Federation of Labor in
California directs the attention of responsible authorities.

VOLUME OF WETRACK TRAFFIC

In recent years the volume of wetback traffic has reached staggering pro-
portions. Although it is impossible to determine the exact number of these
illegal entrants that steal across the border annually, it is an accepted fact
that it has achieved the force of an invasion.

One indication of the growth and magnitude of this traffic is the large number
of apprehensions made by immigration officers. Reviewing the figures of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service through 19.50, the President's Commission
on IMigratory Labor, in its 19.51 report. Migratory Labor in American Agriculture,
points out that prior to 1944 apprehensions by inuuigration officials leading to
deportation or voluntary departiu-es were fairly stable — under 10,000 per year.
Since 1944, however, the number of deportations has continuously mounted "each
year, from 20,000 in 1944 to 505.000 in 1950. The Commission conservatively
estimates that at least 400,000, or 40 percent of the Nation's migratory labor
force of 1,000,000 in 1949, were wetbacks.

The annual rate of apprehensions and deportations continues above the .500,000
mark. The San Francisco office of the Immigration Service reports that during
the fiscal year ending .Tune 30, 1952, over 510,000 wetbacks apprehended in the
United States were deported. In southern California alone, during the fiscal
year 1950-51, the deportation figure was over 295,000; a monthly rate of ajiproxi-
mately 25.000. An additional 2,000 deported monthly from the San Francisco
district of the Immigration Service makes the total California monthly rate of
deportation about 27,000.

25356—52 68

1068 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

These figures, although indicative of the volume of traffic, are, of course,
considerably less than the actual number of wetbacks that enter this country.
While it is true that some individuals are apprehended twice and are therefore
duplicated in the apprehension count, it is also true that a much larger number
enter and leave without being apprehended and hence are not counted in the
apprehension and deportation figures at all.

Thus, Gladwin Hill, reporting on the wetback prolilem in the New York Times,
March 25, 1951, estimates that the total trafiic is about 1 million a year. This
estimate is based conservatively on the surmise that for every wetback caught
there is one who is not caught. But he is quick to point out that most immi-
gration ofiicers would concede a more likely average of 5 or 10 to 1. For
some areas close to the border the estimates go as high as 100 to 1. But it
should be pointed out again that in such a reckoning, many of the total would
not be different individuals, but repeaters who recross after having been deported.

A still mure conservative estimate of the total number of entrants has been
made by Willard Kelly, Assistant Commissioner of Immigration and Natural-
ization. He told the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 21, 1952, that
more than 750,000 wetbacks are expected this year, while labeling this break-
down on our border controls a national disgrace. "They are coming in at the
rate of one a minute, every minute of the night and day," he pointed out.

There is an obvious lack of agreement on the total number of wetbacks that
are entering this country illegally. But in spite of this disparity, the fact
remains that our Southwestern States are facing annually a flood of wetback
entries.

It should also be pointed out that this invasion is not confined to agriculture
or the border States. Recently, it has spread, though with diminishing intensity
at gi'eater distances from the border, to virtually every State in the Union,
while infiltrating a wide range of nonfarm jobs and occupations. For example,
of the 343,700 illegal aliens from Mexico apprehended and deported between
July 1, 1951, and March 1, 1952, the Immigration Service reports that 17,300
were arrested while employed in trades, crafts, and industries other than
agriculture.

The volume of traffic and the consequences of this traffic, discussed imme-
diately below, are reason enough why the California State Federation of Labor
is asking careful consideration of the wetback invasion. The wetback problem
must be recognized as equal in importance to the question of admitting displaced
pex'sons from Europe. The Pi'esident's Commission on INIigratory Labor made
this very clear in its report by contrasting the wetback traffic with the admission
of displaced persons : "In 1949, when we admitted 119,600 displaced Europeans,
our apprehended wetback traffic was almost 300,000 ; in 1950, when we admitted
85,000 displaced Europeans, our known wetback traffic was between 500,000 and
600,000.

CONSEQUENCES OF WETBACK TRAFFIC

Inevitable consequences have accompanied the newly developed magnitude
of wetback traffic. Foremost among these consequences is the severe depression
of wages and the standard of living of American farm workers, especially in
areas close to the border, such as Imperial Valley in California. A second con-
sequence of the wetback, and a concomitant to the depression of wages, is com-
petition for employment and large-scale displacement of domestic workers.

There are other developments which, although not directly and entirely related
to the wetback invasion, are nevertheless closely associated with it. Included
here, and deserving special mention, are the shockingly high rates of disease
and deaths in border areas where the wetback problem is greatest.

The inevitability of these consequences is traceable to the nature of the unfor-
tunate wetl)ack. The report of the President's Commission on Migratory Labor
makes this clear : "The wetback is a hungry human being. His need of food
and clothing is immediate and pressing. He is a fugitive and it is as a fugitive
that he lives. Under the constant threat of apprehension and deportation, he
cannot protest or appeal no matter how unjustly he is treated. Law operates
against him but not for him. Those who capitalize on the legal disability of the
wetbacks are numerous and their devices are many and various."

Thus it is that the mass of wetbacks in this country have become the tools
of many unsci'upulous labor contractors who operate immense labor pools from
which the mass production and corporate farmers nre able to draw freely. As
a fugitive from the law, he tnkes whatever he is offered — often 25 cents an hour
for weeding and harvesting work, 50 cents an hour for truck or tractor driving.

COMMISSION^ ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1069

Tlie depressing effect of wetbacks on wages is widely accepted. The Secre-
tary of Labor, Maurice J. Tobin, lias stated this on many occasions. On March
28, 1952, before the Lnited States Senate Subconiiuittee on Labor and Labor-
Management Itelations of the Committee on Labor and Pul)Uc Welfare, which
was conducting hearings on migratiu'y labor, he said that the wetback "accepts
.any wages that are offered ami often works only for his subsistence. The effect
of his employment is to depress drastically the wages and working conditions of
domestic agricultural workers."

In a speech before the Kiwanis Club in Fort Worth, Tex., February 14, 1952,
he added: "These aliens (wetbacks) have made possible the low wages in
some ai'eas tliat have brought about the degradation of many American farm
families. This is not a problem for any one State or any one area or any one
group of men. This is a national problem. The living conditions of some
of our migratory workers are a national disgrace."

The conclusion of the President's Commission on Migratory Labor on this
matter is most emphatic. The report states : "That the wetback traffic has
severly depressed farm wages is unquestionable." An al)undance of data gathered
while holding hearings during the summer and early fall of 1950 is summarized
in its report, and offered as conclusive evidence.

The depressing effect on wages in the lower Rio Grande Valley, an area of
heavy wetback traffic, is given particular emphasis. In this valley it was
learned that, in 1947, when wages for chopping cotton were $2.25, wages in
points northward from the border were continuously higlier. In the sandy
lands of Texas, wages were $3 ; in Corpus Christi and coast prairie areas, $4 ;
in the Rolling Plains, $5; in the High I'lains, still further north, $5.25.

When holding hearings in Texas in August 1950, the Commission found the
wage rate for picking short-staple cotton in the lower Rio Grande Valley to be
about $1.25 per hundredweight, with a range of 50 cents to $1.75 per hundred-
Aveight. By comparison, the United States Department of Agriculture reported
the State-wide average rate in Texas for 1950 as $2.45 per hundredweight.

In California's own Imperial Valley in 1950, another area of heavy traffic, the
going wage rate for common farm labor was 50 cents. In San Joaquin Valley,
•where fewer wetbacks are concentrated, the going rate was 85 cents per hour.
But this contrast does not reveal the true impact of wetback traffic on wages.

Department of Agriculture figures show that there is a clear tendency for
Avages to rise as one moves westward from Texas to California, with wages in
California being the highest. In 1950 average wages for all farm work in the
four border States were as follows :

Cen ts per
hour

Texas 54

New Mexico 54

Arizona 64

California 88

But the President's Commission found wages for common labor in the Im-
perial Valley to be 50 cents per hour, thus, reasonably inferring that Imperial
Valley farmers pay no more to get their farm work done than do f;irm employers
in southern New Mexico and Texas, and probably less than do Arizona farmers.
In other words, so strong is the effect of wetbacks on wages that in the case of
Imperial Valley, the differential in wage rates associated with the tendency
of wages to rise as one moves westwa^rd has been almost completely eliminated.

The incredibly low rates being paid wetbacks in Imperial Valley are fully
substantiated in reports received by the federation from the National Agiicul-
tural Workers Union, AFL. A field check during the week of April 28, 1952, for
.example, indicated that wetbacks were picking tomatoes for 20, 30, and 40 cents
;an hour.

Numerous other examples of how the wetback traflac is depressing the wages
of domestic workers is available, but the above data suffices to demonstrate an
already indisputable fact.

It should be pointed out, however, that the presence of wetbacks is not the sole
factor working toward the depression of American living standards. Wetbacks
are but one side of the coin; the other side is the extensive misuse of contract
nationals brought in from Mexico to supplement area shortages of domestic
workers.

The California State Federation of Labor has no ob.1ection to the importa-
tion of contract nationals providing that the need for such labor is .iustified and
adequate safeguards are made to protect both domestic and foreign workers.

1070 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Public Law 78 and the covering international agreement with Mexico si^e-
cifically limit the use of contract nationals to areas with a short supply of
domestic worl<ers and at prevailing wages so as not to adversely affect the living^
standards of domestic workers. But the administration and processing of
applications for contract nationals has rendered these guaranties ineffective.-
Too often empolyers' requests for contract nationals are granted in a perfunctory
manner without reasonable effort on the part of employers or employment officers
to attract or obtain domestic workers. One a request for importing Mexican
nationals is granted, the contracted prevailing wage is frequently allowed to be
determined unilaterally by associations of large-scale farmers at rates far below
those customarily paid domestic workers. So far no set procedure mutually
agreeable to labor and the farmers has been developed to determine prevailing
wages.

And in open violation of the international agreement with Mexico, many
employers continue to employ contract nationals along with wetbacks. Thus
together these Mexican legals and illegals provide the anvil and the hammer on
which and by which American farm wages are being flattened.

The resort to a misuse of contract nationals is actually an integral part of
the foreign lal^or problem facing the domestic farm worker wiio is already
struggling to eke out a bare existence. The federation, however, is well aware
that the importation of nationals is not the responsibility of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service. The responsibility lies with the Department of
Labor, and since the Department is presently attempting to work out the abuses
of importing Mexican nationals by enlisting the cooperation of organized labor,
this statement is confined primarily to wetbacks.

The second consequence of wetback traffic, as mentioned above, is the competi-
tion and displacement of domestic workers stemming directly from wetback
depression of wage rates. Here again the voluminous testimony received by the
President's Commission on Migratox'y Labor and the report of that Commission
offer conclusive evidence. Numerous displaced farm woi'kers in various areas
testified before the Commission on how wetback wages were forcing them to
withdraw from local lal^or markets and migrate northward where wetback
penetration was nominal and wages higher.

Testimony received from an authority on Mexican-American affairs while the
Commission was in southern Texas adequately summarizes this displacement of
domestic workers. This is the area with a large Spanish-American and Mexican-
American population that serves as a home base for agricultural workers who
migrate northward in the summertime with the cultivation and harvesting of
ci'ops. Referring to the parallel between increase in wetback traffic and the in-
creasing number of Americans of Spanish and Mexican descent entering the
migratory stream, the report quotes this authority as saying :

"The free and easy dipping into the cheap-labor reservoir that is Mexico has
made it virtually impossible for the citizens of Mexican descent in this area to
make a satisfactory living. They are pushed farther north by the competition of
1.5 and 20 cents an hour labor, and as they move north they complicate the eco-
nomic-social situation all up the line * * *

"We have detailed statistics on the migration of the residents of Hidalgo
County, in the period of 2 years * * * Qf if;_o()o persons included in the
survey, 8,000 migrated from Hidalgo County. Those 8,000 migrants went to
every single State in the United States in that migration during that period.
They went out to do, primarily, agricultural labor, stoop labor, that they were
prohil)ited from doing in their home county because of tlie competition of con-
traband labor that can be employed at 15, 20, and 2.5 cents."

Similar data for California are not available, but the displacement of domestic
workers by wetbacks in this State is no less startling. The State federation
has numerous letters from field representatives of the National Agricultural
Workers Union fully corroborating these findings. The center of displacement,
of course, is in the Imperial Valley, where wetbacks, together with large numbers
of contract nationals, are the source of cheap labor available to the "industry"
farms of the area without regard to the availability of local labor and frequently
to the exclusion of domestic workers actively seeking work. Such workers have
no alternative but to migrate northward to join the mass exodus from the fields
to war production factories.

With respect to health and sanitation, the President's Conmiission reports
that in border areas of heavy wetback traffic, "death and disease assume far
more the characteristics of Mexico than of the United States." In Imperial

COMMISSION OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1071

Valley, the infant mortality rate (number of deaths under 1 year of aw per
1,000 live births) is 5(5.2 while tiie State-wide rate for California is only 28.6.
The livini; conditions which wetbacks are willing to tolerate and the fact that so
many of them stay but a short time makes it unnecessary for farmers to provide
adequate shelter and sanitation facilities. Consequently, the presence of wet-
backs increases the amount of tilth and insanitation which breed diai-rhea and
dysentery, two of the chief causes of infant deaths. Accordingly, the infant
mortality rate from these two diseases in Imperial Valley is 12.9 percent, while
the State-wide average is only 1.8 percent.

Similar comparisons of the three counties in the lower Rio Grande Valley with
Texas as a whole only substantiate these findings.

The health problems of border areas, it is true, have always demanded atten-
tion. But it is also true that wetback traffic inevitably jjostpones effective reme-
dial measures, thus aggravating the prolilems. Because of his illegal entrance,
there can be no check against bringing in contagious diseases. And as an illegal
alien, he cannot seek medical care without risk of apprehension. While tJius
being effectively denied access to medical service agencies which would ordi-
narily provide assistance, the wetback, because of his living conditions, only adds
to the insanitation that figures so highly in the death and disease rates of border
areas.

Related to the wetback problem but actually a direct consequence of the break-
down of our border enforcement system is the threat to our internal security.
There is nothing to stop alien Communist agents from filtering across the border
into the United States in the guise of farm workers among the thousands of
wetbacks who slip across the international boundary every night. Indeed, Wil-
lard Kelley made this clear in his testimony before the Senate Appropriations
Committee on March 12 of this year when he said : "We consider the wide-open
border a definite threat to our internal security. Anyone can enter unchecked,
including subversives or even spies. It makes a farce out of our strict controls
at the ports."

STRENGTHENING IMMIGRATION LAWS RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to relieve this unwholesome situation, immediate action must be taken
to secure a more effective enforcement of our immigration laws, for the wetback
problem is essentially one of immigration law enforcement. More effective en-
forcement, however, cannot be accomplished without the enactment of additional
legislation, which in turn must recognize that the problem of immigration law
enforcement includes not only the Mexican national who secures employment and
wages through unlawful entry, but also the smuggler who gains from conspiring
in the unlawful entry, and the farm employer who gains from the employment
of the illegal alien at depressed wages.

Before spelling out the steps necessary for more adequate enforcement, a pass-
ing reference should again be made to the general problem of alien agricultural
labor in the West, which includes contract nationals from Mexico as well as
wetbacks. If Mexican farm workers are actually needed for temporary legal
employment in the United States— the federation does not deny that some area
shortages exist, but maintains that such shortages are artificially created by the
ever-widening disparity between wages paid farm labor and comparable labor in
industry — then the first urgent problem faced by the United States is to devise
with Mexico a legal farm-labor program that will provide contract labor where
needed without displacing or in any way reducing or freezing working conditions
of domestic labor. Such a program -must effectively ban the employment of
wetbacks either separately or in mixed crews with contract nationals.

A legal farm-labor program with Mexico has been in existence for some time,
but, as indicated above, it has many shortcomings. These defects must be cor-
rected because the establishment of a sound program is a prerequisite to dealing
effectively with the foreign labor problems in American agriculture. Beyond this,
a solution to the problems of wetback traffic and its consequences merely requires
taking affirmative action against the respective participating parties, while bear-
ing in mind at all times that the wetback is in no sense of the word a criminal
but mei-ely an unfortunate victim of a hostile environment and the selfish in-
terests that exploit him.

In this respect, the I'ecommendation of the California State Federation of
Labor follow rather closely those of the President's Commission on Migratory
Labor.

1072 COMMISSION ox IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

1. The Immi.eration and Naturalization Service should be strengthened by (a}
giving its agents clear authority to enter ui)on the place of employment to deter-
mine if illegal aliens are employed; (b) providing clear statutory i>enalties for
harboring, concealing, or transporting illegal aliens; (c) providing the Service
with increased appropriations for personnel and equipment.

Public Law 283, approved by the President on March 20. 1952. but not yet in
effect, cari'ies out part (h) of this recommendation. This act, which amends the
present immigration law by making it a felony for harboring, concealing, or
transporting illegal aliens, will greatly strengthen the Immigration Service in its
efforts to prosecute the smuggler who gains from conspiring in the milawful
entry of wetbacks. At present such harboring, concealing, etc., is only a mis-
demeanor, and the courts have held that conviction of a misdemeanor for con-
cealing or harboring illegal aliens is insufficient to invoke a penalty.

Public Law 288 also partially satisfies the recommendation that immigration
officials be given clear authority to enter upon the place of employment to deter-
mine whether illegal aliens are employed. This authority is granted for areas
within 25 miles of the liorder. but, with respect to property lieyond 2.5 miles of the
border, i)resent laws will continue to apply. Although the Immigration Service
maintains otherwise, there is considerable confusion as to whether existing laws
allow immigration officials to enter farms without a warrant. This confusion
should be dispelled because the requirements of a warrant to enter private lands,
apart from dwellings, would make it virtually impossible to apprehend wetbacks.
During the time it takes to get a warrant, the wetback may flee or be loaned to a
fellow farmer for the time of the warrant.

It is evident, then, that immigration officers nmst have this clear authority..
As the President's Commission on Migratcn-y I.rabor points out :

It must be noted that farms employing workers in significant numbers are-
places of employment and therefore affected witii the public interest. Should
they not be open to inspection for the enforcement of law? I'nder safety and
accident-prevention laws it was long ago acknowledged tliat factory inspectors?
had the right to enter places of employment. Likewis-e. Government officials
inspect places of employment to administer child labor, minimum wage, maxi-
mum hours, sanitation and other laws. Perhaps it is time we modernize our
concept of the farm employing several workers, recogiiizing it (apart from the
farmer's home) as not a i^ersonal castle but rather a place of employment af-
fected with a public intei'est and on whicli inspection may be made in the en-
forcement of law.

The fact nevertheless remains that Public Law 283 makes several important
amendments to our immigration laws. Wlien it becomes operative, the Ir.nnigra-
tion Service will have additional autliority necessary to deal more effectively
with the wetback problem. But authority of the law is not enough. It must
also have additional funds for personnel and equipment in order to use that
authority. And it is just this lack of funds that makes a farce of our inunigra-
tion \a\v's. Congress this year, at the re(piest of the liorder Congressmen who-
evidently sympathize with the intei-csts exploiting wetback lalior. led Ity Im-
perial Valley's John Phillips (Repulilican, of California), cut the Immigration
Service's third supplemental budget by ,$1.319',0U(t — the exact amount requested
for wetback control. While asking the Senate Appropriations Committee on
March 22 to restore the funds, Willard Kelly made it clear that without funds
the Immigration Service is faced with a collapse of its entire enforcement system.
He said : "Ten .vears ago. when we had no wetback problem, the border patrol
had 1,450 men. Now Congress authorizes us only 750 men, and we are swamped.
Without the money, we can't begin to handle the problem."

2. As a second recommendation, legislation should be enacted making it un-
lawful to knowingly employ aliens illegally in the I'nited States. This can lie-
accomplished siinply liy extending the meaning (if harboring and concealing il-
le.gal aliens to include employment of such aliens, or by prohibiting the shipment
in interstate commerce of any product on which illegal alien lalior lias worked.

Making the employment of wetbacks illegal is absolutely essential to the so-
lution of the wetback problem. It is rather naive to think that the wetback
traffic can be brought under control without taking the profit out of employing
wetbacks. Yet Public Law 283 specifically excludes the employment of wetbacks
from the meaning of harboring and concealing an illegal alien. In other words,
the mass-production and corpoi'ate farmers who are largely responsible for the
flow of wetbacks are the ver.v people protected from the law.

COMMISSION OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1073

As long as employers ni'e exempt from t]ie provisions of tlie immigralion laws,
tliere will always be an abundance of jobs to attract the illesals. It miicht be
added that this automatically makes the Inuui.uration Service's policinu- job very
expensive. Since it is not illegal to employ wetbacks, there is no reason other
than a moral one for the employers to cooperate with the Immigration Service in
appreliending wetbacks.

While the solution of the wetback problem lies primarily in the ena'ctment of
adequate immigration legislation and in the provision of suflicient funds to the
Immigraticm Service for the enforcement of the innnigration laws, there are alsa
ways in which the State Depai'tment can contribute to the solution.

8. As a third recommendation, the State Department should seelv the active
cooijeration of the Government of Mexico in developing a program eliminating^
the flow of wetbacks in the United States, by («) the sti'ict enforcement of the
Mexican emigration laws, {h) preventing the concentration of surplus supjilies
of labor in areas close to the border, and (r) develoi)ing a long-range agricultural
program which will raise the living standards of the Mexican worker and thereby
reduce the attractiveness of employment in the United States.

These recommendations, the federation believes, meet the realities of the-
Avetback problem. They are submitted with the conviction that the Commission
will recognize their merit and recommend their implementation.

In concluding, however, there is one further point about the employment of
wetbacks which should be made. It concerns the denial to farm workers of the
economic and social-sei-urity gains of the past 15 years, which is at the very bot-
tom of the wetback problem.

The farm worker of today is still without the protection of minimum wage and
hour legislation. Without justification he has been singled out with a few other
groups and denied the protection of law in his right to organize and the security
of old-age, unemployment, and disability insurance. Under these conditions he
remains a ready victim for exploitation. If his employer cuts his wages or hires
wetbacks at depressed rates, he may protest, but there is little that he can do
about it. His insecurity keeps him at his job, and legal denial of his right to
organize deprives him of his only effective means of retaliation. It thus becomes
clear that, if the benefits of the economic and social-security gains of the past
decade were extended to the farm workers, if employers w'ere compelled to main-
tain a decent standard of minimum wages, irrespective of the nationality of the
worker to whom w'ages are paid, the advantages of wetback employment would
soon disappear and wetback traffic would be materially reduced.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, some people
have submitted documents for the record which, with your permission,
T would like to have incorporated in the record at this time.

The Pacific American Steamship Association, through ]\Ir. Robert E.
Mayer, has written a letter to tlie Conunission requestino; it be inserted
in the record and statin*; that the association represents the major
American-flag- cUy-cargo steamship operators on the Pacific coast and
would like to present their statement before the Commission in Wash-
ington because they don't have the time to do so here.

Next, Dr. Laszlo Valko, representing the American-Hungarian
Federation for the State of Washington has submitted a statement
from Pidhnan, Wash., to the Commission, including a letter from
Prof. A. A. Smick, extension comnnuiity organization specialist, wha
has already been identified to the Conunission as the chairnutn of the
Washington State DP Commission. They have asked that that be
incorporated into the record.

The Chairman. Those statements may be inserted in the record.

1074 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

(The statements follow :)

Statement Submitted by R. E. Mayer, President, Pacib^ic American
Ste^amship Association

Pacific American Steamship Association,

San Francisco, Calif., October 7, 1952.

President's Special Commission on Immigration and Naturalization,
Care of Mr. Bruce Barber, District Director,
Immigration and Naturalization Service,

San Francisco, Calif.

immigration and nationality act

Gentlejeen : This association represents the major American-flag dry-cargo
steamship operators on the Pacific coast and thus is interested in the hearings
of October 14 and 15 which will be conducted by your organization to obtain
views concerning the above act.

We are studying the act at this time, and our deliberations will not be com-
pleted in time for your hearings here. We therefore ask that you insert this
letter in your record. We have made arrangements to have our position pre-
sented before hearings in Washington, D. C, on October 27 and 28.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,

R. E. Mayer, President.

Statement Submitted by Laszlo Valko in Behai;.p of the American-
Hungarian Federation For the State of Washington

American-Hungarian Federation,

Pullman, Wash., October 10, 1952.

Mr. Philip B. Perlman,

Chairman, President's Commission on Immigration
and Natuntlisation, San Francisco, Calif.
Dear Sir: As a representative of the American-Hungarian Federation (chart-
ered in 1907) for the State of Washington, I am taking the liberty of submitting
to you herewith our written remarks concerning the immigration and naturali-
zation policy of the United States contained in the recently enacted United
States Public Law 414. Since a printed copy of the act was not available to us,
our remarks are made in relationship to general information we have and do
not pertain to any specific article of the McCarran-Walter inunigration law.

1. The new law contains a strict regulation for naturalized citizens, even
including the right to exclusion and deportation. This rigid restriction, if
applied in practice, will ci'eate different classes of citizenship within the United
States and will, to all intents and purposes, place the naturalized citizen in a
position of second-class citizenship. We fully agree with the action of the
Congress of the United States in establishing a legal procedure for excluding
or deporting sucli persons who were admitted into the LTnited States by fraud
or through illegal methods. We recognize the impoi'tance of dealing with those
individuals who as immigrants to this country denied or did not reveal in their
application for admission to this country that they had been or still were mem-
bers of a political party or organization whose policy definitely called for the
overthrow or destruction of the constitutional form of government of the United
States. However, we believe that these people are definitely in the minority.
We are definitely of the opinion that the majority of inmiigrauts that have come
to this country are honest, industrious people of integrity who have every desire
to assume their full legal responsibility of citizenship and loyalty to their new
country. To establish second-class citizenship for this group might even help
to eventually change or destroy the traditional American policy as set forth in
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

2. The quota system as set up in law 414 does not take into consideration the
present world situation where several hundred thousands of refugees have had
to leave their native lands to avoid terroristic persecution. During the last 4
years the United States of America has admitted about 350,000 of these displaced
persons under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act. Under the provisions
of the new law there is no possibility of any more of these refugees entering

COMMISSIOX OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1075

the United States. During normal times an increase or a decrease of a quota
by a few hundred persons is not too significant. Under present world conditions,
however, this fact is vitally signiticant. Under the quota system, eastern
European countries are very low in proportion to northern Europe, and yet
practically all of the refugees that need to be I'esettled somewhere else come
from the southeastern European area. These low quotas have been committed
for several years in advance, while the north and western European countries
are not using even a large proportion of their quotas. We sincerely believe that
the plight of the displaced persons in Europe should be given serious considera-
tion by the United States and action taken to return to the humanitarian policy
developed under the operation of the Displaced Persons Act.

We wish to point out that, according to several authentic reports, the newly
admitted displaced persons have in the majority of cases become responsible,
honest citizens of their adopted country. They are grateful for the humanitarian
policy of the American Nation which has assured for them a secure home after
many years of suffering and persecution. The adjustment of disi)laced persons
in their adopted communities has been particularly successful in those States
which have established State committees designed to protect the best interests
of the displaced persons and the sponsors and also assist the displaced persons
in becoming familiar with the American way of life and the customs and tradi-
tions of the American people. In the State of Washington this special committee
through its county committees helped find homes, secured jobs for displaced
persons, helped to protect their rights, and established language classes which
assisted in speeding up the process of adjustment and aided these displaced
persons in becoming loyal and useful citizens in their adopted country. The
committee in the State of Washington performed an excellent service and,
through its local committees, was able to keep the problems of adjustment down
to a minimum. Tlie chairman of the State committee, Mr. A. A. Smick, believes
that the efforts of the committee were well worth while, and his opinion on this
matter is expressed in the attached letter. We do hope that the endeavor of
the Commission will bring success, and that, upon receiving the report of the
Commission, the Congress will reconsider these important points not now included
in the present law. We also hope that the wisdom of the legislators will enable
them to find the best regulations for the future immigration and naturalization
policy of the United States which will conform to the human spirit of the
American tradition and the social, political, and economic interests of the
Nation.

Thanking you for giving us an opportunity to submit our remarks, we are.
Very truly yours,

Laszlo Valko, Ph.D.. LL.D.,
Representing ihe Amcrican-Htingarian Federation for the State of
Washington.

Enclosure: Letter from Mr. A. A. Smick.

October 9, 1952.
Dr. LASZLO Yalko.

Dfar Dr. Valko : It is my pleasure and privilege to write you this letter
giving you my reaction to the traits and characteristics of the displaced persons
who have been resettled in the State of Washington. As chairman of the
(Governor's committee on the resettlement of displaced persons I have had the
good fortune of meeting many of these new citizens personally, and I have also
had the privilege of sitting in on a number of meetings throughout the State of
our county committees for the purpose of resettling these folks more equitably.
In addition I have attended many county planning committee meetings that
o[)erate under the Extension Service and have heard testimony from many of our
rural people who have come in contact with displaced persons. In every single
instance the farmers themselves who have been neighbors of our new citizens
have said that they are "the salt of the earth."

I want to say to you that practically 100 percent of those folks who have
been settled in the State of Washington have adjusted themselves very rapidly
to their new environment and have become good, active citizens in the com-
munities in which they live. Tlie moral standards of these folks that have come
to us have been very high. The willingness on tlie part of these new citizens
to accept any kind of work which will make it possible for them to live in the
United States of America indicates the true spirit behind these people. The
new citizens have joined their respective churches; they have become members

1076 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

of parent-teacher associations ; they have joined service clubs and in other ways
become very active in the promotion and development of the welfare of the
community in which they happen to live. I will be frank in saying that I cannot
be too high in my praise of the extent to which these individuals have demon-
strated their faith in the American way of life and their appreciation for the
opportunity that has been given to them to join us in the building of a truly
democratic society.

In the State of Washington we have had displaced persons going into agri-
culture, industry, lumbering, fishing, and the trades as well as some professional
groups. They have given a good account of themselves in each one of theso
relationships, and I am happy to report that where individuals went into th6
various trades they were readily accepted and in some cases helped by or-
ganized labor grouijs. I can say that in my own case I have had from these new
citizens a good example of real citizenship. From them I have received new
courage and £ recognition of the fact that sometimes we talie too much for
granted the things we have enjoyed here within the boundaries of the United
States of America.

I will be frank in stating that I was sorry that Congress saw fit to discontinue
the Displaced Persons Commission. I sincerely felt that the job was not yet
done. I feel, now that the Commission has been discontinued, we must do every-
thing within our power to secure objective consideration regarding the possibility
of amending the present immigration legislation to enable a large propoi-tion
of those individuals who have been expelled from or who have escaped from
behind the iron curtain to come to this country and find new hope in a new
way of life. As I told you in my conversation with you, I thoroughly feel that
we should have real protection against the possibility of individuals coming
to this country who might not be in sympathy with the American way of life.
At the same time, however, I am also just as seriously concerned that we must
be ever vigilant in protecting the rights of individuals and not allowing our
personal fears and insecurities to prompt us to develop a system which might
l>enalize those unfortunates who are unable to protect themselves.

I do also want to take advantage of this opportunity of expressing to you and
to the American-Hungarian Federation members my sincere appreciation for
your constant efforts in helping those Individuals who at the present time are
vmable to help themselves. If in any other way I can be helpful to you, please
feel free to call on me again.
Sincerely yours,

A. A. Smick,
Extension Community Organization Speoialist.

Mr. HoSENFiELD. The third statement is from Miss Kathleen R.
Doss, of the Pan-American Co., of Seattle, Wash. This is a research
paper prepared by Mr. Trinidad A. Rojo on the question of "Filipino-
American immigration quotas.

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record.

(The statement follows:)

Statement Submitted by Kathleen D. Doss in Behalf of Pan-Amerasian Co.,

Seattle, Wash.

Pan-Amerasian Co.,
Seattle, Wash., October 11, 1952.

The President's Commission On Naturalization and Immigration,

Civic Auditorium, San Francisco, Calif.
Gentlemen : In behalf of th.e peoples of America and the Philippines, I hereby
send you a research paper prepared by Mr. Trinidad A. Rojo, Who took postr
graduate courses in the Universities of Washington, Columljia, and Stanford.
He is a member of the Alpha Kappa Delta, American National Honorary Society
in sociology. He was a research fellow at Stanford University.
I wish you to include his brief in the record of your hearing.
Very truly yours,

Kathleen D. Doss.

COMMISSION OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1077

Filipixo-Amkkica.n I iM migration Quotas

(By Trinidad A. Rojo)

It may seem straiijje that Hawaii, a Territory', gets a far l)etter deal than
anyone or all of the States of the Union out of a legishUion passed by the
United States Coiigress. It actually did under the Tydings-Mi I>ut!ie Act of
l!i;!4. wliicli provides an annual (lunta of .")() for Filipinos for the mainland of
the United States. Last year the naturalization law for Filipinos increased
their (|Uota to lUO. The inunigration to Hawaii is to he determined liy tlie
Department of the Interior on the basis of the needs of industries in the Territory
of Hawaii, as provided by the McDutfie-Tydings Act of ID.'M. Alter World War
II, when Hawaii found itself short of workers, it imijorted G.OOO Filipinos. Fil-
ipinos in Hawaii, however, cannot migrate into the mainland of the United
States, so that the Filipinos' rights differ under the same flag, as if the Stars
and Stripes were a chameleon which changes color according to the environment.

3SrOT FLEXIBLE

The mainland of the United States may need 100,000 Filipino workers iii
liKiO. The Philippines may have surplus labor in that j'ear. According to the
law, the employers here cannot get anyone beyond the annual quota of 100 for
Filipinos. In other words, the law in its application to Hawaii is more reason-
able to the employers, and more adjustable to the situation in the Territory
and in the Philippines Republic than to the employers and situation in the
United States.

How did such an arrangement come about? The sugar planters of Hawaii
were opposed to Philippine sugar but welcomed Filipino labor. The AFL lobby-
ists on the njainland demanded the exclusion of Filipinos ; certain protectionists
for American industries here and in Cuba whose products were thought to be
menaced by imports from the Philippines lined up with labor behind the McDuffie-
Tydings Act of 1934. Of course, they were approved by other groups who were
benefited b.v Filipino labor and Philippine-American trade. While the mainland
lobbyists were split into three or more groups, the representatives of the Big
Five who control Hawaii were united, and they got exactly what they wanted —
Filipino labor that could not move to the United States, even to escape an intol-
erable condition in Hawaii.

INAnEQUATE VIEW

After the depression it Mas found out by economists tliat the competition
of Philippine goods with American i)roducts was not as great and as direct as
it was thought to be. It was realized that although the duties waived on
Philippine goods was ^.30.000,000 over the duties waived on American goods
entering the Philippines, it was wrong to evaluate foreign commerce solely in
terms of the balance of trade. Even granting that America imports $100,000,000
worth of Manila abaca and did not sell any in return, it does not mean that
this country is a loser. The abaca satisfies a great need in various industries.
If Canada imports .$10,000,000 worth of coffee from Brazil, even if there is no
■exchange of products, it cannot be said that the former lost $10,000,000.

Inipctrts from the Philippines were raw material for which industrial coun-
tries compete. These imports were made into finished products in American
factories \\here they increase employment of Americans. Some of them were
i-eexported. Exports to the Philippines were practicall.v all finished products
which (lid not keej) any Filii)ino industry busy in their manufacture. Filiinno
economists i)ointed out that their prosperity under the Free Trade Act of 1909
•was illusory; that it made their country like a small boat tied to a big boat;
if the big boat sinks, the small one follows, but the small boat may sink and
tlie big one may not notice it.

They also pointed out that the situation gave an abnormal encouragement
to export industries to the neglect of producing products for home consumption ;
such as rice, eggs, vegetables, and meat, things that could be profitably produced
in the Philippines, with the result that their economy was precarious. They
said that in buying American goods they were paying for the higli cost of Ameri-
can labor and higher marine charges than they would it' the.v coidd rearrange
their tariffs with other coimtries and let them compete for American markets. In
the words of Dr. Andres Castillo, "Free Trade has raised the objective standard

1078 COMMISSION ox IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

of the Filipino without raising his subjective standard." He means by this that
the increase of Filipino wages did not keep up with the increase of the prices of
the goods he bought ; and, therefore, his real standard of living was lower, not
higher than before.

To those who measure advantages in terms of the balance of trade, it must
be mentioned that a sizeable portion of the gold mines, sugar centrals, and other
industries in the Philippines are under the control of American exporters. For
instance, of the real-estate property used for business in the Philippines, 126,096
hectares were owned by Filipinos, while 106,473 hectares belonged to Americans,
according to records on taxes on December 31, 1938. It cannot be denied, how-
ever, that only an iota of the American and Filipino population shares in the
benefits from such enterprises. The task before us is how to make Filipino-
American relationship more beneficial to more people on both sides of the ocean.

Finally in 1939 Congress made some improvements in the McDuffie-Tydings
Act.

SCRAMBLE FOR FILIPINOS

But no one represented the interest of the Filipinos in America, and the annual
quota of 50 for the Philippines remained as it was until 1946 when it was in-
creased to 100. One of the lobbyists from the AFL mentioned in 1931 that in
San Joaquin Valley alone there were 70.000 Filipinos. A Seattle labor leader
said the islanders were unhealthy, carriers of meningitis who "died like flies."
Estimates of the number of Filipinos in this country varied from 100,000 to
1,000,000. Before the war the highest number of Filipinos in America ever at-
tained was 48,000. That was In 1935. according' to a letter I received from the
United States Bureau of Immigration. According to the census of 1940, there
were only 45,568 Filipinos here as compared to 45.208 in 1930.

When the war broke out the competition for Filipino labor was keen. Every-
body wished there were one or two million Filipinos here. The asparagus in-
dustry of California, the salmon industry of Alaska, the sliipyards, aircraft
factories, the construction companies on the Alaska Highway scrambled for
Filipino workers and did their best to restrain the Army fi-om drafting them.
To a union ])resident who was authorized by Stanley White, a regional war
manpower official, to get Filipino cannery workers from the industries which
employed them between salmon seasons, a commander of the Vallejo shipyard
said, "Please leave your men here. The Filipinos are the most patriotic workers
we have. We want to get back to Bataan."

Seattle packers who operated 89 salmon canneries in 1944 declared openly that
they preferred Filipinos to any other workers. Bosses met the boys from Cali-
fornia at the railroad and bus depots. The Cannery W^orkers and Farm Labor-
ers' Union Local 7 of Seattle and the salmon industry estalilished recruiting
centers in California with headquarters in Stockton and San Francisco, a move
which alarmed the agricultural interests. It was clear then that the quota was
unwise. It was felt that it should have been adjustable thnmgh mutual agree-
ment between the President of the United States and the Philippines, somewhat
like the arrangement for Hawaii.

AMEND QUOTAS

One of the greatest benefits rendere<l to the Filiiiinos by the United States was
the giving of opportunities to intelligent, ambitions, and industrious, but poor,
Filipino students to come to the United States to secure a college education.
This formed a "matrix" to present-day leadersliip in the islands. During the
Spanish regime, as in South American countries today, college education with
rare exceptions was confined to the rich.

It will be shown later that there is no impelling need for a large-scale migra-
tion of Filipino settlers to America ; for they have empty and rich lands still
undeveloped. There is no urgent necessity for Filipino laborers to migrate to
this country. Several Filipino leaders on the Pacific coast told me that they
would be satisfied if the United States would relax the quota to allow enough
Filipinos to migrate here to replace those who perished in the war and former
residents who had returned to the Philippines or gone elsewhere so that the
number of Philippine-born Filipino residents here will be equal to that of 1940
before the war broke out.

They say that, in view of their abnormal sex-ratio of 1 female to 14 males, ac-
cording to the 1940 census, they are not allowed to replenish themselves through
immigration ; they will be "a vanishing race" in this continent, and they will have

COMJVIISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1079

fought not for their survival but for their elimination. The suggestion seems
reasonable, and it is hard to figure what fair objection a Congressman can raise
against it.

To allay the fears of nationalistic labor groups, it could be so provided that
at no time shall the total number of Filipino immigrant residents in America
exceed 50,000 except when there is an emergency such as war or unusual develop-
ments which occasion great shortage of lal)or, in which case the Presidents of
both countries can readjust the quota for the Philippines for their mutual benefit.

I have already shown that America can render an invaluable service to the
Philippines, as she has done in the past, by giving concession to intelligent, in-
dustrious, ambitious students who cannot afford to study in the colleges in
Manila. Each Province may be allowed to send one or two each year selected
through competitive examinations among high-school graduates, who shall be
allowed to stay here for not more than 5 or 6 years, which could be extended
if they want to pursue advance studies. If this concession is not granted, only
the children of the rich and Government students can secure their education
here as nonquota immigi-ants.

On the other hand, I l^elieve that the Pliilippine immigration quota of 500 a
year for every nation except the United States is unwise. It is too early for
such a young undeveloped country to pass such a sweeping exclusion law. The
area of the Philiinnes is 115,600 square miles as compared with 147,700 for Japan
proper. But only 20 percent of the area of Japan can be cultivated, while 55
percent of the lands of the Philippines is arable. This means that the tillable
land of the Philippines is 61,500 square miles, while Japan has only 29,400 square
miles. Japan, however, has 73,144,308 people ; the Philippines has 16,000,301,
according to the census of 1939. Only 13.3 percent of the tillable laud of the
Philippines was under cultivation before the outbreak of the war.

The average density of the population of the Philippines is 53.8 per square
kilometer. But Mindanao, the second-largest island can hold 20,000,000 people
if fully developed, has only 2,000,000 people, which is slightly more than that of
the city of Los Angeles, although its 36,292 square miles is only 14,740 square
mile less than that of Java and Madora, which is 51,032 square miles and inhab-
ited by about 51,000,000 people.

From 1918 to 1939 the total migration to Mindanao was 42,598 in spite of the
settlement project of the Philippine Government which was capitalized at
$10,000,000. Granting an average annual increase of 100,000 people for Mindanao
through migration, it will take 200 years for it to attain 20,000,000. Everybody
says that 100,000 per year is too optimistic. But allowance must be given for
increase due to excess of births over deaths.

Mindanao is regarded to be the future granary and treasure house of the
Philippines. The province of Surigao is estimated to have an iron deposit of
500,000,000 metric tons. The island has rubber possibilities that can break the
Dutch and British monopolies in Indonesia and Malaya. The standing com-
mercial timber of the Philippines is estimated to be 464,470,000,000 board feet,
and about half of this is in Mindanao. Quinine trees, coffee, cacao, pineapple, and
citrus grow there. Karl Pelzer, who surveyed Mindanao and Indonesia with
the thoroughness of a German scientist, presents an interesting topographical
map of the island in his book Pioneer Settlement in Asiatic Tropics, indicating
over seven regions of Mindanao whose elevation varies from 1,000 to 5,000 feet
above sea level, which have temperate climate and are suitable to white settle-
ment.

Of course, any part of Mindanao 4s suitable to white settlement provided
the settler makes the necessary adjustment in clothing and housing. Many parts
of the United States, .such as the San Joaquin-Sacramento Valleys and the Im-
perial Valley of California, are warmer than Manila in summer. Mindanao is
cooler than Manila, and is out of the typhoon belt.

The Philippine immigration quota should be revamped in order to speed up
the increase of population and the development of Mindanao. Viewed object-
ively and in the light of history, there is no cause for alarm if 50,000 or 100,000
people are admitted each year. The Philippine population is much more homo-
geneous than is generally realized.

FILIPINOS HOMOGENEOUS

According to the Philippine Census of 1939, out of a total population of 16,000,-
303, there were 15,833,649 Filipinos ; 117,487 Chinese ; 29,057 Japanese ; and 8,709
Americans ; 4,627 Spaniards ; 1,533 other Europeans, and 3,941 other nationalities.

1080 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The racial composition of the Filipinos, according to the census is 98.9 percent
brown, 0.4 percent half-caste, 0.5 percent yellow, 0.1 percent white ; 90.5 percent
Christian, 5 percent pagan, over 4 percent Mohammedan ; 99.4 percent native-
born, and only 0.6 percent were foreign-born. The percentage of foreign element
in the I'hilippines is very low indeed compared with those of other countries, as
we shall see later.

It is because, with the exception of the Negritos, the Filipinos have mixed in
the course of centuries. The American people are more heterogeneous than
the Filipino nation. This country has 13,454,405 nonwhite peoples and 11,419,138
foreign born. In other words, about 20 percent of the population of the United
States has racial, national, and cultural backgrounds different from that of the
native-born whites.

The American quota systems are based on national origin : the Philippines^
may base its quota on racial origin, with the exception of American and Jewish
refugees who want to settle in Mindanao. It will be recalled in this connection:
that Itefore the war the late President Quezon announced to the world the open-
ing of Mindanao to Jewish farmers who want to settle there. Even the United
States usually lifts its immigration bars to refugees. The Bell Act provides for
an annual quota of at least 1,000 Americans for the Philippines. One thousands
a year may be allocated as the quota for American traders, financiers, and in-
dustrialists, but for the next 27 years there should be no qiiota for America
pioneers who want to settle in iMindanao.

If quota is needed to calm down the alarmists, it should not be less than 10,000'
a year, provided the invidious provisions of the Bell Act are amended so that the-
farmers and common people will be able to make a reasonable living. The good-
will thus gained will remove the fears and suspicion of the Filipinos of American,
"dollar imperialism" and will welcome Americans who want to live with them,,
and not .just exploit them as absentee owners.

Many Filipinos object to inunigratiou, for they fear disunity arising from a
variety of peoples and races within the country. But it should be borne in mind
that racial unity alone does not guarantee social, psychological, and political-
solidarity.

During the first 300 years of the Spanish regime, although the Filipino nation
then had practically the same racial composition as now, they were far fronr
united. They were sectioualistic, not nationalistic. The original Thirteen
Colonies of America were also sectioualistic. The State of New York levied
duties on goods coming from New Jersey and vice versa.

This was true among other States. Jealousies and dissensions among them
made the .iob of Washington as Commander of the Army very difficult. The^
Confederation had a hard time raising funds for the Continental Ai'uiy. After
the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Confederation was in danger of breaking to^
pieces, and in 1787 AVoshington had to come out of his retirement to help
stabilize the Union in the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Even so, an intensive campaign in the States was necessary to secure ratifica-
tion over wtidespread opposition. Whites against whites fought over the Negro
question in the Civil War of 1861-65.

In tlie War of the Roses P^nglishmen fought against Englishmen; in fact,
cousins and brothers fought against each other for the throne for 150 years.
French, Chinese, and Japanese history are also replete with civil wars. This
means that there are many other factors for national solidarity besides race,
such as effective communication and transportation, integrated economic and
political systems, popular education, a common language and literature, news-
papers, radio, movies, theaters, national heroes, traditions, etc.

Without the cementing effect of a majority of these factors, a body of people
of the same race, nay of the same nationality, may break into sections, feudal
states, principalities, or smaller nations, etc. With most of these factors, with
effective communication, transiwrtation, educational system, a centi-alized gov-
ernn'.ent. various eieitienfs within the country will be coordinated and integrated^
if not now, eventually.

RAISE QUOTA

To allay the fears of Filipino supernationalists, as in Brazil, it may be pro-
vided that no nationality shall exceed 20 percent in any community, and that
all foreign-born parents must send their children to the public scliool. IJetween
1820 to 1930 the net immigration into the United States was 26,180,000. She-
assimilated them with the cultural road roller of mass education, tlie newspapers,
and later the movies. The Philippine immigration law of 1940 limits the

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1081

iinniiuration <nn)ta to "lOO a year for any nationality except the Americans.
This niiiiinuiin sliouhl be susixMuled for tlie next 28 years and raised to at least
1. ()(>(».

According to my i)roiM)sal, the IMiilippiiies will he able to open her doors to the
l)eoi)le of Malaya and coii<;(>stcd .lava with a sprinkling: of Chinese and Hindu
inimi,si:rants. It is frequently pointed out that the Dutch failed in encouragins
tlie . Javanese to migrate to the outer islands of Indonesia. For tlie first three
decades and a half of this century, yes; hut after various experiments and
blunders they evolved a colonization policy that was more thorough than that
of the riiilippines, and migration increased greatly.

It is more risky for the Philippines to let its rich island of Mindanao he
developed with a turtlelian rate and leave it as standing temptation to aggres-
sive peoples who want to got in, invited oi* uninvited, than to let people get into
it through an orderly process. Two l)urglars or looters entering an open house
can do a lot more damage, hut 10,000 people getting in under normal conditions
and with the guidance of trained usherettes will do their part in the triangular
i-(>lation of the actors, the dramatist, and th(> audience. It must he borne In
mind that Miiulanao was one of the incentives to Japanese invasion of the
Philippines. They had a flourishing "Little Tokyo" in iJavao long before Pearl
Harhor.

t:ONTACT AND ASSIMILATION

The statement that certain peoples are unassimilable is popular impression,
not a scientitic fact. It depends to a large extent upon the program, the policy,
and the attitude of the people in the new country. Where prejudice is great,
the immigrants become clannish, and segregate themselves into Chinatowns,
ghettos, etc., much longer than it would otherwise be. Where the natives are
tolerant and allow the inunigrants to mix with them, in the long run assimilation
Is inevitable.

In proportion to ]ioulatiou, there is more intermarriage between the Chinese
and the natives of Peru than in other American countries to which the Chinese
have migrated. It is because there is little social resistance against them there
as compared with the situation in Canada, the United States, and Argentina.
Long before the attack on Pearl Harbor sociologists were saying that the Japa-
nese second generation in Hawaii were orientated toward the mainland of the
United States rather than to Japan. This was proven in World War II. The
most decorated United States army was the Japanese army in Italy, and there
were Japanese who served Uncle Sam loyally in the South Pacific.

In Hawaii, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Portuguese, and Hawaiians usually
i-eside in the same city blocks. I'lopinquity is fatal to race prejudici^ Eco-
nomic interest is generally more potent than racial differences or similarities
in international relations. Before the war broke out I saw, in Seattle, Negro,
white, Filipino, and Japane.se CIO workers picket Negro, white, Filipino, and
Japanese AlFL workers. There were times where they came to blows.

I notice also that the social distance between a Filipino contractor and Amei'-
ican salmon-cannery superintendents, packers, and financiers was closer than
between a Filipino big boss and one of the Filipino cannery workers he sent to
Alaska, and between an American salmon magnate and an American ditch
digger. The former frequently had exchange dinners and driiUving parties
to which the common laborer of their own race and nationality would iiot be
invited. On the other hand, white farmers and Filipino share croppers, where
there is fair dealing, stick together in peace and in war.

PREPAKATORY INSTRUCTIONS

Americans who go to the Philippines should be given instructions by their con-
sul or Ambassador that snobbing the Filipino in his own country, putting up
such signs as "No Filipinos allowed," receiving him only through the Iiack door,
is no way of impressing him of one's .sui>eriority and winning his good w ill and
friendship. It is a short cut to making him intolerant against liim and every-
thing American. The Filii>ino accepts readily superiority in education, talents,
position, and other personal qualities and accomplishment's, i)ut not on the
basis of race. That is, if he is the victim; for the Filipino at home has his
superiority complex to the Chinese. Native dramatists never use a Chinese
character except as a conuc relief, where a poor Filipino girl is courted by a
lich Chinese with his deiiL'htful misi)roiiunciation of the vernacular and his
long (pieue.

1082 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The American should know by now the Filipino dislike toward him is a sort
of sour-grapes attitude. He likes the American if the American likes him,
but if the latter snubs him then, a la Webster, the Filipino prefers a govern-
ment run like hell without the American than a government run like heaven
with the arrogant Yankee. When the American is "nice" to him again, the
Filipino tends to forget the bitter memories of the Filipino-American war and
the race riots. Under advance and intelligent planning, the two peoples would
be able to get along in Mindanao.

If informed of the prospects through the movies, pamphlets, and posters similar
to those used very successfully in Java by the Dutch before the war, undoubt-
edly many people from the Dust Bowl of the Middle States would want to
pioneer in Mindanao, especially if Uncle Sam furnished the free transporta-
tion and the Philippines, as in the Koronadal project, the scientific survey, the
location of the settlement, the parcelling of the plots, the technical advice and
guidance, and the laying out of roads and irrigation system. The Matanuska
colonization project in Alaska failed because it lacked the comprehensiveness, the
intensiveness, and thoroughness of the Japanese colonization project in Brazil,
that of the Dutch in Indonesia before Pearl Harbor, and that of the Soviets
in the Far East. These nations were failures at first. But after three or
more decades of blunders and experiments they evolved effective methods.

So far the Americans seem to have excelled in unassisted individualistic
pioneering in contiguous territories. But there is no reason why they cannot,
if they want, equal if not surpass, in Mindanao the Japanese performance in
Davao and Brazil. Perhaps the Indonesians' system is more suited to the
individualistic American. As in the Phillipines, the Dutch laid out the com-
munity, the roads, the irrigation, and the lots in advance. But only the first third
or half of the settlers in outer Indonesia were subsidized. They invite their
friends and relatives in Java to join them during the harvest season.

EVERY NATION IS MIXED

Some Filipinos may fear becoming a mixed people or race. That fear lacks
historical and anthi'opological perspective. Ethnologists and anthropologists
have combed all the continents and islands, and they do declare with the soci-
ologists that they have not found any nation that is not mixed. The Periclean
Age of Athens, the Renaissance of Italy, the golden age of Queen Elizabeth
of England, of Cervantes and Lope de Vega of Spain were preceded by centuries
of large-scale mixtures of Mediterranean, Alpine, and Nordic peoples, of
Ibernians, Goths, Vandals, Celts, Normans, Fentons, and even Asiatic and
African elements. These Avere mixtures which took place centuries and thou-
sands of years ago. As before, the races and nations kept on mixing in spite
of prejudice which tends to restrain it.

RUSSIA

Most countries of the world have sizable immigrants of various nationalities
within its borders. Aside from over sixty native nationalities, Russia had
12,000 Austro-Hungarians, 500 English, 700 French, 1,300 Italians, 46,000 Greeks,
81,800 Chinese, 84,000 Koreans, 93,000 Persians, 25,000 Turks, 1,800 Japanese.
There were about as many Germans, 8,000, in Russia as Americans in the
Philippines before the outbreak of the war.

It would be hard to determine which is more heterogeneous, more mixed,
a greater mongrel — the Americans or the Russians. According to the census
of 1930, among the twenty-three largest nationalities in Russia, Russians con-
stitute 50.6 percent; Ukrainians, 20.3 percent; White Russians, 3.1 percent;
Georgians, 1.2 percent; Tartars, 1.9 percent; Turks, 1.1 percent; Uzbebeks,
2 percent ; Jews, 1.7 percent.

It is interesting to note that the Russians and White Russians represent only
57.7 percent of the population of Russia and that the Georgians, to which Stalin
belongs, form only 1.2 percent of the people. According to the latest available
figures, the Communist Party has only 2,500,000 members.

These may help to explain why Russia has a strong program for minorities,
why the Soviet constitution outlaws racial discrimination. The Russian bi-
cameral legislature is divided into the Soviet of the Union, the lower house and
the Soviet of Nationalities. While, as in the United States, representation in
the lower house is in proportion to population, one representative for every

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1083

300,01)0 people: the npp(>r house represents territorial divisions, as in the United
States Senate, but l)ased on nationalities.

In other words. Itussia tackles its assimilation problem differently from that
of America. The essence of the American policy is standardization in clolhe.s,
lanuua.u'e, huiidiims. etc. To ontsiders, with two or three exceptions, every
Ami'i'ican city, e.specially the downtown area, looks like any otlier. The Russians
enconra,i;e the development of the local language and cnltui'e with Russian taufiht
in the schools as a secondary lan.nua.iie to the non-Russian. In other words,
Russia encoura.^es cultural variety, but similarity in economic and political
Ideolo.uy.

The Russian majority of 50.0 percent being about as big as the grand total
of the minorities, the Soviets had to pursue a vigorous policy for the minorities,
perhaps for practical as well as for idealistic reasons. When Hitler attacked,
with his i^ersecutiim of minorities, the various nationalistic and ethnic elements
in Kussia, as the Negroes, Filipinos, Polish, Jewsh, English, French, Chinese,
Mexi<ans, and other nationalities in America, rose as one people to defend the
threat not only to the motherland but also to their minority rights.

DO NOT BE DOGMATIC

I might say in passing that it will do well for us to rid ourselves of the bigoted
and unrealistic notion that there is only one way oi life, one best form of govern-
ment, one true religion for all ])eoples and all times. One form of government
may be best for a certain people in a given country possessing such and such
traditions, lint it might be unsuitable for another people and place.

Conmmnism was ])i'ogressive and successful under the Incas in the Peruvian
Enijiire, but in Athens Plato in his republic could only hold it as a Utopian dream
before the people and it was never adopted. For one wife to have many husbands
in Tibet, China, and for one man to have several wives in Arabia may be best
for those places, but it may not work elsewhere.

GERMANY

Since the time of Bismarck, Germany has succeeded in promoting national unity
in spite of the pre.senee of various naticmalities within its borders. In 1925, for
instance, she had L'r.l),S04 Polish, 222,521 Czechoslovak, 128,851 Austrian, 82,278
Dutch, 47,173 Russians, 42,432 Swiss, 24,228 Italians, 19,142 Hungarians, 19,142
Yugoslavs, and 111,517 others. There were about as many Russians in Germany
as Filipinos in America. On the other hand, thei-e were more Germans in New
York than in all the German colonies before the World War I.

UNITED STATES

Every one out of three persons in New Y''ork is foreign-born. Of the nonwhites
the United States has 45,.5fi3 Filipinos, 126,747 Japanese, 77,.5(>4 Chinese. 2,405
Hindus, ,333,769 Indians, 12,781,570 Negroes which means a nonwhite total of
13,454,405. In all. the United States had before the war 11,419,138 foreign born.
There are 3,-500,000 Mexicans in the United States, more than the 2,937,000
Norwegians in Norway, as the Negroes in this country are more than the
11,506,655 Canadians. The total number of Negroes, Mexicans. American Indi-
ans. Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Hindus, and Koreans is 16,981,464 which is
slightly more than the population of the Philippines in 1939 and equal to the
combined population of Belgium and the Netherlands.

The Filipino who is fearful of becoming a racial chop suey might raise the
point, "but you have cited powerful nations that can tackle any comer, that, like
the anaconda, can assimilate anything and anybody."

From 1820 to 1926 over 64 nationalities were represented among the immigrants
of Riazil. There were, lor instance, SS,.568 Australians, 22,776 English. 34,2(iO
Franch. 89,665 Germans, 49.670 .Japanese, 1,291,189 Poi-tuguese, 32,374 Ruma-
nians, 110,118 Russians, .565.238 Si»ain"ar(ls. 14,.305 Swiss, 77,:!24 Turko-Arabic and
IS.UOS Yugoslavs. Later the numl)er of .Japanese rose to 200,(100. INIore than
one (juarter of Porto .Megrc, a city of 2S0,000 are of (Jerman descent. At least
half ;i million Germans or persons of (Jermaii descent live in the State of Rio
Grande do Sul.

25356—52^ 69

1084 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

ARGENTINA

How about neighboring Argentina, which is regarded as more militantly
nationalistic than any other South American nation? From 1S57 to 1926 it had
among its immigrants 2,718,000 Italians, l,sn3,000 Spaniards. 229,000 French,
172,000 Russians. 169,000 Ottoman TurlvS. 111.000 Germans, 941.000 Austro-Hun-
garians, 66.000 British, 48,000 Polacks, 43.000 Portuguese, 38,000 Swiss, 25,000
Belgians, 14.000 Danes, 15,000 Yugoslavs, and 134.000 other nationalities. In
1945 Argentina had a foreign population of 2,500,000.

If Argentina, whicli has only 13,130,000 population — a considerable percentage
of whicli is composed of Creoles and Indians — tliere is no valid reason that the
18,000,000 Filipinos should be afraid to receive 200,000 Americans or more set-
tlers. Whether the Filipinos and Americans at present want it or not, they are
allies and will continue to he as long as th?re are United States bases all around
the Philippine Republic. But sailors, soldiers, and guns are not enough to
defend bases. There must be enough resources, productive industries, and popu-
lation power behind them. It is with this realization that Russia has been
speeding up the settlement and development of Siberia.

Other countries in South and Central America are more or less similarly
mixed. For instance. IMexico has 1.150.000 whites. 1.000,000 mestizos, and
6.000.000 Indians. It is well knovrn tliat the tinv country of Switzerland with an
area of 15,940 square miles and a population of 4,265,702 as compared with the
Philippine area of 115.600 square miles and 18,000.000 people, has three major
nationalities — Germans, Italians, and French, surrounded with powerful, fre-
quently warring nations.

AUSTRALIA

Australia is about as big as the ITnited States in area. It is one of the
most industi-ialized countries in the world. Its per capita wealth is higher that
tliat of the Ignited States. Yet it is a weak country. The reason is its small
population — 7,137,221. which is about the population of New York. Its popula-
tion increase is slow l)ecause its inmiigration laws against Asiatics is very strict.

To test Chinese literacy over-zealous Australian immi'-'ration ofhcials were said
to have asked Chinamen to read Sanskrit, which present-day Hindus have to
study to understand, as the Greeks, tlie English, and the Italians of today have
to study, respectively, Periclean Greek, Chaucer, and Latin to understand" them.
Australia, however, was able to attract more white immigrants in 1 year than
the 42,598 people the Philippine Government was able to send to Mindanao
from 1918 to 1939. In 1924 Australia received 103.667 immigrants; 100.075 in
1925. and 107,924 in 1926. In other words, Australia, wl'ich is regarded as a
purist nation, was admitting about three times more immigTants a year , than
what the Philippines were able to send to Mindanao in 21 years from 1918 to 1939.

DU.\L LOYALTY DECREASES

Dual loyalty of immigrants is a source of fear to their adopted country. That
exists in the first generation. It becomes weak in the second generation and
usually disappears in the third. Dual loyalty vanishes even in riie second genera-
tion if the immigrants are well treated, especially if their children attend the
public scliools.

Englishmen in the Thirteen Colonies fought against Englishmen from Eng-
land. Spaniards of South America fought against Spaniards from Spain in the
wars for independence. In the First and Second World Wars there were Amer-
icans of German origin, of German parentage who fought tlie armies of the
Kaiser and later Hitler. Settlers usually identify themselves with the new
country, especially if they acquire property and congenial associations, because
these are endangered if the country is invaded or bombed.

NEGRITOS AND ELIZALDE

The Philippine Ambassador to Washin.gton, Joaquin Elizalde, is a Spaniard by
nationality, a Caucasian by race who was before the war pro-Franco in sympathy,
but when the Japanese invaded tlie islands he worried a thousand times more
thn a Negrito, an aboriginal inhabitant whose ancestors, the anthropologists say,
went to the islands about 20.000 years ago when it was still a part of the mianland
of Asia. Why? The Negrito liardly had any proiierty, except his hut in the moun-
tains, his bow and arrow, while Elizalde operated a multimillion dollar business

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1085

and had his relatives in Manila. It is the absentee owners who do not care very
much wliat liappeucd to rlie Nation provided their investment is safe and it con-
tinues to pay, or the teinpoi-ary resident who is there to get rich as soon as
possible and then retire to Florida or California.

WELCOME SETTLERS

The laws between the Philippines and the United States have pampered this
type of opportunists, but liave negelected to give a chance to the common people
of this country to share from the benefit of the relationship, by pursuing a more
constructive inunigration and emigration policy so that American settlers
from the dust bowl and other arid places, not to mention veterans, who want
to pioneer in Mindanao where the laud is so fertile that avacados and oranges
grow two or three times as big as they do in California, where the climate is
subtropical, may be accommodated. Strategically located they will help in
introducing American farm maciiinery to I'hilippine agriculture.

There were a few American ranchers in Mindanao before the war who estab-
lished tliemselves there entirely on their own initiative, and Del Monte had a
flourishing pineapple plantation in the northern part of the island. I am
proposing that the Philippine settlement project be enlarged with the coopera-
tion of America, so that for the first time common people from this country,
such as the migratory farmers from Kansas, Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, etc.,
will share in a large way in the benefits from Filipino-American relations.

This migration should be as thoroughly prepared as the Japanese migration
to Brazil and as comprehensive as the Soviet colonization movement to Silieria.
The United States should subsidize the migration of American settlers as the
Philippine Govermuent does with Filipino settlers in ^Mindanao, but the two
movements should be coordinated under one director.

RESTRICTION IMMATURE

Two American experts, George L. Brandt, from the United States Department
of State, and Irvin F. Wixon, Deputy Commissioner of the United States Immi-
gration and Naturalization Service, had worked for 2 years in helping the
Quezon administration to draft the "perfect immigration law" of 1940 ; but it
is very far from perfect.

In the first place these experts were proficient in the administrative and
legislative phase of immigration, in setting up regulations, in devising methods
to check bootleg immigrants, but not in the sociological and economic phase of
immigration such as race contracts, adjustments, assimilation, etc., nor in
demography, the social science which specializes in the study of population.

CONSULT SPECIALISTS

First, the population expert, aided by an economist, a sociologist, and an
ethnologist, should study the situation, determine how many jieojile the Philip-
pines can conveniently support in relation to its resources, and in comparison
with other Asiatic countries, and how long it will take the Philippines to attain
its optimum population. It must also be ascertained how many a year it can
absorb in an orderly process, what type of immigrants are most needed, what
program of distribution and assimilation should i^e followed.

There are at least a dozen eminent American authorities in these fields, men
who have devoted their lifetime in studying them. The outstanding demog-
rapher, or population expert, in America is Warren Thompson, director of
Scri])ps Foundation for Research on Population Pi-ol)lems. Carr-Saunders,
the British expert on world population, regards Warren Thompson's Population
Problems the best study for any country.

What does Warren Thompson say on the Philippines? He believes it can
conveniently hold with a higher standard of living ."10,000,000 people. Other
students on population put the figure as high as 80,000,000. That Is not fantastic
in view of the statistics I have collected from my own investigation. But even
if we take Thompson's conservative estimate, the Philippines have a long way
to go.

There is no evidence whatsoever that such experts were consulted by Filipino
and American administrative and legislative officials, such as IMillard Tydings
and Jaspar Bell, before considering laws on Filipino-American quotas. To
call experts on regulations before calling experts on population and on the

1086 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

sociological phases of immigration, is to put the cart before the horse. The
more perfect the law is as a regulation, the more imperfect it is as a population
policy.

DELAY KISKY

I realize that the I'hilippine population is virile, that it doubled from 1900 to
1940, but even if it keeps on doubling for the next 240 years, it will be in the
next millennium before the country attains its optimum population, the number
most desirable with relation to the arts, technology, the social and economic
organization of the people, and the resources.

Eighty years might not be a long time to wait in past centuries. But we
are in the atomic age where developments in a generation move with greater
rapidity, variety, and complexity than in one millennium before. Moreover, al-
though some provinces of the Philippines are congested, Mindanao and other
places are underpopulated. The Province of Davao has 15.0 people per square
kilometer; Cotabato, 13.0; Lanao, 36.5; Mindero, 13.1; Nueva Viscaya, 11.5;
Surigao, 28.3 ; Zamboanga 21.1 ; Abra, 23 ; and subtemperate Bukidnon only 7.2.

Had the United States passed exclusion laws in 1800 it would not have suffi-
cient manpower to sweep from the Alleghenies to the Pacific ; to Florida, Cuba,
Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philippines. But even after it passed its quota and
exclusion laws after l.W years of independence it admits a total of 150,000 im-
jnigrants a year from Europe.

If the over-all Filipino-American problems are discussed in a round table
under a give and take spirit, it is hard to see how the Filipinos can logically
and wisely adjust to admitting in Mindanao at least as many American settlers
as the number of Chinese, Germans, and Japanese in the Philippines before the
war.

RACIAL COMPOSITION

If the Filipinos are afraid of getting mixed, then they should be afraid of
themselves. Like the Americans, they are already mixed, and are still mixing,
and, like any other nation, will continue to do so in spite of professions for
race purity. Australia herself had 73,000 half castes in 1940, and, as stated
elsewhere, America has 3 million mulattoes.

Like the Japanese, the Filipino Nation is predominantly brown with black,
white, and yellow blends. The Filipino racial strains as enumerated by H.
Otley Beyer, an ethnologist, are : Negrito and Proto Malay, 10 percent ; Indo-
nesian, 30 percent ; Malay, 40 percent ; Chinese, 10 percent ; Hindu, 5 percent ;
European, 3 percent ; and Arab, 2 percent. With the exception of the few blacks
in the mountains and the recent immigrants of Americans, Chinese, Japanese,
and Europeans, the Filipino population has already mixed in the course of 1,000
or more years that the census collectors can no longer notice the different strains
visible only to the anthropologists.

It should be clear by now that we cannot entrust entirely to immigration
officials who are expert in administering immigration laws and in apprehending
violators, for sound and wise solution of immigration problems, which must be
envisioned in relation to the economic, cultural, historical, and racial back-
ground of the people and their relation and position with reference to other
countries.

ENLIGHTENED IMMIGRATION

The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 was directed primarily at the Japanese
<vho were menacing the Philippines and secondarily at the Chinese, who, it is
alleged, refused to mix with the Filipinos. The clannishness of the Chinese in
the Philippines, like the clannishness of others, is, in most cases partly due to
the attitude of the natives. Pi'ejudice and persecutions have intensified their
tendency to stick together. The Jews, the Italians in America, and other na-
tionalities in foreign lands, have experienced more or less similar experiences.

My proposals, if adopted, will diminish such tendencies, for it makes migra-
tion the .ioint responsibility of the country of emigration and the country of
immigration — the basis of the great success of the Japanese immigration to
Brazil.

Prospective Japanese immigrants went to special schools in Japan designed to
prepare them for settlement in Brazil. They took courses in Portuguese, Span-
ish. Brazilian history, government, and geography. Experts on soil, animal
husbandry, horticulture, economics, weather, etc., accompanied the settlers.

COMMISSIOX OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1087

They also had an agricultural schuol in their .settlement in central Brazil to aid
the Japanese settlers.

In order to leduce racial and social conflict to the minimum, Japanese Chris-
tians, especially Catholics, were preferred. Japan was profiting from lessons in
Manchuria where her colonization project was a failure until a few years before
Pearl llarl)()r when Japanese migration increased appreciably and also from her
emigration problems in the United States, and the Philippines, where Japanese
immigrants met resentment and later stiff opposition.

If countries who have extra people to send to the Philippines follow an en-
lightened policy and send to the islands migrants who sincerely mean to settle
there, who will try their best to live with the natives, and not merely live on
them and loot the country, the obstinancy of Filipino premature restrictions will
soften down.

WIT AGAINST WIT

At present Filipino-American inmiigration quotas are a case of a battle be-
tween the fox and the watchdog. Scientific research and good faith are almost
entirely lacking. Each tries to outwit the other.

Immigration laws are usually drafted during periods of tension when a
portion of the population is excited or alarmed by exaggerated impressions
of the numlier of certain immigrants and the competition they offer. Fre-
quently they were emergency measures conceived and railroaded in an atmos-
phere of riots. Because of the situation that gave them birth, immigration
laws are frequently shortsighted, vindictive, and unscientific. But this should
lie improved after the tension subsides, after painstaking research, analyses,
and experimentation, from local and comparative experiences on migration,
conflict, adjustment, and cooperation. Tlie immigration provision in the Bell
Act was propelled by American entrepreneurs who wanted to rush to the Philip-
pines and make quick money during the unusual boom for American goods.
Hence, the law seems to have forgotten entirely that besides the quota monop-
olists there aie other classes of Americans and Filipinos whose welfai'e should
be considered also.

The Chinese and the Japanese considered the American and Philippine exclu-
sion laws against thera unfair and many were willing to pay from $500 to $1,000
to get into the United States illegally through Canada and Mexico. Some came
in speed lioats from Cuba through the operation of an international ring who
makes a profitable business in bootlegging immigrants. As the American im-
migration officials perfected their regulations and detective devices, the Ameri-
can immigrant bootleggers with their Japanese, Chinese, Cuban, Mexican, and
Canadian cohorts also perfected ingenious ways to go around the law with
more resourcefulness and cunning than Hitler needed in going around the
Maginot line.

Altliough the United States exclusion law on Chinese applied to the Philip-
pines up to 1940 when China had no quota at all for the Philippines, ex-Vice
Governor General Joseph Ralston Hayden, in his book. The Philippines, states
that 4,000 Chinese sneaked into the Philippines illegally every year from 1918
to 1940. This is easy to do because, although the Philippines are much snialler
than the United States, their coastline is much longer because it is being
divided into 7,1 (KJ islands.

If America, the wealthiest country in the world, cannot station immigration
officials every 100 yards on its border or coastline to stop the illegal entry of
immigi-ants, certainly the Philippines cannot. Japan is laying low now. Dr.
Andres Castillo, the leading economist of the Philippines, says in his letter to
me that with or without immigration laws against tlie Japanese, they cannot
get in. "They will be torn to pieces by Filipinos who see red at the sight
of a Jap."

INVITES COMPLICATIONS

But when the anti-Japanese feeling subsides, when the Japane.se and Chinese
feel it is profitable to entei- the Philippines within or outside the law, the immi-
gration quota of 1940 can no more stop them as the Maginot could not stop the
luftwaffe. In short, the Philipijine immigration law devi.sed by expert Ameri-
cans, benefits nobody else, but the determined, ingenious, and audacious people
who want to get in at any cost.

In such circum.stances, good will may be as foi-eign as a rabbit among lions.
Th<' immigrant considei's the country as an object of loot, and the Filipino

1088 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

considers the Chinese as a legitimate victim for plunder, and sometimes of
mob action.

Would not such a situation he more productive of international complication
than allowing immigrants to enter under reasonable regulation, orderly proce-
dure, preceded by intelligent preparation done in good faith by both Nations?
So that within a generation Mindanao may have 5 or 10 million people mainly
from the congested areas of the Philippines, with reasoiialile numbers from
Java, Malaya, America, China, India, etc.

It must be pointed out that increase of population means much more than
multiplicaticm of numbers. Before what sociologists call optimum population,
which is somewhat like what the economists call point of diminishing return,
increase in population means more taxes, expansion of industries, commerce,
transportation, communication, newspaper circulation, etc. It means bigger
audiences and markets for the movies, theaters, radio, opera, and literature.
In America it is possible to realize a million by putting out one brand of
chewing gum, one song, or a play that makes a hit because of the si5^e of the
domestic market. In Russia a text book written b.v Gorky netted 4 million, but
Milton's great masterpiece, Paradise Lost, brought the author only about £6?».

PREJUDICE AND GENERALIZATIONS

It will be recalled that just before the war the late President Quezon an-
nounced to the world the opening of Mindanao to Jewish refugees who wanted
to engage in agriculture. Why do Filipinos object to the section on immigration
quota in the Bell Act which provides that at least 1,000 Americans could go to
the Philippines a year? Mainly becatise of their disappointment of the other
provisions of the act which puts their independence in a parrot cage, the delay
and insufficiency of the m(nie.v for rehabilitation and the fact that they read
in the papers that the UNRRA and the United States have given more aid to
former enemy countries than to the Philippines — Uncle Sam's favorite nephew.

If they would only confine the blame on the vested interest who constitute
an infinitesimal fraction of 1 percent of the American Nation, they would be
correct in almost every point of their grievances and accusations. But reactions
between nations, so far, rarely operate logically, and the innocent had to be
included as victims of generalizations which characterize international mis-
understanding and prejudice.

ARROGANCE BOOMERANGS

I have dwelt on the gloomy aspects of Filipino-American contacts. There are,
of course, bright sides of it. For instance, one of the masterpieces of Filipino-
American cooperation is the city of Baguio, the summer capital of the Philippines.
It was founded by Gov. Howard Taft, who later became President of the United
States. It is situated on a plateau 5,000 feet above sea level. The elevation gives
Baguio a climate like that of northern California. Taft ordered one of the best
American city engineers to plan the city of Baguio at the very start. Result,
one of the most beautiful cities in the world, of which both Americans and
Filipinos in the Philippines are very proud.

There are many plateaus in the Philippines, not only in Mindanao but also
in the provinces of Nueva Viscaya, Abra, Isabela, etc., that have sul)temperate
climate. The Filippinos would not object to sharing the vacant and fertile lands
with American settlers, provided the former do not snub the natives right in
their country.

Many Americans who went to the Philippines short-sightedly follow their
British cousins in Malaya and India in parading their superiority complex at
the natives. They thought this was the wa.y to maintain the colonial empii-e,
to dominate the people. They did not realize that such an attitude boomerangs
in the end. The resentment created kindles militant nationalism whose object
is to wrest control from the foreigner.^ Japan knew this and gave elaborate
instructions and systematic preparation in her colonization projects in Brazil.
To minimize conflicts with the natives, Japan gave preference to Japanese
Christians, especially Catholics, and taught them Spanish and Portuguese before
emigration.

But lier soldiers did not have these valuable techniques on human relations
when the.v invaded the Philippines. They slapped Filipinos publicly for not
bowing. They did not realize that this alone was sufllcient to make the Filipino
run to the hills and become a guerrilla.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1089

"Many Americans in the islands have fallen into a similar, though not as crude,
error. In 194G thoy hold a Ilarvard-Yalo reception in INIanihi at the time the
foothall teams of the two universities f()U.s;ht in America. The i)arty in Manila
was oj)ened to American and Filipino graduates of Yale and Ilarvard. While
three Lllipinos were looking for a i)arking place, an American soldier told them,
"This is for whites only."

One of the Filipinos was Solicitor General Tanada. He mentioned the incident
in his si)eech, and the grand reception which was held at the Army and Navy
Club became an embarrassing fiasco. The following day the Manila press raised
a howl. Later the city council ordered the removal of the fence around the
I'nited States Army-Navy Club. Negotiations for the .S4 bases America wants
to ke-ep in the Philippines became knotti»"r. It was reduced to 23 in the treaty.
The American general consul and Ambassador McNutt received a big share of
newspaper attacks.

The Filipinos recalled the incident over 15 years ago when a Filipino went
to an American exclusive Navy club in Manila where they admitted Filipinos
only through the back door. He turned out to be a senator.

Things like this are trivial, but their effects on international good will fre-
quently rise to atomic proportions.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, several people who asked to be
permitted to testify who were not on the schedule of the Commis-
sion— not having asked earlier — left statements, but I don't know
whether they plan to be here themselves.

The Chairman. You may insert the statements in the record.

]Mr. RosEXFiELD. We have received a statement by Franklin H.
Williams, director for the west coast region of the National Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Colored People ; we have a statement
from Ernest Besig, director of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California; a statement from Joe C. Lewis, attorney
for the California Farm Research and Legislative Committee, Santa
Clara. Calif.; a statement from Joseph P. Fallon, Jr., attorney, of-
San Francisco; and we liave received a statement by the Federation
of Russian Charitable Organizations of the United States, signed
by Leon Nicoli, president of Russian Organizations of the LTnited
States. He was scheduled to testify, Mr. Chairman, at the end of this
hearing, but Mr. Nicoli has notified us he is ill.

We also have a statement signed by P. C. Quock, president of the
Chinese Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco.

(The statements as listed follow:)

Statement Submitted by Franklin H. Williams, Director for the West Coast
Region of the Natio.val Association for the Advancement of Colored
People

Mr. Perlman and members of the President's Commission, my name is Franklin
H. Williams. I am the director of the west coast region of the National Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Colored People. I appreciate the opportunity
of presenting this statement to you for consideration. At the Forty-third An-
nual Conference of the NAACP the delegates unanimously passed a resolution
■condemning the McCarran-Waltei- bill, which has since been enacted into law.
As an organization we were opposed to that bill because we felt that portions
of it wei'e oppressively unjust and unfair. We are presently opposed to the law.

We are convinced that the security of America is (iei>endent on the well-being
of the people of the Caribbean and u|)on their supporting democracy. We vig-
orously oppose the principle that seems to underlie this law that racial factors
should weigh heavily in the assignment of immigration (piotas. In its present
state, the law extends to those nations containing people most wanting to come
Jiere the smallest quotas; e. g., Italy, Turkey, and Jaiian. Much larger quotas
{\ro given to the P>ritish Isles and northwestern Europe where people are better
off and haven't the great need or desire to migi-ate to our country. The law
in its present form, in referring to the Asia-Pacific triangle, draws a tight line,
based on race, in allowing inunigration from the Far East. Persons born in

1090 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

the West Indies face additional barriers. Whereas these persons previously
came under the quota assigned to Great Britain, they now come under the same
quota but nuist not exceed 100 persons annually. In her desperate struggle for
survival, England has caused her colonies to import only British goods and has
permitted only limited sale of colonial products. This along with tropical storms,
poor educational opportunities, incredible poverty, and squalor foreshadows a
social climate south of America that will hardly be receptive to democracy. It
is in the interest of justice, hemispheric solidarity, and good international rela-
tions that the NA-\(jr urges an early revision of the present lawl toward the
end that the racial stigma that now attaches to certain classes of persons atj-
tempting to migrate here be removed by the application of more reasonable and
fair quotas.

Statement Submitted by Euxest Besig, Director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Northern California

My name is Ernest Besig. For the past 17 years I have been director of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which has offices at
503 Market Street, San Francisco. In the course of my duties with that organ-
ization, I have handled numerous cases before the Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion Service in this area.

While we have many objections to the provisions of the New Immigration
and Nationality Act, I would like to limit my discussion to some of the steps
Congress has taken to deal with aliens suspected of being Communists or whose
entry would be prejudicial to our interests. To my mind, the remedy is equally
as bad as the disease.

For example, the Attorney General is given broad discretion to deny entry
and to deport, without any hearing whatsoever, aliens who are suspected of hav-
ing Communist traits. We have seen in the past how such discretion has been
abused by the Immigration Service acting for the Attorney General.

Alexander Lobanov, an alien seaman, who was a refugee from the Soviet
Union, was detained without a hearing for more than 7 months on the ground
that his entry would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States, and
even then a hearing was accorded him by a board of special inquiry only when
the case was brought to public notice. After being detained for 390 days, the
Board of Immigration Appeals finally ordered Lobanov's release, and he is once-
again shipping on American vessels.

There was no question in this case of foregoing a hearing in order to protect
the Government's confidential sources of information, since the issue revolved
around the alien's admitted former membership in the Komsomols. Neverthe-
less, the local Immigration Service denied him a hearing before a board of
si>ecial inquiry until the case gained considerable notoriety. To my mind, so
long as the present statute is avilable, it will be a sore temptation for the Im-
migration Service to dispose of an exclusion case having political overtones in a
summary fashion by denying the alien a hearing. Such short shrift for aliens-
seeking our hospitality does not do credit to a nation which prides itself on a
belief in due iiroeess or fair play.

Not too long ago we handled the case of Peter Nicolov, who had arrived here
from a DP camp on the island of Samar. Nicolov is a musician who had resided
in China for many years and who was compelled to flee from that country when
the Communists gained control. He was born in Bulgaria and is a Roman
Catholic.

When Nicolov arrived here in January 1951, he was sei-ved with a temporary
exclusion order on the ground tbat his entry would be prejudicial to the interests
of the United States. In August 1951 a permanent exclusion order was served
upon him. The Government was unable to execute its order because it had no
place to send the stateless Nicolov. I asked the local Immigration Service
representative repeatedly what they intended to do with Nicolov, but they had
no answer. Finally, the ACLU filed a petition foi' a writ of habeas corpus in the
United States district court in San Francisco, and Nicolov was released the day
before the sliow-cause order was scheduled for a hearing. To tliis day, Nicolov
does not know why he was detained by the Immmigi-ation Service for 14 months.

The Nicolov case is not unusual. There have been scores of aliens who have
been held for months on end and who have finally been released without learning
the reasons for their detention and without being accorded hearings.

It seems to me that the law ought to make some provision for a prompt notice
of charges and a hearing. Why couldn't a procedure similar to that under Public

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1091

Law 733, involving security proceed injis against Federal employees, be estab-
lished? Under that procedure the Government jj;ives the employee a specification
of chari,'es without revealinji the sources (tf its confidential information. It seems
to me that the same thinj;' could be done in exclusion cases. If the alien had
notice of the charges, he might be able to produce evidence to refute them.
Surely that's not too great a concession to make to an alien.

Jailing a person and holding him without charges or a hearing smacks too
much of totalitarian practices. In protecting ourselves against communism
and other totalitarian doctrines, it seems to me it is not necessary to resort to
their tools and devices. 1 hink we ought to place our faith in the kind of fair
play America stands for.

May I su;;"gest, too, that a San Francisco office building is no place to detain
an alien for 14 months. I think it is most unfortunate that the inunigration
stati(»n at Angel Island was given up or that the one at Sharp Park was not
continued. Those jilaces at least afforded an o)iportunity for aliens to get
some fresh air and recreation, even though they had nothing with which to busy
themselves. Tlie San Pedro station is nnich more fortunate, since it does have an
outside re<reation area. It seems to me our treatment of aliens is less than
humane when we l(K-k them up for long periods of time without an opportunity
for securing fresh air and outside recreation.

The same melancholy type of procedure used by the Immigration Service is also
used b.v our consulates in granting visas. Not too long ago I had the case of a
United States citizen who married a White Russian in Shanghai. They got as
far as the I'hilippines when the Communist took over in China, but not further —
at least, not the wife. The husband proceeded to the United States, but the
wife waited in vain for a visa. She furnished her life history in affidavit form
to the consulate at m.v suggestion, buttressed by affidavits from numerous per-
sons who were arquainted, but to no avail. We never did learn wh.v she was de-
nied a visa. The husband finally got a divoi-ce and remarried. I suppose the
woman is still in the Philippines. I'ut why, in this type of case, can't tlie con-
sular service indicate what is holding up issuance of a visa? Certainly there is
nothing wrong in according an alien an opportunity of answering any charges
against him.

I have a similar case on my desk at the present time brought to me by the
relatives of a man who is residing in Australia. All they can discover — and I
have the consul general's letter at my office — the applicant is inadmissible into
the United States under the existing inunigration laws, but they don't tell why.
It seems to me that, as far as possible, our consulates ought to tell why they are
rejecting the visa applications of aliens,

I don't see why, in handling applications for visas or in immigration exclu-
sion proceedings, it is necessary to place an unguarded discretion in the hands
of administrative agencies. AVe have seen recently how the Department ot the
Army has established a military entry permit review procedure and how the
State Department has estal)lished a procedure for governing the issuance of pass-
ports to those suspected of Conuuunist afliliations or activities. Both procedures
allow for notice of charg(>s and an opportunity to be heard. I submit that our
consulates and the Immigration Service should be guided by the same rules of
fair play in handling visa applications and applications for entry into the ITnited
States. Certainly due process, or fair play, is not something that should be
reserved to citizens alone.

Statement Stbmitted by Joe C. Lewis on Behalf of the California Farm
Research and Legislative Committee, of Santa Clara, Calif.

California Farm Research and Legislative (^ommiitee,

Santa Clara, Calif., October IS, 1952.

statement on the m'carran-walter act

Mr. Philip B. Peri.man,

Chairmav, PresUlcnfH Comniissiion ov IiiDuif/ration and Naturalization,
San Francisco, Calif.
Dear Sir: Since its inception over 12 years ago, the California Farm Research
and Legislative Committee, representing farmers who work on the land, has
opposed bigotry, racial prejudice, and restrictions on Ireedom of speech' and
thought.

1092 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Meeting in Buttonwillow, Calif.. March 11, 1951, the organization reafBruied
this position and officially went on record for repeal of the Internal Security Act
of 1950, also known as the McCarran Act, which we feel violates these principles.

We likewise oppose those provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act which per-
petuate discrimination against races and countries of origin and which deprive
noncitizens and naturalized citizens of constitutional rights guaranteed the
native-born.

InmiigTants played an important role in developing California's diversified
agriculture to first place in the Nation, with annual production of $2 billion.
Italians, Frenchmen, and Armenians helped create its extensive vineyards ;
Portuguese and Swiss, its huge dairy industry ; Jugoslavs, its orchards ; and Japa-
nese, its truck crops. Its accelerating cotton production could not be haiwested
without the help of thousands of IMexicans.

Yet, the McCarran-Walter bill imposes special barriers against the.se people
by establishing Immigration quotas weighted in favor ot the peoples of westei'n
and northern Europe who no longer migrate to our country in great numbers.
This act attempts to perpetuate the national-origin system based on the myth
of Nordic-Anglo-Saxon sviperiority. This idea, so arrogantly propagated by
Adolf Hitler, is completely out of harmony with the American ideal of '"'^nality
and freedom.

Even more objectionable are those features of the McCarran-Walter Acc which
give the Attorney General and inunir;ration officials seemingly unconstitutional
powers of thought control and preventive arrest — provisions which President
Truman in his veto message calls "worse than the Infamous Alien Act of 1798."

The act provides no standards or definitions to guide officials in the exercise
of such sweeping power but permits them to deport and exclude individuals on
the basis of their own opiniim. This departure from past practice oi basing
deportation and exclusion on facts as disclosed by legal evidence is inconsistent
with democratic ideals and procedure. These provisions eevn place in jeopardy
the civil rights of naturalized citizens.

We heartily agree with President Truman when he said in his veto message,
"Seldom has a bill exhibited the distrust evidenced here for citizens and aliens
alike, at a time when we need unity at home and the confidence of our friends
abroad."

We urge that the McCarran-Walter Act be repealed and a measure more
consistent with American ideals and practice be devised.

Joe C. Lewis, Chairman.

Statement Submitted by Joseph P. Fallon for Fallon & Fallon, Attorneys

AT Law

San Francisco, Calif., October I4, 1952.

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization,

Washington, D. C.

Gentlemen : The undersigned is the junior member of the above-entitled law
firm, whose principal practice pertains to the immigration and naturalization
laws of the United States. The senior member of this firm has spent a little over
35 years in this particular phase of the legal profession.

The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention some of the more obvious
defects, inconsistencies, or omissions in the Immigration and Nationality Act
which becomes effective on December 24, 1952.

RIGHT TO judicial DETERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP

The most serious change made by this new act was the taking away of the
right of judicial determination of citizenship of any person whose claim to
citizenship or nationality had been denied. Section 503 of the Nationality Act
of 1940 (8 U. S. C. 903) was undoubtedly provided for in that act to give relief
to persons who had suffered by the arbitrary action of administrative officials
who had consistently abused their discretion in determining the birth of persons
claiming United States citizenship. It is well settled that it is the duty of the
Immigration Service to assist the applicant in establishing his citizenship, if it
exists, as it is its duty to deport an alien falsely claiming admission as a citizen.
Section 503 was a means to provide a cheek on the abuse of the discretionary

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1093

powers of adiniiiistrative oflBoers aud to give to citizens of the United States their
day in court.

Section 360 (a) of the new act offers a little relief but limits it solely to
persons in the United States and excepts those cases that arise in connection with
exclusion proceedings. Under the new act (sec. 104 (a)) the Secretary of
State is j<iven the power of determining the citizenship of a person not in the
United States. The act has a further provision (sec. 360 (b)) for a person not
in the United States and whose status as a national of the United States has
been denied, allowing him the privilege of applying to an American consular
ollicer for a certificate of identity permitting liim to come to a port of entry in
the United States where his status as a citizen or national will be determined
by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. However, the issuance of this
certificate of identity is discretionary and may be denied by the consulate
oflire and/or the Secretary of State. This limited relief is further limited by
the fact that the only persons able to apply for a certificate of identity are those
persons who liave previously resided in the United States or who are under 16
yeai'S of age and who were born abroad of a United States citizen parent. This
limited relief only permits the two categories of individuals concerned to have
an adjudication of their status by administrative officers of the Government in
the United States and with judicial review only by way of habeas corpus
proceedings.

Therefore, we feel tliat the new act is deficient in providing judicial relief on
two grounds :

F'irst, that a person who has a reasonable claim to United States citizenship
or nationality should be given his day in court and therefore should be permitted
to come to the United States in order to appear in court and present his claim.
We feel that the trial should be held de novo in order that the judge will have
the opporunity of seeing the witnesses and judging their credibility for himself.
We feel that a habeas coriius proceeding does not grant the judge the oppor-
tunity to consider the full scope and character of the evidence.

Second, we see no equity nor justice in a procedure which grants to one
group of persons their day in court and yet denies to other groups of persons
that same privilege. We can see no valid reason why a person under 16 years
of age should have an advantage over a person who has passed this sixteenth
birthday. Nor can we see why a person who at one time resided in the United
States should have an advantage over someone who has never resided in the
United States. A citizen of the United States should not be denied his day in
court by the happenstance either of his place of Inrth, his age, or the fact that
he has never before been in the United States. We feel that such classifications
are arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.

We do not feel that a person with a valid claim to United States citizenship
or nationality should be left stranded in a foreign land at a great distance from
his country of citizenship or nationality because of the action of some consular
ollicer whose arbitrary decision would in all likelihood be aflirmed by the Secre-
tary ol' State and thereby leave the applicant without recourse to the courts of
his country.

It is therefore urged that this Commission recommend to the President of
the United States that this act be amended to provide that any person with a
reasonable claim to United States citizenship or nationality be allowed to filej
an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment deter-
mining his citizenship or nationality and that he be permitted to proceed to the
United States in order to appear in court and testify in his own behalf.

CLAEIFICATION OF STATUS OF PEKSON BORN BETWF.EN MAY 24, 19:i4 AND DECEMBEB

24, 1936

The new act provides that a person born outside the United States one of
whose parents is an alien and the other a citizen who prior to the birth of such
person was physically present in the United States for a stated period of time,,
is to be considered a citizen of the United States (.sec. 301 (a) (7). This section
merely codifies a similar provision in tlie Immigration Act of May 24, 1934,
which, however, required that such i)erson arrive in the United States prior
to his sixteenth birthday in order to preserve his American citizenship derived
at birth. There were a large number of persons who reached their sixteenth
birthday between May 24, 19.^0, and December 24, 19.52, who were unable to reach
the United States and take up residence therein as required. Consequently

1094 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

those persons must be deemed to have lost their American citizenship because
of the provisions of section 405(c) of the new act, which speciflcally states that
the repeal of any prior act shall not restore nationality lost under any law of
the United States or any treaty to which the United States may have been a
party. The new act did make a beneficial change, in that it provided that a
person who was a citizen under these circumstances did not have to arrive in the
United States until his twenty-third birthday or, in other words, that he reside
in the United States for a period of 5 years between the attainment of the age of
14 years and prior to the age of 28 years. It is our opinion that the act should
be amended in such a manner as to restore to those persons born between May
24, 1934, and December 24, 1936, their citizenship which they lost by failing
to arrive in the United States prior to their sixteenth birthday.

REQUIREMENT AS TO LAWFTJL ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES FOE PEEMANENT
EESIDENCE FOE PUEPOSES OF NATUEALIZATION

Section 318 of the new act provides that no person shall be naturalized unless
he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in
accordance with all the applicable provisions of the act. In practically all cases,
this provision is just and does not work a hardship on the applicants for natural-
ization. However, there are certain cases wherein persons have been admitted
to the United States lawfully but the character of their admission has been de-
fined as that of a wife or son or a merchant. Here again the Immigration and
Naturalization Service has conceded that the admission as the wife or son of a
merchant was for permanent residence where the husband father arrived in
the United States prior to July 1, 1924, and that they are eligible for naturaliza-
tion. Yet there are other cases, comparatively few in number, where the husband
father first arrived in the United States after July 1, 1924, in which the Im-
migration and Naturalization Service holds that the person was not admitted
for permanent residence. In these cases the Immigration and Naturalization
Service holds that such persons are not deportable, even though they may have
abandoned their status as the wife or son of a merchant. Thus w^e have an
anomalous situation in which the person is in the United States lawfully and is
not deportable under any law of the United States and will therefore remain in
the United States until his death ; yet he is not considered a permanent resident
of the United States and therefore cannot apply for naturalization. It is our
opinion that the act should be amended to provide that, in the case where a per-
son is lawfully in the United States and is not deportable, even though he aban-
dons his status under which he was lawfully admitted, then and in such
case he should be considered a permanent resident within the meaning of the
naturalization laws.

^VDJUSTMENT OF STATUS SUSPENSION OF DEPORTEES

Section 244 of the new act provides for suspension of deportation or for
voluntary departure of certain aliens under certain conditions. It sets up five
categories of persons whose deportation may be suspended. It further provides
that in the first three categories the Attorney General may suspend deportation
and then make a report to the Congress of the United States and that unless
the Senate or the House of Representatives passes a resolution within a certain
period of time, stating that it does not favor the suspension then the suspension
will become final. With respect to the fourth and fifth categories, the law re-
quired that before suspension of deportation may be made final the Congress
must pass a concurrent resolution favoring the suspension of deportation.

It is our opinion that this particular legislation violates that fundamental
principle of our constitution providing for the separation of the powers of the
Federal Government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. We
feel that the Congress of the United States, by providing for a review of sus-
pension cases by the Members of Congress, has taken unto itself a strictly
administrative junction which should be left in the hands of the executive branch
of the Government. Certainly our Congress has many proiilems to face and
many fundamental decisions to make and it appears illogical tliat they should
take unto themselves the burden of passing upon every individual suspension
case. We feel that the executive branch of the Government is well able to make
such determination and certainly if there is an abuse of discretion it will be
brought to the attention of the Congress of the United States and they will be
able to review such acts by way of congressional investigating committees. We
further feel that this procedure causes undue delay in the adjustment of the

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1095

status of these iiidividunls :iiul docs not niako for tlioir well bein^' and, in turn,
for the well beinu- of tbo country.

We also note that the law provides that when suspension is gcranted, the
quota for the area shall be reduced by one, yet a provision is included that no
quota shall be so reduced by more than 50 percent in any fiscal year. One of
the principal criticisms of previous laws witii respect to suspension of deiwrta-
tion, was that it liranted entry to ])ers(»ns who were illegally in the United States
in favor of those who were waiting patiently to come to the United States under
a quota. We believe that it is well within the power of the Congress of the
United States to provide that these persons be granted permanent entry without
reference to any quotas and that equity and justice will be better served if, upon
the granting of suspension, there is no reduction made in the quotas of tlie
countries of their origin.

ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ESTAIU.ISIII.XG KECOKI) OF KNTHY

Under section 249 of the new act, persons who have resided in the United
States for a date prior to July 1, 1924. may establish a record of lawful admission
for permanent residence upon tlie meeting of certain conditions, among which
is the proving of continued residence from the date of entry prior to July 1, 1924,
to the present time. This now covers a period of some 28 years and, in many
cases, it is practically impossible tx) establisli by competent evidence continuous
residence for that period of time. We believe that persons who have resided
in the United States for a long period of years should be allowed to establish
a lawful entry and pei-manent residence. We feel that a period of 20 years
should be sufficiently long, provided he meets the other requirements of the
present law, and therefore suggest that any person who entered the United
States prior to July 1, 1932, should be allowed to adjust his status under these
proceetlings.

QUOTA IMMIGRANTS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The new act was widely publicized as reflecting a fundamental change in the
philosophy of our Government in that it was devoid of any discrimination as to
race or sex. The act provides that the annual quota to which an immigrant
is chargeable shall be determined by birth within the quota area with but a few
minor and favorable exceptions and one major exception pertaining to an area
described as the Asia-Pacific triangle. Section 202 (b) provides that the quota
number for a iK'rson who is attribut;ible by as much as one-half of his ancestry
to a people or peoples indigenous to the Asia-Pacific triangle shall be chargeable
to one of the quotas within that area or to the quota for the area itself regardless
of the place of his birth. Thus a person of the Chinese race is always chargeable
to the Chlne-se racial quota of 105 even though he may have been born in a
country outside the Asia-Pacific triangle. AVe believe this to be definitely dis-
criminatory legislation and it is our opinion that, if we are to carry out the
policy against discrimination, the act should be amended to provide that all
persons shall be charged to the country of their birth without regard to their
national origin.

QUOTA IMMIGRANTS NUMBERS

We feel that the present method of determining the quotas for the various
countries w<n-ks great inequities and great injustices and in many cases extreme
hardship. It is not realistic as it does not consider the changes that have taken
place in the world in the last 32 years. We therefore offer the following
suggestions:

That parents of citizens be granted a nonquota status in order that the family
unity can Iw fostered and preserved. WIe know presently of cases where there
are four and five or more citizen children whose parents are stranded in foreign
lands. In at least one of these cases three of the children are honorably dis-
charged veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States. They are extremely
anxious to bring their parents or, as in most cases, the surviving parent to the
United States in order that they may more effectively carry out their filial
duties. We feel that the comparatively small number of these people would
certainly work no hardship on the economic status of this country if admitted
as nonrpiota immigrants.

We further feel that a minimum quota of 100 is wholly inadequate and is,
in fact, nothing more than a gesture. We feel that the qiiotas which now are

1096 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

limited to 100 could just as easily be set at 1,000 without any possible injury to
this country ; whereas, on the other hand, it could give us greater prestige and
respect in other countries.

We believe that a more current census should be used and that provision be
made for the adjustment of future quotas based upon the most recent national
cghsus

We further believe that where quotas are not fully subscribed the unsubscribed
portion should be proportionately divided among the other countries, to be
used during the following year as an addition to their regular quota. At this
point, consideration might well be given to modifying the method of determina-
tion of the quota to provide for a reduction of the quota for those countries
which do not use their entire quota and to increase proportionately the quotas
of the other countries which have long waiting lists.

Respectfully submitted.

FAU.0N & Fallon,
By Joseph P. Fallon, Jr.

Statement of Leon Nicoli, President, Fedekation of Russian Organizations
OF THE United States in Behalf of the Federation of Russian Charitable
Organizations of the United States

To : President's Immigration and Naturalization Commission, Washington, D. C.
From : Federation of Russian Charitable Organization's of the United States, 376

Twentieth Avenue, San Francisco 21, Calif.
Subject: Views on immigration policy, law, and administration stated during

hearing on October 14, 1952, in San Francisco, Calif.

The Federation of Russian Charitable Organizations of the United States con-
sists of 32 organizations established by Russian Americans and located in San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, and New York.

Into activity of these organizations, directly or indirectly, are involved over
100,000 citizens and aliens of Russian origin. Since the end of World War II
the organizations have been engaged in overseas relief of refugees and during
the last 4 years participated in the Government's program on resettlement of
displaced persons.

This short record shows that the Federation of Russian Charitable Organiza-
tions of the United States is deeply concerned to every inequity of the immigra-
tion bill adopted by the Congress in 1952, despite the President's veto. With the
termination of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, there left the only way of
helping the refugees, especially those whose families were separated, by spon-
sorship of their immigration into this country within quota allotment for born
in Russia. The quota, if I make no mistake, is 2,700 numbers per year. If to
compare this allotment with actual number of applicants of Russian origin
throughout the world, it will appear more than inadequate.

I am aware of prevailing feelings in the United States at present toward the
Soviet Union and reflectively to Russian people, but the latter at any rate can't
be taken responsible for communism and its aggression and crimes, as are
equally not responsible the peoples of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and every other
country seized by Communists.

The .same can be said in most affirmative way about refugees from communist-
dominated countries, particularly from the Soviet Union. They need help and
it is our obligation to help them.

Although the purpose of this hearing is not scheduled for consideration of dis-
placed persons' and refugees' problems and is appointed to finding what immi-
gration policy and laws should be, to our opinion, it is pretty hard to take these
problems apart from any normal immigration process. Such complicated ques-
tions as overpopulation of a number of countries, economic instability, tremen-
dous dislocation of people, are direct consequences of political situation in the
world and are very similar to problems of political refugees.

It has been said about our task to unify separated families of citizens and
aliens of this country. In our San Francisco office we have on file over 200 cases
of such separated families, which are only a small pai't of problem so-called
non-Chinese refugees in China. The World Council of Churches and the United
Nations High Commission for Refugees estimated this group as equal to 10,000
persons. An issuance of first preference visas to a number of parents or spouses
of American citizens has been approved by the Department of State, but due to

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1097

jibsence of the United States consular authorities in China thei'e is no practical
possibility for their niijiration from China.

1 would like to road you a letter just received by nie from China, dated Sep-
tember 12 and signed l»y 105 persons, but bein,^ limited in time I ask your per-
mission, Mr. Chairman, to refer this letter to you.

Let me quote the words of Hon. John (}ibs(ui. Commissioner of the Displaced
Persons Commission, Washinfj;ton, 1). C, said by him when he visited San Fran-
<isco a few months a.ao : "Out of 400,(M)(> displaced persons and refugees
admitted into the United States, we had only 'ii ca.ses of deportation: 2, due to
falsiiication of documents, aiul the third one, due to mental sickness."

To this wonderful record I like t(» add that no new immigrants, practically
none, have daubed their loyalty by criminal records or by participation in any
atiti-Ameritan activity.

Rut I have to say that the immigration bill put prospected immigrants who
ever tied from the Communist countries under threat of discrimination and
prejudice and that even upon admittance to this country they would have to
be under the same threat many years ahead.

National-origin quota system in the revised immigration bill has been based
upon 1920 figures, which in the liglit of tremendous displacement of millions
of i)eople in result of war and Conununist aggression, has become antique and
controversial to American concepts of justice and is certainly serving as a good
material for Communist anti-American propaganda.

Preference given by the immigration bill to persons born in Anglo-Saxon
countries is olfending every other nationality and contraversing to all the prin-
ciples of Americanism.

DitTerence between a citizen born in America and a naturalized citizen is
intolerable to every new American. The same could be said about deportation
of persons admitted to this country for permanent residence in result of any
violation of laws, even if such violation was most technical one, at determina-
tion of immigration authorities, without appeal and court review. Such system
means that the privileges of democracy are not applicable to new immigrants
during tlieir alien-age. If new immigrants have a high honor to serve in the
United States Armed Forces, if they have the same opportunities with others
to participate in development of national economy and culture, if they have the
same tax burden upon their shoulders — they should be treated as well as other
Americans.

There is a point I would like to draw your attention to : I represent charitable
organizations, but may 1 say that every penny we spend for help to refu'gee,
we determine as a political action of considerable value, because our assistance
destinates to a political refugee. I and my associates are standing tirmly on that
point of view, that a correct and comprehensive solution of problems of refugees
from Communist-dominated countries will become a very good investment on
high-interest basis in the event of war against Communists.

We should have more flexible (|uotas.

A protection of fair court hearing should be extended to every alien in this
country independently from race, nationality, or creed.

All provisions of the immigration bill establishing difference between natural-
ized citizens and born-in-America citizens, practically dividing them into two
classes, should be revised.

Leon Nicoli,
President, Federation of Russian Oryanizations of the United States.

Mrs. Iraida A. Galos,
Apartment 2, 193 Route Tenant de Latour,

Shanghai, September 12, 1952.
The Chairman,

The Federation of Charitable Organizations of United States of America,

San Francisco, Calif., United States of America.

Sir: This letter-i)etition is written to you by a few stranded and desperate

persons who do not know when and how they will be able to start a new and

decent existence fit for human beings and whose only desire is to work in any

capacity, to the end to provide for their needs, to be able to take care of their

families, to be i>ermitted to educate their children in the right and proper spirit.

To begin with, we wish to state that we have a sincere gratitude toward all

those who helped us during these long years, that we realize the difficulties

encountered by them in collection of necessary funds, in obtention of required

1098 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

visas and permits and if we take the liberty of sending this SOS appeal, it is
only because we do not know any other way left to ns. Here is our situation,
so please judge by yourself to what extent of bitter despair we are presently
driven by the accumulation of current circumstances.

We are the left-over of an emigration who struggled gallantly along for
many difiicult years, without ever losing hope that justice will finally come our
way.

Most unfortunately, and when a mass evacuation took place from Shanghai to
the Samar Island, some of us were not taken along, as certain happenings in-
terrupted the said evacuation halfway. Since then and more than for SVa years
we have waited that moment, when we also will be given the same chance and
treated equally with those who were lucky enough to obtain a berth on the
evacuation ships in the year 1949.

Since tlien the conditions for most of us ))ecame really unbearable : the little
savings are gone many months ago, the personal effects and belongings were
gradually sold, often for the tenth part of their value, and the only alternative
which remains in prospect is a slow starvation. It is true, however, that some of
us are receiving a monthly allowance from tlie IRO, l)ut this allowance was cut
by 50 percent 2 months ago. Now a very strange, not to say a peculiar,
division took place ; there are two kind of persons who are entitled to a monthly
allowance from IRO, those who are quartered in the IRO shelter house and those
who are living in their own lodgings. It is amazing to note that the inhabitants
of the shelter house who have a minima or no expenses at all as for rent, taxes,
light, water, and so on are still receiving a full ration plus the free medical
care, and those who have to pay for their lodgings, governmental taxes, and other
expenses, who were deprived from medical care and assistance, though they
also get sick once in a while, had their rations cut down. The former ration
amounted to 350,000 local currency, or at the official exchange to $17.50, the
present one to $8.75.

We do realize and understand very well that everyone must be tired to extend
help to unknown people in the far-away China, but on the other hand you must
take into consideration that all those who will continue to live on the aforesaid
budget will become hospital cases and will never be able to pass any medical
examination in case, if and when, they will have to undergo such as possible
evacuees from China. In other words, not only we are starving, but we are
also unable to afford to preserve our health and the health of our families as
we cannot possibly secure any medical attention, nor purchase any medicines
with our limited or practically inexistent funds, and furthermore, and what is
even worse, our children remain without schooling and are growing into illit-
erate youths whose entire future will be jeopardized and miserable.

We do not wish you to think that we ask for charity to the end to live on
such and remain in Shanghai, without doing any work, just taking it easy ; on
the contrary our dearest desire is to stand on our own feet, to be able to secure
work and to prove to all those who helped us for such a long time, that we were
worthy of their trust and that the help extended to us was not misplaced.

For us to be evacuated, is a question of death and life, as it is impossible for
no one of us to secure here any salaried occupation : furthermore you are not
without knowing, that even if the local financial aspects were favorable to us,
still it is absolutely necessary for all of us to find a country of adoption, where
we really could settle forever and create a real home for our fiimilies.

Most of us have relatives, friends, and sponsors outside of China, part of us
have already on hand valid affidavits or letters of assurance and it is to be
presumed that those who still have not this kind of documents on hand, could
possibly be taken care by one of the organizations interested in the welfare of
genuine DP's, who number l)ut a few liundreds.

We ask you, no, we beg you, to do your possil^le to help us to be resettled in
any country, in any place where we could secure work and be at the charge of
no one. INlany of us have recently received letters from their outport friends
and relatives, in which letters it is said that the United Nations have allotted
certain funds as for our evacuation and that they wonder why we are still here.
According to these letters certain foreign newspapers have published plans con-
cerning our impending resettlement, but most unfortunately we are unable to
secure anything official in this respect. The time presses, something must be
done before it will be too late and we can oidy trust and hope that we shall be
not forgotten and shall be treated on equal rights with those who, since 1949,
were given the opportunity to reorganize their existences.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1099"

fol-
cees

Being absolutely desperate we are a<i(lressing this letter-petition to llie
loAvinir persons and organizations: (1) U.N. High Conniiissionei- for lioUn
in Ceneva; (2) Federation of Charitable Organizations of the United States of"
America in San Francisco; (.'{) DP Division, United Nations, in Lake Snc-cess;
(4) Reverend Father Willdes, Ht)ng Kong; (5) L. Stumpf, director of the
Lutheran Center in Hong Kong; (6) Counte.ss A. L. Tolstoy, Tolstoy Foundatioa
in New York, (7) Mrs. N. S. Ross, lllS Thirteenth Avenue, Seattle. Wash.,
United States of America; (18) Thomas Jamieson in Hong Kong; and we wish
to trust that and will extend us a helping hand, before we shall be condemned,
rogetber with our families, to a sl(»w deatli tlirougb starvation. FspiM'inlly in
\ iew of the approaching cohl season as some of us liad to dispose of their winter
api)arel in order to be abU> to feed their next to kin during last spring and
summer.

We do trust that this desperate appeal will find the i-igbt response and that,
understanding tlie moral and the physical miseries through which we are under-
going: daily, you will do your best to save us together with our innocent children
and obtain f(>r us the I'ight to live as human beings are entitled to live and give
us a chance to be al)le to prove that your kind attention and your trust will
never be misused by us.

Kindly conununicate with us through Mi's. Iraida CJalos, Apartment 2, House-
]i).S. Route Tenant de Latour, Shanghai.

In expectation of the pleasure to read your answer in a very near future, to-
be able to find there hope and consolation, and thanking you in anticipation, we
remain yours most devotedly gi-ateful.

[Ninety-nine personal signatures affixed.]

Statement of P. C. Quock, President, Chinese Chamber of Commerce,
San Francisco, Calif.

Chinese Chamber of Commence.
San Francisco, Calif., October IJf, 1952.

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization,

Washington, D. C.
Gentlemen : The Chinese Chamber of Connnerce of San Francisco desires to-
go on record as endorsing and concurring the views of the Chinese Consolidated
Benevolent Association as presented to you in the hearing in San Francisco,
Calif., on October 14. 19r)2. The statement of views submitted by the saids
Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association is adopted in toto as that of our
own. Thanking you for your favorable consideration, we are
Respectfully yours,

Chinese Chamber of Commerce,
P. C. QuocK, President.

The Chairman. Is Mr. Stephen Thiermann here ?

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN THIERMANN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE, THE AMERICAN FRIENDS
SERVICE COMMITTEE

Mr. TiiiERM.vNX. I am Stephen Theinnaitn, executive secretary of
the American Friends Service Committee, San Francisco Re^^ional
Office, 18'>0 Sutter Street, San Francisco. I am here to represent
my organization and have a prepared statement I Avoiild like to read.

The Cii.MKM.vx. You may do so.

Mr. TiiiEKMANN. The San Francisco regional office of the Ameri-
can Ffiends Service Committee appi'eciates the oppoi'tiniity to testify
before re[)reKentatives of tlie President's Connnission on Imniioratiou
and Naturalization, meeting in San Francisco.

25356—52 70

1100 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

This is the city which saw the birtli of the United Nations. It is
a city known as the gateway to the Pacific. It is a cosmopohtan city
in which many persons of diverse Asiatic and European natimial
orio-in live togetlier in harmony and to their mutual enrichment. Ihe
Fri'ends Service Committee ^Yishes to support immigration pohcy
which encourages this kind of human enrichment for our country
without regard to race or creed. Our major, over-all objection to
the new immigration legislation is the fact that it is designed to
exclude immigrants rather than to admit them.

Furthermore, world conditions, especially those creating large num-
bers of refugees, make the need for countries open to immigration
more urgent than ever and the United States is unquestionably one
of the countries best able to absorb immigrants.

The service committee recognizes and appreciates a few favorable
features of the new legislation, such as the naturalization privilege
for Asians and the provisions evidencing concern for the family.
Many of the committee's detailed questions with respect to the new
act have been presented elsewhere before this Commission. These
questions have been related to the great and arbitrary power which
Public Law 414 would give to our consular and immigration officers
in refusing visas to foreign applicants, the many ambiguous grounds
provided for exclusion, and the retention virtually unchanged of the
national origins quota system of 1924 so that large quotas go in con-
siderable part unused while small quotas are heavily, and hopelessly,
overapplied.

The San Francisco office of the service committee wishes to draw
special attention, however, to the features of the act which, in our
opinion, are discriminatory against the peoples of the Pacific rim and
against Negroes. These include the Asia-Pacific triangle formula and
the provisions on Caribbean immigration. On the strength of its
experience on the west coast and in Asia, the service committee finds
the racist concept still retained in the new legislation to be particularly
damaging for two reasons :

First, the racist concept undercuts the work of many thousands of
west coast citizens who wish to develop friendly relations among the
peoples of the Pacific rim nations. More than 50,000 men and women
on the west coast have contributed through the American Friends
Service Committee good used clothing for tlie relief of Koreans, Japa-
nese, and Okinawans, or they have contributed funds for self-help
programs in these countries and in India and Pakistan. Their gifts
have been intended as a symbol of friendship among equals. In many
cases the gifts have represented a sacrificial effort on the part of
Americans who wish to express their good will to Asians. Public
Law 414 undercuts this witness of friendship and alienates those who
have sacrificed to make the witness.

Second, the racist viewpoint of this legislation confirms the sus-
picions of many Asians that American democracy is long on promise
and short on performance. Heralded by its supporters as the end of
race prejudice in our law, Asians expected the new law to provide
equal treatment for peoples of whatever national origin. Service
committee workers in Asia now tell us that it comes as a disillusion-
ing shock to Asians to learn tliat the removal on the ban against
naturalization of Japanese, Indians, and two or three other Asian

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1101

groups, is more than overbalanced by the immigration formula for
the Asia-Pacific triangle and by the token quotas of 100 allotted to
huge countries like India and China. Asians, hoping for bread, were
given a stone.

Because of the racial discrimination contained in Public Law 414,
because of its generally restrictive character, and because of its other
features dangerous to civil liberties, the xVmerican Friends Service
Conunittee in this region asks for new legislation more in keeping with
the American spirit at its best, and better suited to serve America's
needs.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Ml'. Thiermann, you have indicated your diffi-
culties with, and criticism of, the present law, and mentioned that you
would like something better suited to serve America's needs. Would
3^ou care to be a little more explicit for the enlightenment of the Com-
mission? Just what would you propose that the Commission con-
sider in comiection with the peoples of the Pacific rim nations?

Mr. Thiermann. Well, I would like to suggest that the formula
for admission of Asians from countries like Canada, or Mexico, where
a problem of half blood is involved, not be assigned to the Asiatic
triangle country from which they come ; rather, to the country where
they were born. For example, if they were born in Canada, even
though one of their parents was Japanese and the other, let's say,
Canadian, that they come in under the Canadian quota.

Mr. E.()SENFiEJ.D. Do you recommend the elimination of the Asia-
Pacific triangle provision ?

Mr. Thiermann. Yes.

The Chairman. That wouldn't affect any other people?

Mr. Thiermann. No.

The Chairman. Well, we are also concerned with broader policy
aspects.

Mr. Thiermann. I would feel that the policy of applying a small
quota to huge countries, like Japan and India, for instance, should be
changed, so that by either using or pooling quotas, the unused quotas
for Britain might be applied to Asia, or it be amended so much larger
quotas come from a country of larger population.

Mr. Chairman. What view do you hold concerning the national
origins formula in the immigration law?

Mr. Thiermann. If you could eliminate it, it would be highly
desirable.

The Chairman. Then what would you substitute for it?

Mr. Thiermann. Well, that would be a technical question.

It seems to me the best I certainly can do for the agency would be
to suggest general principles, and the details of drawing up a law
ought to be in the hands of persons who are skilled in trying to tailor
a law to these principles.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Let us see if you can state Avhat those principles
are in terms of some of the problems that are confronting the Connnis-
sion. One, do you propose the retention of a system of quotas based
on national origins?

Mr. Thiermann. No. I would say that ideally we would propose
a system probably based on the population of a country in tei-nis of a
given number of pei'sons whom we could admit into the United States
})er year.

1102 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Mr. RosENFiELD. Ill other words would you set a ceiling arrived at
in some way, and then distribute the number within that ceiling on
the basis of the population of the various countries whose nationalities
may be wanting to come to this country ?

JNIr. Thiermann. Yes.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Aiid would you do that with or without a distinc-
tion between Europe and Asia?

Mr. Thiermann. Without a distinction,

Mr. Rosenfield. Without a distinction. Of course that raises prob-
lems because there are some countries that are found to be in far greater
need of immigration than otliers.

Do I understand then, Mr. Thiermann. that what you are saying to
the Commission is something as follows : One, that within a ceiling,
you would make no discrimination based on national origin, race,
color, creed, or sex. But that if your advice were not accepted, and
there were to a quota system of some kind that was based on national
origin or race, that one thing that you feel strongly about is that the
quotas allowed to the Asiatic nations are too small, and that you would
recommend that something be done to increase them either by direct
increase or by pooling the unused quotas, making some of the increase
or by pooling the unused quotas, making some of the increase available
to them. Is that correct?

Mr. Thiermann. That's far better than I expressed it. But it
leaves unsolved in my mind how you would, if you had a ceiling, meet
the relatively greater need and how you would judge which was rela-
tively greater need — whether it was more important for Arab refugees
to be admitted than German refugees.

The Chairman. We would like to hear your views on that.

Mr. Thiermann. I'm afraid I can't help on that point.

The Chairman. Thank you. If you have any further suggestions"
you wish to sul)init, please send them to us at Washington.

Is ISlr. Morrissett here ?

STATEMENT OF IRVING MORRISSETT, CHAIRMAN OF THE FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Mr. Morrissett. I am Irving Morrisett, chairman of the Friends
Committee on Legislation of Northern California.

I have a prepared statement I would like to read.

The Chairman. You ma}^ do so.

Ml-. jNIorrissett. The Friends Committee on Legislation of North-
ern California was organized by California Friends for the purpose of
helping Quakers and others who are sympathetic with their views to
keep themselves informed on legislative matters and to assist them in
expressing their views eifectively to the State and National Legisla-
tures. It is affiliated with the Friends Committee on National Legis-
lation.

Our committee believes that religious insight and religious motiva-
tion have a direct application to everyday affairs, including legislative
matters. We are particuhirly interested in those issues which touch
directly upon liimian values and u])on the dignity of individuals. We
believe that Public Law 414 (the McCarran-Walters Act) is sucli an
issue.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1103

The new immigration and naturalization procedures are discrinu-
uatory and divisive in three iuiportaul ways:

1. tJiuler tliis act, the total lunuhei- of persons that may be admitted
to the United States is pitifully siiuiU, in comj^arison with the needs of
the rest of tlie world and in comparison with our ability to absorb ncNV
l^ersons into oar economic and social life. Furthermore certain fea-
tures of the law have the effect of lowering the actual number of immi-
grants even below the total admisvsible number.

'2. The method by which the admissible total is allocated among the
nations and areas of the world is clearly based upon hostility to cer-
.tain races ami cultures.

3. The law places innnigrants and naturalized persons in an inferior
position, after they have been accepted by this country.

We concur in what has been said by others who have testified today
•concerning the harmful effects of the quota provisions on our friendly
relations w^ith other nations, and particularly with the nations of Asia.
We would also like to stress a harmful aspect of the present law which
has received less attention than some other aspects — that is, the infe-
rior position in which the law places immigrants and naturalized per-
sons in this country, which is the third point mentioned above.

Once an innnigrant or naturalized person has passed the rigorous
tests for entrance into our national '"family" he should not be subject
to numerous further tests of behavior that are not imposed upon those
who happened to be born into the "family." It should be our aim to
help the new immigrant and the new- citizen to feel at home and at ease,
and to encourage him to appreciate and to use the opportunities and
the freedom which the United States has to offer.

Section 241 of the present law contains a long list of gromids upon
"which alien immigrants may be deported. Some of the provisions of
this section, and particular^ those of subsection (6), can be inter-
preted in such a way as to limit severely the immigrant's freedom of
speech and freedom of thought. And the possibilities of abuse are
greatly increased by the fact that this law invests almost unlimited dis-
cretionary power in the Attorney General.

Sections 340 and 349 of the present law contain extensive provisions
for revoking the citizenship of naturalized persons, and section 349 also
includes some conditions for revoking the citizenship of native Amer-
icans. Some of the provisions of these sections may easily be inter-
preted as prohibiting naturalized citizens from participating in dis-
•cussions and decisions about some of the most important issues in our
national and our world society.

The immigrant and the naturalized ])erson need the help and the
faith of their adopted country. Special legislation aimed at them,
full of pitfalls and backed by the terrible threat of deportation and the
■consequent disruption of family and social ties, is not evidence of an
Attitude of heli)fulness and faith. This is a time of fear and suspicion,
but certainly fear and suspicion should not therefore be written into
the law of the land.

We recognize the favorable features of the new immigration and
naturalization law, such as the provision which ])ermits naturalization
of the many Japanese ])ei'sons who have for a long time been Americans
in everything but name. We would like to see the wisdom of these
humanitarian and equalitarian features extended to the rest of the
law.

1104 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The Friends Committee on Legislation is grateful for the establish-
ment of this Commission for the further study of immigration and
naturalization matters. The committee also appreciates this oppor-
tunity to express its views before this Commission,

The Chairman. If the Congress were to change the present quota
system, what would you propose as a substitute?

Mr. MoRRissETT. It is very difficult to think on that level in view of
the likeliliood of Congress adopting a completely unprejudiced atti-
tude, but I would give my own views in this way : That there should
be no subterfuge adopted to keep out certain races and people from
certain areas because we don't like the people from those areas, in those
cultures, and that certainly was done in the present law, which goes
back to 1920, to pick a basis for placing quotas. It is because at
that time the population of the United States was more in line with
what certain people would like to see than the 1950 census would show.

Benefiting from the recent testimony I have heard before your
Commission, I would certainly go along with the idea of assigning
quotas on the basis of a geographical, or population proportional
to population, with an extra quota for individuals in particular need.
I think that in the principles of particular need we should especially
pay attention to persecution, political persecution, and religious per-
secution. America has been the refuge of people getting away from
political and religious persecution, and I think this should take a
top priority in aiding other nations. Economic difficulty should play
some role, but I think the other economic measures not involving
immigration should be stressed for the solution of economic problems.

Commissioner O'Grady. Can you separate both?

Mr, Morrissett, I thirik it should be considered, but I think this is
secondary to political and religious persecution as a reason for
admitting immigrants.

Commissioner O'Grady. Do you think our immigration policy
should be related to the economic phase also, as for example, the point
4 program ?

Mr. Morrissett, The important relation that I see between these
two things is that both our immigration policy and our point 4
program should have as their motivation the building of a unified
world, and, therefore, we should not do things in our immigration
policy which wnll undercut the good will that our point 4 may build
up. But I do not think that immigration is a major means of solving
the economic problems of economic areas.

Commissioner O'Grady, But do you think the two should be
integrated ?

Mr, Morrissett. Certainly, I would agree.

I really wonder whether Americans realize, whether we Americans
realize how our point 4 program is in one direction to build a better
world, and our trade policy and our immigration policy, as shown
in the McCarran-Walter Act, are in exactly the opposite direction of
breaking down unity among different nations.

I might add a particular comment : The thing that I tried to stress
in my statement was that I do not think new citizens or immigrants
who are in the process of becoming new citizens should be subjected
to special regulations, to special rules, about what they may think and
what kind of organizations thev belong to. I think those rules should

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1105

be the same for immi<?i"ants and for naturalized citizens, for citizens
of the United States who are boni in this country. It seems to me that
all such special le<>:islation dealing with innnigrants and with natural-
ized persons sliould not be written into (he law.

The Chairman. Tiiank you very nnich.

Is Mrs. Iva Henning here^

STATEMENT OF MRS. IVA R. HENNING, STATE DEFENSE CHAIR-
MAN. REPRESENTING THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Mrs. Hexnixg. I am Mrs. Iva R, Henning, representing the legisla-
tive connnittee and 1 am State defense chairman for the Daughters of
the American Revolution, 71 Lopez Avenue, San Francisco, C'alif.

]\Iembei"s of the Commission, and fellow citizens, my position is a
legislative position. I am appearing in suppoi't of the McCarran-
Walter innnigration and nationality law, which goes into effect on
December 24, 1952, and wliich was passed over the veto by a great ma-
jority in our National Congress in 1952.

It is a first principle of representative government that this law be
given a period of time to operate before any hasty revision, that we
may see what it does, and what it may need in the Avay of revision.

The California Society of the Daughters of the American Revolu-
tion have been interested in immigi"ation for a great many years. I
would like to read to you their resolution put out by the State of Cali-
fornia society in 1950. This is resolution number 12 : "Resolved that
the California State Society Daughters of the American Revolution
reaffirm the stand of its national society as stated in resolution No. 13,
adopted at the fifty-eighth continental congress, April 22, 1949;
namely, that the Congress of the United States be asked that no immi-
gration over and above the present quota system shall be permitted into
the United States either by special legislation on unused quotas, or
Executive order."'

This resolution was presented to the Congress of the United States
in April 1949.

The innnigration laws should be for the security of the American
people, economically and politically, unemployed, and, also, our war
servicemen need the assurance of a place that is their own in their own
country. Our young boys joining up, being drafted at the age of 18,
also need a priority on op])ortunity in this their own country. Euro-
peans need to face their whole res})onsibility for war, as well as their
whole responsibility for their own politics. By that, I mean that when
they come to the United States as refugees, aren't they running away
from their responsibility as natives of their own countries.

I have certain questions that I would like to put to this Commission,
and to the audience : How can any American family look forward to
making a living if large groups of people are imported without eco-
nomic opportunity at times when the war economy is in effect? How
can you know that the economic o])])ortunity will be there for those
people whom you bring from their lands into ours after the war econ-
omy becomes a peace economv, and we have such a period as 1931 to
1937?

1106 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Another question : How can any American family make a living
if large blocs of foreigners are admitted suddenly to satisfy foreign
politics, not ours ? We haA^e thought that the Marshall plan was to
build, to build up these foreign countries, so that they w^ould be up
to our level and have a happier condition in the homes where they are.

The American family has changed its composition in the last gen-
eration, something I know the young men w^ill agree with me about.
We now have families of two and three, and even five children, where
a generation ago it was more the custom to have a family of one
child or perhaps two. What are you going to do for the opportunity
for these babies who are our own native-born babies of the last, say,
5 years?

Why is the United States putting up the troops for the United
Nations, while other member nations suffer from overpopulation, and,
yet, fail to make their quotas with the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.

I have a final comment: I have watched this meeting today with
great interest, and a great deal of ]:)ride in many of tlie speakers, but
you haven't seen very many people here who have my background,
and there is a reason for that. This type of hearing is new. We are
more accustomed to representative government, and to presenting our
arguments directly to our Congressmen, and directly to our Senators,
'directly to our legislators. We are not yet familiar with this method.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Thank 3^ou.

Are Mr. Jackson and INIr. Hertogs here ?

STATEMENT OF Z. B. JACKSON, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH S.
HEETOGS, ATTORNEYS

Mr. Jackson. I am Z. B. Jackson, an attorney, and am accompanied
by my law partner, Joseph S. Hertogs. Our address is 580 Washing-
ton Street, San Francisco.

I have some general views on one or two sections of the law which
we would like to discuss, and then we would like to submit a mejno-
ranclum of our views.

The Chairman. You may proceed.

Mr. Jacksox. The first thing I would like to suggest is we object
to the act and the legislation as a whole.

The Chairman. What legislation and WJiat act?

Mr. Jackson. The Immigration and Nationalitv Act of 1952, Pub-
lic Law 414, because it is written in such general, vague, and indefinite
language. It doesn't provide for judicious review of any adminis-
trative decisions.

Now, when the Walter bill was being discussed on the floor of the
House ot Representatives, when the House was acting as a Committee
ot the \\ hole on the State of the Union, an amendment was proposed
by Representative Meader of Michigan on behalf of the American
Jiar Association, that a specific section be set up in this act providino-
that administrative decisions and orders would be subject to judicial
review. I here was objection to their proposed amendment by Rep-
resentative Walter, and at that time he stated that there was no"reason
tor the proposed amendment because the act already provided for that

COMMISSION ON IMiMIGKATION AND NATURALIZATION 1107

judicial redress. He stated that a particular section of this act pro-
vided that the unfortunate rider, which Avas fixed to one of the appro-
j)riatiou bills subsequent to the number of the Wong Gang Yong
case, would be repealed, and that the rules set down by the Supreme
Court of the Ignited States in tlie Wong Gang Yung case would
become tlie law of the land. However, when you look at the act and
read the language of this act you find no statutory provision providing
for the judicial review. I state that the failure to provide for this
judicial review is going to cause confusion, unnecessary judicial deter-
mination as to what this act means.

Another provision of this act we object to is section 360.

Connnissioner O'Gkady. WJiat section was this first one you are
referring to^

Ml'. Jackson, llie other one refers to section 242. Now 360 is a
section which provides for a means of having a judicial determination
of a claim of United States nationality. Under the present act, the
Nationality iVct of 19-10, we have section 503. Section 503 provides
that where any individual or person has been denied a right or privi-
lege of a national or citizen of the United States that that person
may commence, and institute a declaratory judgment suit against such
administrative official in any district court wherein the person claims
permanent residence, or in the District Court for the District of
Columbia. That act also provides that such persons may appl}^ for,
and obtain, a certificate of identity which would permit them to
proceed to the United States where they could have a determination of
their claim.

Now section 360 in the new act provides that if a person is within the
United States, they may have a judicial determination of their claim
of United States nationality. However, this does not happen in very
many cases. Most of the cases arise concerning the question of citi-
zenship about persons who are residing in foreign countries.

Now section B of 360 provides that certificates of identity may
be issued to persons who fall within two categories; those two cate-
gories being persons who are about to obtain the age of 16 years, or
I^ersons who have previously resided in the United States.

Now, we represent a large group of clients, who are seeking to
come to the United States and establish their claim of United States
nationality. Under the present travel restrictions, which have been
imposed under the Passport Act of 1918 and the President's proclama-
tion of 1941, these persons must obtain a travel document before they
can purchase passage to the United States. Now this document which
is issued is nothing more than a document which permits them to
obtain passage without the carrier being subjected to fine proceedings
for bringing a person without that document.

Now under this new act we are not going to be able to bring those
claiming T'nited States nationality to the United States where their
question of citizenship can be determined by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, which is the proper administrative agency
charged with the duty of making such determination, or before a
court, where they may have a fair and impartial heai'ing upon their
claim.

The act also provides that the certificate of identity under section
360 (B) may be issued by the consular official.

1108 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

It doesn't seem possible that where this question concerning issu-
ance of a travel document is going to be left up to the person who
rejected the claim of citizenship in the first place, and who is going
again to be the person to rule upon whether a travel document, or a
certificate of identity will issue, that he is going to make a favorable
determination in favor of that person.

We feel that these people should be given some means of proceeding
to the United States where they could have their claim of citizenship
determined either by the Immigi-ation and Naturalization Service,
or by the Department of State.

The other point which I would like to discuss is the failure of the
act to provide for those who served in the United States Armed Forces
during World War II or who were attached and served in the mer-
chant marine during that crisis.

Now we have in this act specific legislation providing for the nat-
uralization of persons who served 3 years in the Armed Forces of the
United States, but it requires that they must have been legally ad-
mitted to the United States. There is another provision in the act
which provides for the naturalization of those who served in the
Armed Forces of the United States during World War II. There
are many of them that have served 2, 3, and 4 years, many of those
years overseas. But the act provides that unless such petition for
naturalization is filed within 6 months of the termination of such serv-
ice that these persons must have been legally admitted to the United
States.

Now there are a number of aliens who are not legally admitted to
the United States, who did honorably serve in the Armed Forces of
the United States during World War II, many of them with many
citations, and we feel that they should be given some relief.

With your permission, I would like to leave a memorandum for the
record:

The Chairman. Thank you. It will be inserted in the record.

(The memorandum submitted by Jackson & Ilertogs, attorneys,

follows:)

.Jackson & Hertogs,
San Francisco, October 1^, 1952.
Haeby N. Rosen field,
Executive Director,

President's Commission of Immigration and ISlaturalization,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Rosenfiexd : We attach two copies of memorandum reflecting views
of this oflSce with respect to matters arising under immigration and nationality-
laws of the United States. We are grateful for the opportunity to be heard by
the Commission.

Very truly yours,

Z. B. Jackson.

Memorandum for the President's Commission on Immigsation and
Naturalization

Based upon practice for a period of years in the specialized field of matters
arising under the immigration and nationality laws and representation by our
firm of at least 5,000 persons before the Justice and State Departments and the
courts of the United States, we offer the following comment on procedures,
policies, and effect of the current statutes and the anticipated effect of the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1109
QUOTA ALLOCATIONS

1. Under current statutes

(«■) The nalkmal-origiiis basis of quota allocation, based upon a census of
;32 years ago, is unrealistic and outmoded. Fixing of an annual quota for a
•countrj' on the basis of the ratio of the number of its subjects here tliree decades
ago as compared to the total population ignores and gives no effect to percentage
clianges resulting from immigration during the past oO years. As a result, many
•thousands of highly desirable aliens from low-quota countries such as Spain,
Portugal. Greece, Turkey, Australia, and New Zealand caiuiot hope to enter the
United States as quota immigrants. Despite eligibility for i)referential quota
status or the possession of unusual qualitications in training, background, or
■experience, aliens from these lands cannot, because of proscription of their
quotas for years in advance, expect to receive visas without a wait of an unknown
•period. Discouraged by the seemingly Iiopeless prospect, many aliens whose
ipresence would be beneiicial to the interests of our country consider registration
on waiting lists to be futile.

(b) Aliens of the Chinese race, regardless of place of birth, can be allocated
•quota numbers only under the annual China racial quota of 105 persons per
jear. Seventy-five iK^rcent of this amount is reserved for aliens residing in
China, practically none of whom can escape from the interior of China because
of restrictions on travel or movement by the Communist government of China.
2<o other race of peoples is subjected to such pointed discrimination by our
immigration and nationality laws.

2. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

(o) The national-origins system of quota allocation is continued. Provision
for reservation of first 50 percent of quotas for those of high education, technical
training, specialized experience, or exceptional ability will be of little aid to those
whose quotas are proscribed for years ahead by persons registered on waiting
lists, or reduced by numbers used by persons granted suspension of deportation
•or visas under the Displaced Persons Act.

(6) Asia-Pacific quota provision continues and heightens discrimination
against aliens of the Chinese race.

(c) Lowering of quota priority of alien pai'ents of United States citizens will
•cause marked increase in waiting period befox'e they may be issued visas and
Join citizen children in the United States.

ISSUANCE OF VISAS

1. Under current statutes

(a) Consular officials, with unrestrained authority to grant or refuse visas,
■frequently set up unreasonable and arbitrary requirements beyond the demand
of statutes. Authority under the public-charge provision is often abused. Thus,
an able-bodied Canadian with a background of self-support, sponsored by rela-
tives and friends in the United States with assets of $50(5,000 and incomes totaling
over $30,000, was refused a visa on the ground that he was likely to become a
public charge.

(?*) Alien wives of American citizens of the Chinese race are being refused
nonquota visas by the American consulate in Hong Kong unless they produce
their children from the interior of China. This is normally impossible because
of the refusal of the Chinese Communist officials to grant exit permits to any
person potentially useful in military or labor forces. These demands are beyond
the requirements of the applicable laws and regulations.

(c) Applicants for nonimmigrant visas as temporai-y visitors are generally
-rejected if they have relatives in the United States. Any ajiplicant of marriage-
able age is normally refused a visa on the ground that he might marry and
attempt to remain in the United States. In specified countries — notably Greece,
Italy, and China — it is virtually impossible for any alien other than one of
wealth, pi'ominence, or close connection with highly placed Government officials
to obtain a visitor's visa. Others are regarded as perjurers or conspirators in
a scheme to circumvent the inunigration laws.

'(d) Authorit.v to refuse visas on the groimd that an alien's entry would be
prejudicial to the interests of the United States is constantly abused. The
applicant is never informed as to the reason or the evidence on which the denial
is based. Innocent childhood associations, unsupported rumors, malicious com-
plaints both anonymous and other are considered sufficient for rejection of a visa
application.

1110 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

(c) Many of our clients have reported that consular officials are lazy, officious,
and indifferent to hardship resulting from their dilatory methods and unrea-
sonahle demands. American citizens spend huge sums in maintaining relatives
abroad while they await action by consulates on their applications or attempt
to comply with instructions of a consular official who generally has no conception
of the practical problems of the applicant and those interested in his welfare.

(/) Sponsors of visa applicants often include offers of employment in affidavits
of support, ))elieving that such offers tend to add assurance that the applicant
will not become a public charge. These well-intended offers are seized upon
by consulates as a ground for re.lecting visas with no consideration as to whether
the proposed employment is the primary inducement for the visa application or
whether the type of employment offered exempts the applicant from the excluding
provisions of the contract-labor laws.

<f/) Decisions of consular officials re.iecting visa applications are not subject
to appeal or review. Since citizens or residents of the United States are generally
vitally interested in the rejected applicant, some provision for review of arbi-
trary and unsupported visa denials should be available to the applicant or those
interested in him. While recognizing that the right to refuse admission is an
attribute of sovereignty, some method of seeking review of these decisions should
be provided to the end that visa applicants in like circumstances will receive
uniform rulings.
2. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

(a) Terms of the new statutes provide latitude for continuance of the prac-
tices complained of above and perhaps encourage them. Sections 212 (a) (27)
and (20) confer on consular officers the power to reject visa applications of
those whom they have reason to believe seek entry for the pui-pose of engaging
in activities prejudicial to the public interest or who in their opinion would,
after entry, probably engage in such activities. While security of the United
States is a paramount objective, these loosely worded provisions certainly open
the gates to rejection of visa applications on the liasis of personal whims, specu-
lation, and conjecture under conditions safeguarding the maker of the decisions
against review or criticism of his orders.

ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES

1. Under current statutes

(a) Present statutes provide for adjustment of status through preexamina-
tion where an alien has resided in this country from 1 to 5 years and is in a posi-
tion to obtain an immigration visa within a reasonable time. Due to the fact
that the same procedure is not provided in the new statutes, many aliens are now
being granted preexamination provided they obtain a consular appointment and
depart before December 23, 1952. However, the leisurely methods of the consu-
lates in Canada in processing informal visa applications makes it impossible
to complete arrangements for consular appointments before December 23. Re-
quests to the Chief of the Visa Division, Department of State, and the Commis-
sioner of Immigration and Naturalization in September 1952 for the perfecting
of emergency arrangements to handle these cases expeditiously produced nothing
worth while. The Chief of the Visa Division stated that the consulates were
understaffed, and the Commissioner did not respond.

(&) Suspensions of deportation applications are now being determined on the
basis of a secret and contideutial policy, purportedly representing the sentiment
of the congressional committee which passes upon suspension applications for
the Congress. Applicants or their counsel are not informed of the details of the
policy. Suspension applicants who have a citizen wife and two citizen children
are being denied suspension ; those with three children are being approved. An
application under section 19 (c) of the 1917 act, as amended, based on residence
of 7 years and presence in this country on July 1, 1948, is rejected unless the
alien has residence of 15 years. Exceptions are made whei'e specified circum-
stances exist, but the nature of the exceptions are unknown. Obviously, these
requirements are over and above those required by the present law^s, and the
practice of determining the fate of a man and his family on the basis of a secret
policy is foreign to our standards of due process.

(c) Aliens who entered prior to July 1, 1924, who have resided in this country
since entry and for whom no record of admission exists may apply for the
creation of a record of lawful entry. Officials of the Immigration and Natural-
ization Service demand proof of residence for each and every one of the 28 years.

COMMISSION OX IMIMIGHAIIOX AND XATURALIZATION 1111

For many applicants this is an impossible demand, and some reasonable relaxa-
tion of the requirement should be considered.

2. Under the Immdgration and Ncitionalitt/ Act of 1952

(a) Opportunity for an alien to adjust status throuj>h preexamination is
eliminated. No provision is made for a practical solution of the problems of
aliens who applied for preexamination from several months to several years ago,
who have been granted the privilege ret-ently, but who cannot take advantage
of the grant before December L*.':?, VX)'2. liy administrative ruling or legislative
action, those deserving aliens should bt* granted additional time to adjust status
other tlian by leaving their families and returning to their homelands.

(b) Adjustment of status through suspension of deportation is eliminated
for all practical purposes b.v the forthcoming law. With the exception of a group
of aliens deportable on criminal or innnoriil grounds who have resided here at
sufferance for many years, no alien who entered prior to .June 27, 1950, can seek
such relief unless he has resided in the United States for 7 years.

(c) Exceptional and unusual hardship must be established in order to qualify
an alien for suspension of deportation. Such a term gives almost vualimited
latitude to offers seeking ground for rejection of an application, and most of
them are so inclined. By the gist of remarks made by persons sjjonsorlng Public
Law 414, the fact of the alien's relationship to a citizen or resident wife or child
is not to be considered in determining whether exception and unusual hardship
would result from the alien's deportation.

MISCELLANEOUS

Many other obectionable features are to be found in the Inmiigration and
Nationality Act of 1952. In time the needless hardship resulting from them
will become vividly clear and doubtless remedial legislation will be enacted.
Under sections 101 (a) (3) and 212 (d) (7) Hawaii is part of the United States
for one purpose and not for another. The effect is to prevent aliens lawfully
resident in Haw'aii from coming to the United States if not quota immigrants
while at the same time permitting them to seek naturalization in Hawaii. Setting
up immigration barriers between two areas of the United States is an incongruity
which cannot be justified by logical reasoning.

Aliens who served honorably for 5 years on vessels of American registry prior
to September 23, 1950, ai-e made eligible to naturalization without having been
admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Many hundreds of
competent and loyal alien seamen are short from a few weeks to several months
in having 5 years of sea service. Most of them have continued in our merchant
marine. The military transport services and most American maritime com-
panies have recently refused to sign on alien seamen. Those who cannot natural-
ize must leave or face deportation. Provision should be made for those who have
served our merchant marine honorably for 5 years or more, regardless of the
date of .service.

The net general effect of the tone and provisions of the 1952 act is the erection
of immigration barriers which bristle wath belligerency. Consular and immigra-
tion officers will necessarily become ambassadors of bad will, and we will in
time alienate many residents of foreign lands who would otherwise be friendly.
At home, officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service will eventually
approach a characterization slightly less odious than the Gestapo of Nazi
Germany. No corresponding benefit to the United States is apparent.

Respectfully submitted.

Jackson & Hertogs,
Z. B. .Jackson.

Mr. RosExriEi.D. Mr. Chairman, George Sehlmer, the master of the
California State Grange, had ho])ed to be here today to testify before
the Commission, but he has sent word tlvit, unfortunately, he cannot
come. If he submits a statement, I should liJfe permission to insert
it in the record at this point.

The Chairman. That may be done.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, J. D. Zellerbacli, president of the
Crown-Zellerbach Corp., of San Francisco, and formerly ECA ad-
ministrator for Italy, was scheduled to testify at this time, but was

1112 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

unable to appear, and he has sent a statement which, with your per-
mission, I will read into the record.

The Chairman. You may do so.

(There follows the statement of Mr. J. D. Zellerbach, read by Mr..
Harry N. Rosenfield, executive director:)

Statement of Mr. J. D. Zellerback, President of Crown-Zellerbach Corp.,.

OF San Francisco

I want to thank tbe members of the President's Commission on Immigi-ationi
and Naturalization for the invitation to present my views on the present immi-
gration laws.

My strong conviction is that the present immigration lavp^ are in direct con-
flict with United States philosophy and policy on foreign affairs and are un-
realistic in facing up to world conditions. Therefore I would recommend that
the laws be libej-alized to conform to that policy.

I realize that it might be more comfortable for one to avoid testimony or to-
hide behind an emotional generalization that America is self-sufficient and that
therefore American citizens must be protected by a severely restrictive policy
of immigration. However, I feel that a restrictive policy would be weak pro-
tection indeed, for it is isolationism in its most reactionary form. And, in the-
kind of a world in which we are living today, we cannot afford the' risk of isola-
tionism either geographically, militarily, economically, or i>sychologieally.

Americans are dispersed throughout all free nations, working to help them
back to a point where they can be self-supporting themselves. We have beeru
helping restore the fisheries of Greece : the factories of Italy, France, and
Gern;!any; the railroads of many war-torn countries. We are building alon^
with them to keep out the threat of Russian aggression. We are depending al-
most wholly on many free nations for some of the vital metals and other re-
sources which we do not have in the United States. We are sending- money
across the seas to help restore the economy, setnmty, and confidence of free,,
friendly people. Our American boys are deployed to the military areas of many-
foreign lands. We are trying, by every psychological means within our knowl-
edge, to convince our overseas neighbors and anyone else who will listen that
the way to peace and safety lies in walking our road.

Through all of the years of American history we have been building a world^
belief and trust that the United States of America is a haven for pilgrim feet
from oppressed and overcrowded lands. We have projected American citizen-
ship as a desirable possession which millions of foreigners have attained. We-
have welcomed them to help us in our fields, our mines, our forests. They have-
helped us build our transcontinental railroads. They have transplanted agri-
cultui-al and horticultural skills from their lands to ours, as witness the Cali-
fornia grape and wine industry, among others. We have learned their skills^
and arts. We have learned much from them as they have learned from us.
Today they are part of us — the mixture which is America. If we need any proof
of their devotion to the United States, we need only to look ot the names of
men who have fought on our side in the wars. If we need proof of how they
feel about America, we need only to look to the campaign of letter writing
which Italian-Americans beamed to their friends and relatives in Italy prior
to the elections which finally kept Italy from going Commmiist.

The need for liberalization of our immigration laws goes beyond statistics^
on our actual needs in the way of housekeepers, farm hands, and a host of other-
occupations which are going largely unfilled because American workers are
turning to other occupations. Through our D-epartments of Labor, Commerce,,
and Agriculture we should be able to anticipate the extra manpower needs and
provide necessary protections against an oversupply of workers. The plain,
truth is that we must try harder to fit more of the right kind of immigrants
into our American life and American economy. Either that or watch them go
over to our enemies who have been telling them since the end of World War II
that Americans do not practice what they preach.

I do not speak for any one country, but for them all. I do not think in terms-
of so loosening our immigration laws that great masses of people may move
from there to here without plan or thought. Out of my Eurojiean experiences
I al>sorbed at least two things which made indelible impressions. One is the-
misery caused by overcrowding of populations. The other is the tender balance
between Communism and freedom in the minds of hungry, frustrated people.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1113

So I do speak of the need for an enlightened immi.uration policy under which
the Ignited States will contribute its share toward relieving the dangers of eco-
iKiiiru- distress in other free nations. The Western llcmisiihere provides the
greatest opportunity for resettlement of Europe's surplus populations. Other
countries less able to nbsorb immigration than the United States are doing more
to help the situation than we are. We must work with them to do more thaa
we have been doing, for. il' we are to relieve the misery upon wliich com-
munism flourishes, we must take an enlightened attitude toward the immigration
pi'oblem. We must help our friends so they \\ ill not have to seek assistance from,
our enemies.

The CiiAiHMAX. Mr. Fred W. Ross will be the next witness.

STATEMENT OF FRED W. ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION FOR CIVIC UNITY

Mr. Ross. I am Fred W. Ross, executive director of the California
Federation for Civic Unity, on whose l^ehalf I am appearing.

I have a prepared statement I would like to read.

The Chairman. You may do so.

Mr. Ross. Mr. Perlman, and members of the President's Commis-
sion. I am the executive director of the California Federation for
Civic Unity, a State-wide agency designed to channel the interests,
and energies of organizations working toward the improvement of
human relations, and composed of chapters of the Japanese-Ameri-
can Citizens League, National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, the Community Service Organization (Mexican-
American), and various Jewish, church, and labor groups.

At our executive committee meeting in April of this year a resolu-
tion was passed commending Congress for its action in granting im-
migration and naturalization privileges to persons of Asiatic descent
who previously had been denied these rights, and opposing certain,
provisions which this organization considered discriminatory . on
lacial and religious grounds. Specifically these are the clauses we
oppose :

Section 212 (a) 25: Pertaining to the entry of displaced persons
and repeal of the provision of the 1917 law allowing entry of victims
of religious persecution who are illiterate. This provision, we be-
lieve, w^ould bar a considerable number of displaced persons of Jew-
ish and other religious groupings.

Section 202 (c) : A provision changing immigration quotas for
Jamaica and other Caribbean colonies from the never-filled United
Kingdom quota of 65,721 to a special quota of 100 for each such col-
ony, thus drastically curtailing colored immigration. We believe this
is highly discriminatory against Negro groups.

Section 287 (a) 8: A provision terminating the right of American
citizens to be immune from search or official interrogation without
a warning. In our opinion this would work undue hardship upon
millions of Mexican-Americans residing in the border area of the
Southwest. We believe adequate safeguards should be included in the
bill to protect members of the Mexican-American group.

Section 244- 5-B, which denies to people from contiguous territories
(Mexicans, Cubans, Central Americans, etc.) certain privileges of
suspension of deportation granted to the nationals of other countries.
It is our understanding this regulation is based on the theory that
persons wdiose origin is in relative proximity to the United States will

1114 COMMISSION OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

not find it particularly difficult to simply drop everything and return
immediately to the country of their birth when ordered to do so by the
immigration authorities.

In our opinion this assumption is patently false. Sudden removal
of this character, in our experience, can only tend to work grievous
hardship upon the people involved. This is particularly true with
reference to the Mexican rural workers. Most of them have little or
no knowledge of English. Because of this and other reasons they find
it exceedingly difficult to deal with the American consulate. Negotia-
tions necessary to straighten out their status are thus indefinitely
prolonged.

Many of these workers have wives and children in this country and
any prolonged absence of the wage earner seriously jeopardize'j the
family relationship. Finally, such unanticipated removal obviously
works an economic hardship on the workers involved in that few
employers are interested in preserving job rights over a long period
of time while the worker's status is being investigated.

We earnestly urge, in the interests of justice and wholesome human
and international relations, that your committee give serious consid-
eration to the elimination of the provisions outlined above.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Is Mr. Haruo Ishimaru here 'i

STATEMENT OF HARUO ISHIMARU, REPRESENTING THE JAPANESE
AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RE-
GIONAL OFFICE

Mr. Ishimaru. I am Haruo Ishimaru, and I represent the Japanese-
American Citizens League, northern California regional office.

Actually, as far as our organization is concerned, the Japanese-
American Citizens League, we have offices here in San Francisco. I
happen to come from the northern California area. We have a special
legislative office in Washington, D. C, and it was an interstaff agree-
ment that the representative in Washington, D. C, would make our
statement before this Commission. However, I was requested to ap-
pear at this particular meeting to try to represent the feelings of the
Japanese-Americans as far as this new and comprehensive law is con-
cerned. First of all, I would like to point out that my background
is not legalistic in any way, and I am not an authority on the bill, but
if I can add any of the impressions that I have received from the
Japanese-American communities I will be happy to do so.

First of all, we realize that this is quite a lengthy and comprehensive
law, and we realize that there has been opposition in many areas to the
law, in part, and on the whole. The Japanese-American people, as a
whole, have been trying to get citizenship for a number of years. Our
parents, the Nisei, have been legal residents of the United States, some
for over half a century. We have on record one resident in Seattle,
Wash., who applied for his first papers as early as lOO-l. Conse-
quently, any law which might possibly give citizenship rights to our
parents is one in which we are deeply interested.

We wei-e gratified at the success of the passage of the Walter-McCar-
ran omnibus immigration and naturalization law. We pushed this
law — that is, the Japanese- American people — because we were told by

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1115

Ambassador Grew tliat the rise of militarism and nationalism in
-Japan stennnod from the inmiiurat ion and laws in tlie United States
in so far as immio-mtion, steniniino; from li)i>4, AVe believe that this
law. at least in part, has tended to rectify some of the <rreat problems
started at that time. xVlso, it was my privile<i;e to hear Dr. George
'i'oirasaki, editor of the Nippon Times which is considered the most
important and influential English language newspaper in Japan —
:ilso, he is the chairman of the board of directors of the quite well-
known International Christian University in Japan — speak at the
Commonwealth Club. Dr. Togasaki, recently coming from Japan,
jiointed out that in Japan and in Asia as a whole this bill was being
considered with more interest than perhaps any other single bit of
legislation in the last 25 and perhaps even 50 3'ears, because the United
States would make an articulate statement on how they felt concerning
I lie Asiatics.

You will remember that before the passage of this law many of
the people from the xA.siatic countries were denied the right to come
to this coimtry as immigrants. They were considered second-class
peoi)le, ])eo})le who were not worthy or entitled to the right to come
to this country. Also, at the same time the residents in this coimtry,
the Japanese, and some of the others, which I don't know specifically,
Ave know that during the war years the Filipinos and the Chinese were
allowed to get their citizenship. But the Japanese, despite their
length of residence in this coimtry, were not able to get citizenship.
We are happy that this legislation has passed.

We realize that in any legislation which has over 2,000 separate
items there cannot be unanimity of opinion and consideration. We
realize that the passage of law^, the making of law in this country or
any country is evolutionary in nature, and not revolutionary. We
recognize that even for the Japanese, althouo-h there has been a signal
victory, we believe in principle yet that the quota of 185, half of which
is mortgaged for the next few years, is really a small token recogni-
tion of Japan as a sovereign nation.

Still our organization, the Japanese- American Citizens League, is
not concerned so much with problems of Japanese in Japan, but with
American citizens and residents of ,Iapanese ancestry, especially be-
cause of the privileges of citizenshi]) which we believe is not only a
great responsibility but a right as residents of this country.

We are glad that this law has passed, and we hope that if there
is any necessity for rectifying any of the conditions which may not
be as good as others not only our organization but other organizations
will work togethei- to make this legislation a more perfect one.

In concluding, let me point out that right now the eyes of the world
are on the United States. I know this personally because of my an-
cestry I am concerned with Ja])an, and Asia as a whole. Japan for
a long time was an enemy nation. It was an enemy nation for our
organization as well because we are an American citizens group. But
the United States and the other nations have decided to let Japan once
more enter into the realm of friendly nations. We feel it is imperative
that we recognize the res])onsibility of the TTnited States truly dem-
onstrating her ])rincij)les of democracy and equality. If there are any
changes necessary in this legislation, we hope that it will be done with
a full realization that the United States must demonstrate a complete

25350 — 52 71

1116 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

equality regardless of race or national origins, and that with the com-
bined effort of all the people in the United States this will become a
more perfect piece of legislation.

Mr. RosENFiELD. I ^vonder if I might ask one question: Do you
have any particular suggestions to the Commission on specific things
in the law which you think should be changed or modified ?

Mr. IsHiMARU. Actually, that will be taken up when you have your
hearing in Washington.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Masaoka has been invited to attend, so that
any other matters your organization may have will be presented then?

Mr. IsHiMARu. Yes.

The Chairman, Thank you.

Is Miss Tomorug here?

STATEMENT OF MYROSLAWA TOMORUG, REPRESENTING THE
UKRAINIAN CONGRESS COMMITTEE OF AMERICA

Miss Tomorug. I am Myroslawa Tomorug, 2904 Wheeler Street,,
Berkeley, Calif. I represent the Ukrainian Congress Connnittee of
America and have a statement I would like to read.

The Ciu\iRMAN. We shall be pleased to hear it.

Miss Tomorug. I appreciate the opportunity to express the views
of the Ukrainian Congress Committee in support of the bill, so timely
introduced by Congressman Celler, and which is now presented before
your committee to implement the imj^ortant and very vital message
of President Truman on the urgent problem of surplus population
and escapees from Soviet Communist tyrannj-.

The Uk7\ainian Congress Committee of America, which comprises
upwards of 1,500 Ukrainian- American organizations throughout the
United States, representing over 1 million Americans of Ukrainian
descent is most deeply interested and concerned with the acute status
and welfare of the present and future escapees from behind the iron
curtain because it is firmly convinced that unless immediate measures
are taken to aid and assist such refugees and escapees, we Americans
will lose an important battle in the present cold war grimly waged
by the Kremlin.

Today, our great Nation — and indeed the entire world — is faced
with the gravest threat to its survival since the glorious days of its
inception. The United States, the citadel of human freedom and
unrestricted opportunity, is confronted by the sinister forces of bar-
baric darkness. Soviet Russia's totalitarian masters have made it
known that their ultimate objective is to conquer the world for their
type of communism ; and that standing in the way toward this achieve-
ment is the United States, the last bastion of liberty, a power which
the madmen of the Kremlin fear may be sufficiently strong to destroy
their despotic regime.

However, in this struggle against the aggressive onslaught of ]\Ios-
cow, v/e have millions of men and women behind the iron curtain
who are tiue and potential allies of ours. Despite the practically
impenetrable barriers set up by the Soviet jailere, many thousands
have managed to escape after superlnnnan efforts, as we all know,
and many others have had the extreme good fortune to reacli our
shores, while others have found haven in other lands. Thousands of

COMMISSION OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1117

others .are still coniino; from behind the iron curtain, many of whom
are faced with no other alternative but to escape because of their
aiiti-Conniiunist activities.

Thousands of these peoples are now facint^ a crisis in Western
Europe. Indeed, I do not have to describe to you the prevailing
economic conditions of postwar Europe today ; it is a known fact that
these ])eople are not welcome there. They are and will remain out-
casts— known by a phrase which those of us who lived in postwar
Europe know only too well — "Verduchte Ausliinder," they called us.
Still we must admit that this antagonism is quite understandable.

People of Western Europe have become selfish and bitter after long
years of suffering. They feel that they have had their share of
misery and do not understand why they should feed people from
other countries, while their own men and women are starving. It
is also understandable that any German or French concern will prefer
to employ a countryman instead of an unknown foreigner. There-
fore, life for all escapees in Western Europe has become unbearable^
in fact, very unbearable, materially and spiritually. These people
with a rich political experience are not able to participate in any
political affairs, nor can they take an initiative in any phase of life.

Now let us clearly realize that if we help these peoples, and we must
help them, we will be not helping them only, but ourselves as well.
We will be helping the future of United States. AVith their ex-
perience they could become the pillars upon which a renewed clear-
miiuled American mind could be built.

Unfortunately, even today when the danger of Communist im-
perialism has become known to the entire world, we will still find
men and women who will ask : "Maybe communism is not as bad
as they say; maybe it's only propaganda." After all, there are mil-
lions of people living under communism. Maybe it is only
propaganda.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us face it; we Americans have lived
behind an iron curtain for a time too long for our own good. There
are only very few of us Avho had met communism and fascism
face to face. Only those brave men who have fought on the battle-
field during the First and Second Warld Wars. But what does the
avei'age citizen truly know about communism? His knowledge is
limited strictly to what he reads in books and newspapers, what he
sees in the movies and hears on the radio. It isn't much. Therefore,
if they ask strange questions we should not be angry or surprised.
According to the great philosopher, Descartes, it is in the nature of
mankind to doubt everything in order to gain true knowledge. Who
is going to give us this true knowledge?

These peoples who have met communism face to face can make
the best job of it. They are men and Avomen with high intelligence,
not because they finished universities, but because their lives have
been rich in experiences. They, contrary to most of our citizens.
do not have to check in books on what happened in Katyn, Buchen-
w-ald, or Wynnycia. The word "genocide" is not new to them. They
have seen tyranny as it is, as it works, murders, and as it destroys.
What thev tell tlie world is not propaganda, and I hope that we are
not afraid to hear the truth.

I have a chance to talk constantly to many true, good, old-fashioned
Americans, who oppose the ideal of new immigrants, because they

1118 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

nre afraid of those spies, wlio witli the refugees have thus a cliance
to force their way into the United States. Ido not doubt that there
are many spies who in such a way would gain entrance into United
States, That is only natural. Our secret police, therefore, should
make an extremely careful investigation of every person before ad-
mitting them to the country. If necessary they should be under a
constant observation in Europe before coming, and later here in the
United States. It would be helpful to us.

There are many difficulties these people w^ould have to face in
the United States. But we need not fear that they would become a
burden on us. That has been proved by the thousands of immi-
grants who in recent years have been admitted to this country. They
knew the chance they were taking and they carried it out as bravely
as our great-grandfathers did, a few centuries or decades ago. With
the steady growth of American industry we do not have to fear about
their future. With a little good will and understanding we can give
them the possibility to become human beings again, to build homes and
families, to give their children education, to become a part of the
great American tradition.

Finally, speaking of young people I want to mention the brave
3^oung men of all nationalities who, without even being citizens of
this country, are now fighting in the rows of United States Armed
[Forces. Hundreds have already given their lives on the battlefields
of Korea. They do not fight because the draft lioard got them, but
because they know what communism would bring to the world; be-
cause they want their children to live in a free country in the years
to come.

There are thousands of these boys waiting for the possibility to
come to the United States and join the rows of fighters for freedom.
Many of them have for years already been fighters in the resistance
underground forces who gallantly fought both Hitler and Stalin,
nnd whose brothers even today continue to cause unrest and turmoil
behind the iron curtain.

I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that we cannot wait in moral
apathy but must extend them our helping hand of freedom. We
must keep open these channels of freedom. If we hesitate, fumble,
or falter, these channels will dry up and the desire and will to fight
against tlieir oppressors will stagnate and ultimately die.

Our loss in psychological warfare strategy and moral prestige
would be tremendous. In this colossal struggle for tlie minds of
men, it is incumbent that we formulate a new affirmative and dynamic
policy which will hit the enemy where it will be most effective.

I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that you will agree with me that
Stalin and his comrades would most certainly breathe a sigh of re-
lief should we miss this golden opportunity to cause a manifestation
of the very spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

This bill is of such importance to the national security and to the
oause of freedom and peace of the entire world that it warrants
full endorpement and bipartisan support.

I respectfully urge the favorable consideration of this bill by
your committee', and trust that action will be taken on it during this
session of the Congress.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Is Dr. Alfred de Grazia here?

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1119

STATEMENT OF ALFEED de GRAZIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCE AND ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Dr. DE Grazia. I am Alfred de Graziti, 772 Yiiez, Stanford, Calif.
I am executive officer of the Committee for Research in Social Science
and associate professor of political science at Stanford University.

I have a prei)ared statement tliat I will read, with your permission.

The CiiAiRMAK. You may do so.

Dr. DE Grazia. My professional specialization lies in the fields of
public opinion, political parties, and pressure oroups. Prior to join-
ing- the faculty of Stanford University, I taught at the University of
Minnesota, Brown University, and Columhia University. In AVorld
War II, during which I rose from the rank of private to that of cap-
tain, I served first in artillery and then for about 3 years in psycho-
logical warfare. I engaged in seven campaigns in Africa, Ital}',
France, and Germany over a period of about 2i/^ years, and hold the
Bronze Star Medal and other decorations and ribbons. I acted as
consultant on one of the phases of the work of the Hoover Commission
and have also been consultant to an official agency in the field of
psvchological warfare. I am author of Public and Republic, a study
of American ideas of representative government; Pluman Relations
in Public Administration; The Elements of Political Science; co-
author of an Outline of International Relations and of other books
and articles. My appearance before this Commission is not connected
with the activities of any organized group. I also wish to make clear
that any preferences that I may state are not to be construed as the
official position of Stanford University in any way, and that any fac-
tual opinions or assertions are my own, unless otherwise indicated
by me.

Public Law 414, the so-called McCarran Act, is based in part on
errors of fact, is morally bad in several important respects, and con-
tains various beneficial provisions. On the whole, I believe the act
to be so deficient morally and tactically that it would have been better
not to have passed it.

Its moral errors are several :

1. It refuses hospitality to mankind. Granted that the inescapable
realities of politics and life preclude a completely open door to immi-
gration, we might have improved our moral position somewhat by
doubling the meager quotas of the nineteen twenties. Instead, the
McCarran Act reduces opportuniti€S for emigration to America.

2. It is morally wrong in that it discriminates among men by ethnic
and cultural criteria considered by American ideals to be irrelevant
or bad criteria. Thus,

(a) It perpetuates an ethnic quota system. The ethnic quota sys-
tem prefers certain sti'ains already present in American society to
other strains not present or jjresent in smaller numbers. I would
regard this as a moral error 07i the groimds that a nation should abide
by the principle of the equal worth and dignity of individual men,
regardless of accidents of birth. Here again, however, the American
people, or at least politically significant fractions of them, may not
be prepared to welcome major changes in the system of apportioning
quotas according to the relative proportion of the various ethnic

1120 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATIOISl

strains of the world presently existing in the American population.
We cannot ask perhaps for a venturesome spirit among many poli-
ticians, even given that the spirit may be morally sound. However,
if one considers the small number of immigrants admitted, it becomes
quite possible that the American public would regard indulgently
the abandonment of the quota system and the substitution therefore
of universal standards of admission to American citizenship. It is
easy to demonstrate that the physical and cultural effect of those few
immigrants upon America would be negligible, even if they were all
Esquimaux. Interested parties might do well to hark to the exam-
ple of Turkey, a primitive and poor country, bordering on a hostile
Soviet Union, whicli has admitted so large a number of immigrants
in the past couple of years that the United States would have to admit
a million immigrants a year to equal its record.

(b) Furthermore, whatever the degrees of demerit of the quota sys-
tem, the retention of the 1920 census as the basis for computing national
origins remains an essential moral defect of the McCarran Act. It
is an additional and most gratuitous insult to perhaps every fifth
American. It is gratuitous because only a few hundreds or thousands
of quota positions Avould be changed; but it is none the less serious
as an insult. I note in reading the reports of the House and the Senate
committees on the bills that became the act, in question, that the ab-
surd arguments of the early twenties concerning the "new" as against
the "old" immigration were missing. I conclude that enlightenment
plus the political power of the groupings affected adversely engendered
caution among the bill's proponents; I suspect that some supporters
privately nursed the prejudices of their ancient childhoods while pub-
licly they gave some rather unconvincing assurances that the future
might see a restudy of the origins of the American population. (In-
cidentally, I assume that the Commission is quite aware of the unsatis-
factory nature of the census computations of national origins. It is a
most difficult business. For example, if anyone here has ever visited
near Houston, Tex., the majestic monmnent to the Texan victory over
the Mexican Army in 1836, he probably noticed emblazoned in stone
the fact that a veritable rainbow of nationalities composed the victori-
ous Texan Army, including Mexicans. I wonder wliether all those
men found their way into the census computations of 1920.)

(c) Ethnic discrimination of a bad sort is also practiced in the pro-
visions relating to the assignment of separate quotas of colonies, but
this is perhaps a minor vice since, gi'anted the ethnic quota system to
begin with, a colony should perhaps be treated as ethnically distinct
from the mother country. It does seem a little strange, however, that
an Ulsterman should have such an advantage over an Australian in
emigrating to America. That is one of the bad effects of the quota.

(d) A worse defect, masquerading beneath a virtue, is the provision
that would-be immigrants of whatsoever country, provided they be
half or more Asiatic by race, are chargeable to the quota of the Asian
country, even though they be nationals and even natives of the country
from which emigration is desired. One can only surmise from these
provisions that the authors' conversion to twentieth-century science
was only for the sake of appearances.

3. A third error is that of raising new distinctions between natural-
ized Americans and native Americans. A naturalized American will

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1121

never be able to rest secure that he Avill not be deprived of his nation-
ality. He is restrained from political activities a native American
mi<^lit en<j:a«;e in. He is encouraoed by the act to become a hysterical
patriot before he has learned to be a simple patriot. Or else he is en-
■courafred to ])assivity. This is one more contribution to the political
sterilization of the American population. When millions of educated
persons cannot enpifie in political activities because they work for the
Government, when additional millions work under Government con-
tracts, when more millions of teachers and educators are rendered
anxious over their political beliefs and actions, and when other steps,
like the present one, are taken to limit free political expression, we are
compelled to believe that the American public is being slowly, syste-
matically, and perha])S unconsciously reduced in size and in freedom
of political action. We have never had enough ordinary people active
in politics and in civic affairs. We are not likely to encourage more
interest and involvement by legislation of this kind.

4. A fourth essential moral error of the legislation under study is
implicit in the treatment of past political misbehavior on the part of
foreigners. It would seem from the law, and we have little practice to
see how the law works, and there are a few instances available from
the administration of the preexisting law, that a foreigner who was
once quite hostile to democracy and to the United States and who has
reformed in a burst of confession and self-reproach is allowed admis-
sion sooner than one who wavered once or more times and never
thought to adjure vehemently his behavior on such occasions. Al-
though I believe there is an injustice here, I am not sure that I can
offer a solution. We have had so much trouble trying to define and
predict the loyalty of Americans in late years that only the most rash
of experts would dare to make fine distinctions in the loyalty of men
coming from a different culture. American consular offices are not
ordinarily staffed by outstanding psychologists; and, granted the
timidity that is common today in the agencies of the Government, I
should imagine that the officials charged with making such distinc-
tions of loyalty will be restrictive when the slightest doubt exists.

These, then, are the chief moral defects of the legislation under re-
view. To a few people, they will seem perhaps to be virtues rather than
defects. Confessing a rigid dislike for anyone not American, they
will feel no need to give a foreigner an even break. But I wovdd urge
the Commission to pay no heed to such persons. Mustered against
them are the highest ideals that mankind has evolved, represented in
many more millions of Americans. And it ought not be forgotten also
that such an attitude and hostility to^vard foreigners is merely a reflec-
tion of a similar attitude to his fellow Americans. Such a character
is a spoiler of good human relations — abroad or at home.

You may have noticed that thus far I have mentioned nothing of
an area of concern quite close to me. That is the area of psychological
warfare. I have done so deliberately. I do not believe that America
should be so crippled morally that the only excuse she can offer for
doing good in foreign affairs is that thereby she can make other peoples
like her more or do her bidding more easily. Nevertheless, some con-
sideration of the psychological consequences of this legislation is
necessary, because considerations of national survival in a world
already committed to conflict are involved. Therefore, I shall point

1122 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

up several tecbnical and tactical errors of tlie McCarran Act of 1052.

1. The act is poor from the standpoint of psychological warfare
because (a) it has a most unconstructive tone; it does not invite
friends; it expresses disdain, narrow suspicion, and a scarcely con-
cealed longing for an iron curtain such as the Russians are supposed
to have; because (h) it continues a useless discrimination against
colonials, Asiatics, and some European countries — hostile propa-
gandists can read between the lines almost as well as we can; we can
never stop them from lying, of course, but we need not give truth
to their lies; and finally because (c) every rejected visitor is a poten-
tial anti-American. In respect to this last point, I would suggest that
the Commission consider some recognition of the need to admit to
America a steady flow of foreign leaders — even those of dubious affec-
tions— in order that the more friendly of them may be pe-rsuaded to
work more actively for the cause of world freedom which is in peril
and the unfriendly may be subjected to doubts and reconsideration of
their views. The' act provides no such organization. The Director
of the Psychological Warfare Strategy Board might be the proper
autliority governing the admission and guidance of such persons.

2. The act is poor from the standpoint of national defense and
foreign policy also because («) needed foreign scientific and intel-
lectual personnel are prevented from visiting America and confiding
their work and friendship to us (the Commission has undoubtedly
had much evidence on this point) ; (5) because we are spending large
sums of money to send Americans abroad to educate foreigners at
the same time that we make it difficult for foreigners to come here to
learn the same things (the rather absurd consequence of this behavior
is that American technical missions and educators abroad will be
teaching many individuals who could not obtain visas to gain the same
instruction in America).

3. The powers granted administrative officers under the act seem
unwarranted and perhaps dangerous. At this early moment, no one
can foresee the precise extent of confusion inherent in the administra-
tive provisions of the act, but, on its face, the act would seem to invite
confusion. It will probably continue providing foreigners with end-
less frustrations, even when they are obviously qualified to enter the
country. The act is supposedly beneficial in that it represents "a
needed codification" of immigration and nationality law. I am prob-
ably not versed sufficiently in that body of law to appreciate this need.
To 'me, the law seems to form a shield for administrative indiscretion,
double talk, and subterfuge. It would better have suited my tastes
if much of the interminable description of things making for exclusion
and deportation were replaced by a few general phases for consular
guidance and a provision for appeal to an administrative tribunal.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

]Mr. RosENFiELD. Professor, you speak in the early part of your
statement of the unsatisfactory nature of the census computation of
national origins.

Dr. DE Grazia. Yes.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Would you be able to provide the Commission with
or advise the Commission where it could obtain some information
more specifically devoted to that subject?

Dr. DE (trazia. Sir, I w^ouldn't be able to do that at this moment,
I am referring here to an expression that I have heard several times

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1123

•aiiion«>: experts on |)()j)ulation. I am not myself sucli an exi)ert, but I
would be o-lad to help.

Mr. RosKXFii.Li). 1 luive taken the liberty in noticing- in your state-
ment you are the executive ollicer on the Committee for Research in
Social Sciences and associate professor of political science at Stanford
University. If that connnittee has any relevant material, or if it
could provide the Commission with any research, we would be glad
to have it. Our time schedule is such that we would have to have it
relatively soon. If you could afford to forward us any material on
that, it would be very helj^ful.

Mr, i)E Grazia, All ri<i]it, sir; I will do that.

Mr. RosKXFiELD. Secondly, in the same general line, in the light
of your professional competency and in the light of psychological
strategy in psychological warfare, would you be able to provide the
Commission with documentation of foreign sources or other sources
which would indicate the points that you have been making in con-
nection with our foreign relations, the effect of our immigration laws,
good or bad. I realize that both of those are very difficult requests
to make of you.

Dr. DE Grazia. They are, indeed. The reason I did not bring that
kind of evidence at this moment was the lack of time. I had only a
few days' notice.

Commissioner O'Grady. Has there been much research in the immi-
gration field at Stanford University, concerning the points you men-
tioned regarding the criteria and concepts in the present quota
system ?

Dr. DE Grazia. Well, the fact is that the doctrines that were rather
widespread about ethnic superiority and inferiority in the early twen-
ties have been systematically refuted by every branch of science that
concerns itself with those presumed inherent superiorities of differ-
ent ethnic groups.

Now, the surprising thing is that it is rather difficult to put one's
finger on this literature because the fact is so well assumed by anyone
of any competency in the field that we haven't bothered to liuild up a
great literature dispelling those myths. However, it would be quite
easy to present a bibliography on the subject and perhaps a statement
subscribed to by a group of scientists from different disciplines.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Is Mr. Van Sciver here f

STATEMENT OF WESLEY VAN SCIVER, REPRESENTING THE STAN-
FORD CHAPTER OF THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS

]Mr, Van Sch-er. I am Wesley Van Sciver, a research assistant at
Stanford University and a graduate student, candidate for Ph. D. in
physics.

I am here to represent the Stanford Chapter of the Federation of
American Scientists, and I would lilvc to read a statement.

The Chairman. You may do so.

Mr. Van Sciver. Cilentlemen of the President's Commission on Im-
migration and Naturalization, I re]n'esent the Stanford Cha])ter of
the Federation of American Scientists, a group of about 30 consisting
of some of the faculty, research staff, an(i graduate students at Stan-
ford University and scientists from the local scientific industry.

1124 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

We as a group are dedicated to the advancement of science and the
securing of the maxinnnn of its benefits to the general welfare. I am
here today because we believe that Public Law 414 constitutes a serious
threat to the advancement of science. We emphasize the necessity
for scientists to travel in order to meet and exchange ideas with other
scientists. This is essential to scientific progress. But the effect of
current immigration laws and the new Public Law 414 is and will be
to seriously impede travel of foreign scientists to this country. This
deprives United States scientists of the benefits of contact with their
foreign colleagues and furthermore it creates an unfavorable impres-
sion of United States "friendliness" on foreign scientists. For a
documentation of these last statements we refer you to the editorial
pages of the various scientific journals and in particular to the Octo-
ber issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Mr. EosENFiELD. May I interrupt^ That issue was presented to us
prior to its publication. We have the entire thing in our record.

Mr. Van Sciver. All right, sir. Then you are actually very well
acquainted with the nature of the scientist's problem. We suggest
that this entire issue might be read into your minutes.

Specifically, foreign scientists find that in excess of 6 months are
usually required in order to obtain a visitor's visa. Scientific meet-
ings are rarely planned that far in advance. We suggest that, for a
visitor's visa, endorsement by the host institution or organization and
by the applicant's own organization should be adequate. Since classi-
fied matters are not discussed at open scientific meetings, no security
risk should be involved.

Nonimmigrant scientists coming to the United States for temporary
employment might be handled in the same way. If these scientists are
to have access to classified information, they will of course be subjected
to a security check, but this is already provided for by existing
legislation.

We favor the general provisions of 203 (a) (1) giving priority to
immigrants who are expected to be beneficial to "the national economy,
cultural interests or welfare of the United States," but we are appre-
hensive that under the provisions for administration of this section
"cultural interests" may get a negligible share. We tliink that too
much power rests with the Attorney General, and that provision
should be made for reviews of his decisions in some cases.

Regarding passports, it is, of course, important for United States
scientists to be able to visit foreign countries as freely as possible. In
particular, if a scientist is cleared to have access to secret information,
he has presumably been found to be trustworthy. If he is not cleared,
he will not have had such access, so that no risk to the Nation should
be involved by the granting of a passport in either case. We empha-
size that many valuable scientific contributions are being made by
scientists who are not cleared for classified projects.

We were pleased to see that the State Department has set up a pass-
port-review board, but we feel that (a) it should be independent of
the State Department and (h) should be provided for by law.

In closing, I wish to assert that in making the above criticisms and
suggestions we do not ask special consideration for scientists for their
own pleasure, but rather do we sincerely believe that changes similar to
those indicated would truly be in the best interests of the United
States. I thank you.

COIVIMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND XATURALIZATION 1125

The Chairman. Thank you very much. That same problem has
been presented to us a number of times and we are quite familiar
with it.

Is Mr. Frank Tripp here ?

STATEMENT OF FRANK D. TEIPP, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ORDER OF AMERICAN HELLENIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSIVE
ASSOCIATION (AHEPA), WEST COAST REGION

Mr. Tripp. ^ly name is Frank D. Tripp, and I reside at Berkeley,
Calif. I am a public accountant, and I have been a resident of the
State of California for 40 years, and am appearing here in regard to
Greek immigration.

The Chairman. Will there be another representative for the order
of AHEPA?

JNIr. Tripp. No; I am the only one on the west coast.

The Chairman. Two have already appeared and each made almost
the same statement.

Mr. Tripp. I will bow to them. Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, sir.

Is Hugh De Lacy here ?

STATEMENT OF HUGH DE LACY, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT,
PROGRESSIVE PARTY

Mr. De Lacy. I am Hugh De Lacy, national vice president of the
Progressive Party, on whose behalf I appear here. My address is
90141/2 Kenmore Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio.

I have a statement for the record, and would like to make a brief
oral statement.

The Chairman, You may proceed.

Mr. De Lacy. ]My purpose is to review quickly the changes in the
administration of and the handling legislatively and administratively
the problem of immigration since the turn of the century.

The quota system to which reference has been made was enacted
after over 10 million people of Slavic descent alone had come into this
country, to people our basic industries up to the early 15 or 20 years
of the century. The quota system was erected to insure what was then
fancied to be a superior "stream" of Northern European immigration.

This was followed or accompanied at the time by a savage attack
from the Department of Justice called the Palmer raids on the foreign-
born. It seems to have been occasioned by the extraordinary rising
of labor into great organizations under the American Federation of
Labor during World War I.

Following that, the next major change which has pointed the way
in the direction to the situation in which we find ourselves, was the
placing of the Immigration Department under the Department of
Justice, taking it from the Labor Department, where it enjoyed a
great degree of freedom and a certain amount of greater sympathy
with the people who work in the country.

That act was inspired by west-coast employers who wanted to get
rid of Harry Bridges and Congress acted in a kind of hysteria at the

1126 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

time and put this tiling under the Department of Justice. That
helped to bring- about a situation where the Department of Justice was
the investigator, jury, and judge, all in one little wagon; it was pre-
ceded by various bills introduced and pressed by the Alabama Dixie-
crat Congressman Hobbs, who in various ways and nibbles, you might
say, worked to give the Department of Justice the power to detain
immigrants indefinitely and to hold them without bail or even to
deport them to countries where an unfavorable reception was reached.

Now we come down to these more recent acts. I am the personal
witness of conditions in Gary, Ind., where an FBI agent swarmed
all over the foreign-born community at the very time when the Pro-
gressive Party was gathering signatures to place an opposition candi-
date on the ballot. I assume from what the people told me that this
coincidence had frightened them.

I am aware that the first impact of the Walter Act was to destroy
the great section of the American Federation of Labor and the first
heavy attack upon the foreign-born starting in 1946, that deportation
and other things which have been inspired by a political atmosphere
has been to depress that powerful section of the American labor move-
ment, the foreign-born progressive elements among that, to a point
where many of them feel themselves imprisoned by fear.

Now a peculiar thing which I desire to call to the attention of the
committee, and I am sure they know better than I, is the ringing state-
ment which President Truman issued in Buffalo, N. Y. I had intended
to quote from that, and of course it is in the record of the newspaper ;
and yet, while I support Avhat he said, I am compelled to place in the
record here today that his own departments are using this very scale.

We believe that an independent operation of the Department of
Immigration would be a help ; a great help would be to get rid of the
policies wliich are creating this type of situation.

My experience, my personal experience, is that those who are in
opposition to the cold war, those who want to return to a peaceful
world cooperation, are the prime targets of this atmosphere of fear,
great share of which comes from the operations of the Justice
Department.

The State Department with the Justice Department, the Department
of Immigration, has sent vast waves of pro-Fascists foreign-born
into Chicago, Cleveland, Youngstown, Pittsburgh, all the areas where
there is basic industry chiefly manned by foreign-born. The impact
there has been a disruptive one, disruptive to labor, and so on.

This is the essence of my statement, gentlemen. I appreciate the
opportunity of delivering it, and we will leave it with the young lady
here for inclusion in the record, if I may.

The Chairman. It will be received.

(There follows the prepared statement of Mr. Hugh De Lacy, na-
tional vice president. Progressive Party :)

The twentieth century has seen a drastic shift in our country's handling of
immigration and immigrants.

The first 15 or 20 years of this century saw millions of foreign-born, some
10,000,000 of Eastern European origin alone, enter this country, handbilled
here, lu'ged here, to fill the needs of our devoloping basic industries, coal mining,
steel production, lumber, fishing, and other large-scale extractive or manufactur-
ing enterprises. I will not review the history of the low wages, the long hours,
the depressing working and living conditions which prevailed in those pre-
dominantly open-shop industries, nor the advantages to selfish employers aris-

COMMISSIOX ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1127

in,;; from lansua.iro differoncos, and from the difforont status of the immigrant
worki-r as compared to Ihc iiativc-lKini worker, whose prior arrival often found
him in more .skilled and belter unionized industries.

Once basic labor requirements began to be met, quota systems were devised to
insure a predominantly Northern European complexion of immigration during
the years following.

As an aftermath of AVorld War I, during which tlie American Federation of
Labor grew phenomenally, the infamous I'almer raids terrorized the foreign-
i)()rn, beginning to turn to industrial unions in steel, packing, and other great
industries throughout the country. Led by J. Kdgar Hoover, these raids largely
acliieved their purposes, and the foreign-born workers did not again emerge as
a powerful section of American lal)or until the tlays of the CiO, when rubber,
steel, and auto I'omul in the language organizations powerful support for the
great unionizing drives of that time.

During the days of World War II, President Roosevelt was actutely con-
scious of the importance of the foreign-born to the vital sector of war production.
On many occasions, notably on the occasions of the meetings of the American
Slav Congress, he sent personal notes of encouragement and publicly acknowl-
edged the patriotic part which workers of Slavic descent and other foreign-born
workers played in the essential battle for the making of materials of war.

The current drive against the foreign-born worker began in 194(). It was
heavily implemented by the administrative change which Congress had ordered
during the long years during which west-coast big business has been trying to
cripple the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. The
demand to get Harry Bridges animated the ending of the immigration service
as part of the Department of Labor. The transfer of this important service
to the Justice Department set the stage for a renewed ferocity, a veritable depor-
tation delirium, against prolabor and progressive-minded foreign-born workers.

The McCarran-Walter Act is the current product of that drive. It was pre-
ceded by various bills introduced and pressed by the Alabama Dixiecrat, Con-
gressman Hobbs, all nibbling away at the status of the immigrant worker. In
succession, such proposals worked their way toward indetinite imprisonment,
without the right to bail, of foreign workers, toward procedures for denatui-aliz-
lug those who had attained citizenship, toward giving the Department of Justice
even the right to deport its victims to places where they were certain to be exe-
cuted by such regimes as hold power in Franco Spain, in Fascist Greece.

President Truman vetoed the IMcCarran-Walter bill, and properly so, but part
of his own Justice Department, under the same man who led the Palmer r;iids
30 years ago, is terrorizing the foreign-born in Gary, Ind., in Youngstown, Ohio,
in Pittsburgh, Pa., and in scores of other heavily populated cities where foreign-
born still comprise a large percentage of industrial workers.

I am personally acquainted with some of these situations and I rise here to
denounce them as part of a long standing, antilabor and antidemocratic scheme.
In Gary, Ind., where our own party sought signatures to place its Presidential
ticket on the ballot, Fl'I agents swarmed through the foreign-born residents,
interviewing them, reminding them of new legal provisions, and inspiring them
with such fear of loss of citizenship that they literally did not dare to sign to
give a party, standing for return to Roosevelt's policies of peaceful international
C(»llaboration. a chance to be in the ballot.

I su|)i)0!t the stat(>ment made by President Truman in Buffalo, N. Y. Its
denunciation of the evil forces behind the McCarran-Walter Act puts its finger
on the main danger to our country. He said, in part :

"They want to do away with the P>ill of Rights whenever a man is accused
of communism. They want to be able to deport a man on the basis of mere
suspicion.''

Charactei-izing the act as a step in the direction of "lawless and unconstitu-
tional procedures," the President continued :

"The liill of Rights protects us all. Once it is broken down in one direction,
the irrational forces of prejudice and hate will break through ami endanger all
of us. And the first peo]ile to suffer, if this happens, will be naturaliz;'d citizens
and those of foreign parentage — and all those whose roots in this country are
relatively new.

"This sort of thing has happened before. President Truman reminds us, It
happenefl in the days of the Know-Xothings, a secret party dedicated to hatred
of immigrants and of the Catholic Church. It happened after World War I,
when a wave of hysteria al)out communism led to violent and illegal acts against
aliens, persons of foreign extraction, and labor unions.

1128 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

"Bevrare of candidates whose sole stock in trade is self-proclaimed anti-
commnnisni. * * * ^he hysteria, the irrational fear that they are manipu-
lating in one direction today may turn against other groups tomorrow.

"Once these deep forces of prejudice and unreason are set loose, no one
can tell where they will go. They could tear our Nation apart, group against
group, creed against creed, the older immigrant stock against the newer. * * *"

I hope that the President of the United States made this powerful and pene-
trating statement not just to help elect the candidate he favors but as an
enduring reaffirmation of great principles.

But I am compelled to call to the attention of this honorable body the gross
discrepancy beween the President's noble iitterance on the subject matter before
you and the ruthless operations of the Department of Justice, of the Immigra-
tion Service, and the FBI, which are under his direction.

These services, affecting the lives and liberties of millions of our fellow
Americans, naturalized or not naturalized, are, in fact, operating with glaring
bias. They have become political police riding herd over the foreign-born,
jeopardizing their wives and children, and creating in our country the kind
of fear among its people which some of us never thought we would live to see.

The Department of Justice is investigator, jury, judge, and executioner.
It is using the very weapon President Truman warns against, a pronounced
anti-communism, attested to by secret witnesses who cannot be revealed and
cross-examined. It is railroading foreign-born workers into jail, setting bail
so high that their friends and organizations are savagely strained to meet the
requirements, and its whole motivation is to deprive this great section of our
people of any voice in such great public issues as the right of lalior to organize
and bargain collectively, as the right of lal)or to protest speed-up militantly and
to strike in the pursuit of better wages and working conditions. In particular,
this drive against the foreign-born worker makes him fearful to speak up on the
greatest of all public issues, the one closest to the hearts of all Americans, the
demand of the people of our country for peace, for an end to the cold war and all
"police actions" like that in Korea, for a return to the policies of peaceful
world cooperation initiated by President Roosevelt.

In conjunction with the State Department, the Immigration Service has
struck another blow at the immigrant of long standing in our country. A flood
of Facist-minded immigrants is being systematically herded into the areas
where older immigrants are a substantial labor base. Chicago, Cleveland,
Youngstown, Pittsburgh are places known to me where the impact of anti-
labor, antidemocratic immigrants is to overwhelm and destroy the cultural
centers, the language papers, and the very language organizations without which
the great labor movement of our time, the unionization of mass-production
industries, could not have taken place.

The worst thing that can be said about the McCarran-Walter Act is that it
strengthens the antidemocratic actions and antilabor actions which the Immi-
gration Department and the FBI have been carrying on with renewed vengeance
since 1946.

I view these actions as part of a scheme to crush opposition to the cold war
and antilabor policies which have characterized our national administration
since the death of President Roosevelt made possible the capturing of all key
Government posts by agents of big business and the military.

Our party, the Progressive Party, calls for an end to the persecution of the
foreign-born for political reasons. We stand where President Truman declares
he stands, for an across-the-board enforcement of the Bill of Rights, for the
repeal of the McCarran-Walter Act, the McCarran Act, the Smith Act. the Taft-
Hartley Act, and for enforcement of all the rights guaranteed to all of us, includ-
ing the Negro and Mexican-American people.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Is Mr. Kamina K. Gupta here?

STATEMENT OF KAMINI K. GUPTA, ATTOENEY

Mr. Gupta. I am Kamiui K. Gupta, attorney at Law, 2237 Chest-
nut Street, San Francisco, Calif.

I speak onl}'^ as an individual. I wish to thank the Commission
for giving me a couple of minutes.

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1129

I would like to point out tliat my association as an attorney in the
few immigration matters, I find the Department of Justice to be most
cooperative and hel{^t"ul in carryino- out a most difficult task.

The problem you have here as echoed by many of the erudite
speakers points to a situation that has to be taken care of in the main
by a new approach to innnioration matters. I think this Commission
idea should be duplicated in legislation, and I tiiink that Mr. Saroyan,
when he spoke this morning, spolce of a nonquota system as being
"Utopia."' I think that Utopia can be obtained specifically and easily.
That is the specific answer to that question of this morning. I think
it can be done by taking out of the administrative committees in
Congress the necessity of going over all of these problems each time
that there wants to be a change on immigration policies.

I would suggest, respectfully, that this should be done in the form
of a Commission like the United States Tariff Commission, say, of
represen.tatives appointed by Congress; even because it is a congres-
sional task to handle problems of immigration and naturalization,
these groups should work out policies on the basis of statistics and a
hearing be held before them as to, say a total of 150,000 in the year
into the United States, but as a guide to which groups should be taken
into consideration for being entered into the country for 1, 2, or 3
years, from different parts of the world.

That can best be worked out where people can come and say some-
thing and you can balance the different pressure groups that there are,
to try to come to some agreement, with the point of view that you are
sure you could sell the Congress, to have the Congress pass and agree
to something on the basis of a Commission that is giving this study
year by year by year, and gradually you will eliminate this pressure
on the basis of artificial quotas that are really built in from the last-
minute point of view or last-minute pressure or somebody's word in
somebody's ear in a corridor.

Immigration is a very important segment, and it cannot be left to
pressure groups.

I think, too, the development that has come about in my study of
the various immigration acts are dangerous. It is from this stand-
point : If the Commission will look at the development of procedures
that have developed in the immigration line in order to attack this very
important and pressing problem, you will find that little by little that
has been looked at, well, it has to be done for immigrants, and deporta-
tions gradually fall off.

I venture to state the next step will be banishment of native-born
Americans. Those unfortunates of the country, or will just adopt
sending people out of the country and territories and so on. It is a
natural thing that happens. I think the problem of deportation has
now reached to the point where it ought to be declared a crime and that
a deportable offense should be handii-id like a crime before a jury antl
handled just like any other crimina! "hing, because in my observation
deportations are just as much a criminal sentence as a fine or for-
feiture. You should give all protections to that j»TOup and eliminate
concentrations in a grou]) that really cun't handle it.

I think the next thing that ought to be done is to eliminate any ten-
dency that has been developed now to denaturalize citizens on an ad-
ministrative basis. If going into that, it should be left in the courts as
before, on the basis of fraud.

1130 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The third thing I think is important, is the fact that procedures be-
fore the Immigration and Naturalization Service today are nil because
of the crush of work they have to do. It makes it impossible for them
to give the ordinary procedural guarantees that even the Supreme
Court does, and that these problems ought to be given.

I notice the Administrative Procedures Act is not in the McCarran
Act. I venture to say it cost too much money, and out it goes.

It isn't important but it finally is important. That is where we
reach people who have communication with people all over the world.
When they feel their kind are being treated like second-class people, it
makes your problems more difficult.

I think this can be approached from this standpoint. I certainly
admire your putting this much time and effort into it.

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We are reaching the end
of our time now.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Two things have been handed to me, Mr. Chair-
man. One a statement by Mrs. Grace Partridge, of the Northern
California Committee for Protection of Foreign Born, and a request
from Mr. Celestino T. Alfafara, grand master, Caballeros de Dimas,
Alang, Inc., to be permitted to file a statement at a later date.

We have the statement of Mrs. Patridge here.

The Chair]vian. Permission is granted to Mr. Alfafara to file a
statement at a later date, and ISIrs. Patridge's statement may be in-
serted in the record.

(Tliere follows the statement submitted by Mrs. Grace Partridge for
the Northern California Committee for Protection of the Foreign
Born : )

Statement of Mrs. Grace Partridge in Behalf of the Northern California
Committee of the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign
Born

On September 30, 1952, the American Committee for Protection of Foreign
Born, represented by Mrs. Harriet Barron, submitted a statement to this Com-
mission.

T''ere is no need to repeat the material in that important statement. We will
merely show how the situation on the west coast illustrates sharply the evils of
the McCarnui-Walter Act.

Most obvious, of course, is the fact the west coast faces outward across the
Pacific toward the vast Orient. Our prosperity in large part depends on the
development of trade with the areas beyond the Pacific.

The MoCarran-Walter Act is a studied insult to the hundreds of millions of
people who live in these lands across the Pacific. It makes sense only if we
intend to carry on a perpetual state of hostility and even open warfare with
these peoples. How can we say we are their friends when we reenact, for all
practical purposes, the Oriental Exclusion Acts with which we sliowed contempt
for these peoples in past years? To give the tremendous trans-Pacific triangle a
total quota of 100 is tantamount to exclusion. These peoples will never be
true allies or trade with us as equals in peace until this standing insult is re-
moved.

Another obvious thine to anyone who looks even casually at the west coast is
that the influx of population here — both from the East and from foreign coun-
tries— is more recent than for the rest of the country. If you've been here over
10 years, you're an old timer. California agriculture, particularly its vineyards,
are largely manned by Italian-Americans. In the fields of the fertile Imperial
and San Joaquin Valleys with Mexican-Americans — thousands of whom are
brought in under contract with the Mexican Government each year. In fact, the
real natives of this area are Indians and Mexicans. We have a huge Mexican-
American population in the Southwestern States. Many of the fishermen who
ply out of west coast ports are of Italian or Yugoslav origin. We have a huge

COMMISSIOX OX lAFMIGRATIOX AXD XATUKALIZATIOX 1131

Jewish population iu southern California, a huge Italian population in the San
.loaqnin Valley and the San Francisco Hay area, and many othei" nationality
firoups on the west coast. INIany of our seamen, lonfrsliorenien, and cannery
worl^ers are of Latin-American, Oriental, Filipino, or West Indian extraction.
Peculiar, perhaps to the economy of the west coast is the annual migration pat-
tern of Filipino workers from the asparagus fields of the Sacramento delta in
tlie winter and spring up to the Alaslvan fisli canneries in the sununer.

All of this means that the impact of the McCarran-Walter Act is perhaps
.greater on the west coast than in most other areas of the United States.

The prejudice against Negroes, Orientals. Latin-Americans, and South Euro-
peans, imliedded so firmly in this law, is felt very keenly here because the bulk
of the foreign born on the west coast are among these vei-y groups.

The harassment and persecution of foreign born and naturalized citizens under
the McCarran Act will have a direct influence on the trade union and other or-
ganizations of all the people on the west coast.

Take, for example. local 37 of the International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's LTnion. Of the 2,(J00 members of tliis local, roughly SO percent ai'e
Filipinos, who annually trek fi-om the fields of California up to the Alaskan fish
canneries. About 60 percent of these Filipinos are aliens. After December 24
of this year, they will be reluctant to go up to Alaska because they may not be
able to get back into the United States. We understand that the union involved
is presenting the immediate plight of these workers to the Commission. What
we wish to emphasize here is that the McCarran Act is now depriving at least
],"JOi) workers of the major source of their livelihood.

Similarly, we have large numbers of foreign born seamen who literally will
be afraid to ship out because they may not be able to get back into this country
after December 24. These are men who have been sailing to Hawaii and Alaska
on American vessels for their entire working lives. Many of these men were on
vessels that were torpedoed and bombed in World War II. Here again, we
understand tliat the union involved will present the details to the Commission.
What is important is that again, a long established pattern of earning a liveli-
liood — desirable both for the person and the economic well-being of the area — is
suddenly broken and disrupted by this act.

An outrageous example of how certain private interests work hand in hand
with a reactionary Innnigration Service to exploit a group of foreign born for
private profit is shown by the treatment of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans
allowed in to work at pitiful wages for southwestern farming interests and then
cruelly deported like cattle when the season is over. Here is a group doubly
exploited — exploited as workers and exploited again as noncitizens.

We have, in addition on the west coast, a number of so-called political cases —
noncitizens who are being persecuted and threatened with deportation solely on
the grounds that they were once memliers of the Communist Party or organiza-
tions on the so-called subversive list of the Attorney General.

In addition to William Heikkila and Ida Rothstein, whose cases are in the
final stage of the 1950 McCarran law, there are 11 additional deportees in northern
California. These are Xat Y;ini.sh. Paul Cline, John Vidolin, Nathan Henkin,
Ernest Fox, John Diaz, Ida Miller. Jacob Miller. Elmer Hanol'f, IMorris Kappaport
and (ieorge Williams, with several more being threatened.

The length of time in this country for these 11 foreign born Americans ranges
from 20 to 43 years — an average of 34 years — well over half of their adult lives.
All have applied for citizenship — many several times.

None of these persons has ever been guilty of any illegal act. All have worked
for organization of labor, the establishment for unemployment insurance, and
other social benefits for the people. Yet these deportees are charged under the
]\IcCarran law with membership at one time in an organization on the subversive
list of the Attorney General.

The deportation or jailing of these 11 persons w^ould mean untold hardship on
them and their families, and a complete denial of the rights guaranteed under
the Constitution.

Everything Mrs. Barron says about the cruel, unfair, and illegal administration
practices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service applies here with a
vengeance.

Arrest without a warrant, detention and interrogation without the protection
of counsel, star chamber proceedings, and so forth, are standard practice here.
The detention quarters in San Francisco are, in fact, a jail. Detainees trans-

2r>:;;j(;.-52 72

1132 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

ferred from other parts of the country tell us that the food here is far worse
than elsewhere.

For alien seamen, the practice and policy here is to arrest without a warrant
and deport as speedily as possible. Literally, the foreign born are treated as
persons who have no civil rights whatsoever. This is what underlies the many
instances of attempted suicide.

Something must be done to implement their right to counsel. The law should
require the Immigration Service to notify organizations like our committee, or
the Legal Aid Society, or the American Civil Liberties Union when a person is
picked up who doesn't have his own counsel.

Our committee requests that you consider the hardship which the application of
the McCarran-Walter Act will bring to tl'.e foreign boru and others on the west
coast and particularly in the State of California.

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I request that the San Fran-
cisco record remain open at this point for the insertion of statements
submitted by persons unable to appear as individuals or as repre-
sentatives of organizations or who could not be scheduled due to in-
sufficient time.

Tlie Chairman. That may be done.

This concludes the hearings in San Francisco, Calif. The Com-
mission will now be adjourned until it reconvenes in Los Angeles,
Calif., at 9 : 30 a. m., Wednesday, October 15, 1952.

(Whereupon, at 5:45 p. m., the Commission was adjourned to re-
convene at 9 : 30 a. m., Wednesday, October 15, 1952, at Los Angeles,
Calif.)

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY OTHER PERSONS AND ORGANIZA-
TIONS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CARL WILLIAMS, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

San Francisco, Calif., Octobei- 3, 1952.
Hon. Harry M. Rosenfiei.d,

Executive Director of the Commission, Wmhington, D. C.
Dear Sir : I am an alien veteran with the honorable discharge from the Army,
so I am taking a liberty of suggesting of changes be made in the McCarran-
Walter immiuration law as follows :

1. All the deportation proceedings be transferred from the immigration officer
(administration offices) to the P'ederal court (judiciary office).

2. No deportation procedure be made against the alien veterans with honor-
:able discharges ; only subject them to the existing criminal laws of United States.

To encourage the aliens to enlist in the United States Armed Forces to help
man-power problem.s.

3. A single .standard of morality used against the alien in the deportation pro-
ceedings as well as in the naturalization.

4. The veterans should be made a citizen without examination of any kind
in the naturalization proceedings on account of difficulty on technicality ques-
tions; but upon presentation of discharge papers only.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration for my humble opinion,
I am

Respectfully yours,

Carl Williams.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY EARL N. OHMER, PRESIDENT, PETERS-
BURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PETERSBURG, ALASKA

Petersburg Chamber of Commerce,
Petersburg, Alaska, October 7, 1952.
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization,
Executive Office of the President, Washington, D. C.

Gentlemen : We just have a letter from Mr. James P. Davis, Department of
Interior, Office of Territories, regarding the McCarran Immigration Act and his
suggestion that we write you about it.

It is a fact that we here, and apparently all over Alaska, are much disturbed
by tile provisions of that act as concerns Alaska.

By all means we are strongly in favor of picking up anyone or any group
who might be contrary to the welfare of the United States, but we cannot see
liow this is rightly applied to Alaska.

Such people if they are in Alaska, must have come from the United States.
If they are checked up here and found wanting, then that would mean they would
have to stay in Alaska which is one of our very important defense fronts.

If there were many of them found up here we would have no way to take care
of theuL and if they were to remain here and did not have enough money to
carry them over the winter, we have no way to feed and house them.

Can it he meant that if such undesirable people were found here, which is
entirely likely, that we would have to send them down to authorities in the
States V

It would seem to us, if this wliole procedure is nec-essary, that the insi>ection
should lietter be made in the States at points where they could depart from or
would enter from Ala.ska.

We dcm't understand either, if this act is necessary for the Territories ; why
Isn't it also nece.ssary between States and Canada?

1133

1134 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

We are therefore protesting this act as is, and would appreciate a letter frous
you advising us of the why's and wherefore's of it.
Our best wishes.

Sincerely yours,

Petersburg Chambkr of Commerce,
Per Sgd. Eakl N. Ohmer, President.

KoDiAK Chamber of Commerce,
KodiaJc, Alaska, Octoler 11, 1952.
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization,
LxecKtive Oflice of the President,
Washington, D. C.
Gentlemen : This will acknowledge Mr. Davis' letter of October 3 in which
he requests the views of Alaskan residents on the present Immigration and Na-
tionality Act as it relates to travel between the Territories and the continental
United States.

At a meeting of the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce held on October 9, I was
requested to inform you that the citizens of Kodiak, Alaska, wish to go on record
as being unalterably opposed to the above act in its present form and are in
favor of its repeal as it is now written.
Very truly yours,

Kodiak Chamber of Commerce,
J. E. Martz, President.
Hazel L. Smith, Secretary.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY EARL SIMONET, MANHATTAN BEACH,

CALIF.

October 13, 1952.
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization,
Los Angeles, Calif.
Gentlemen : I wish to express my support of the McCarran-Walter Immigra-
tion Act. If I understand the broad purposes of this law correctly, Americans
are promised protection from Communists, criminals, and all those who seek
to enter this great country and spread their philosophies of hate, disunity, and
dishonesty. I heartily approve of the most careful scrutiny of those who wish to
enter the United States of America and even more scrupulous consideration of
those desiring citizenship. I believe that equitable quotas be set up by race and
religion for each country of the world.

If the laxness of our immigration and naturalization laws are in any way re-
sponsible for the mess that we have in our Government, economy, and public
life today, I demand as a citizen and a taxpayer, that remedial action be taken
immediately.

Yours respectfully.

Earl Simoxet.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HERBERT BLUMER, ORINDA, CALIF.

Orinda, Calif., Octoher 27, 1952.
Mr. Elliott Shirk,

President's Commission on Immigration
and Naturalisation, Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Shirk : I regret my inability to be present at the recent hearings
held in San Francisco by your Commission. I wish, however, to put myself
on record as protesting vigorously against Ihe McC;iri-an immi'-'ration bill and
to urge that immediate steps lie taken to eliminate the gross, impractical,
and unethical features of that bill. As a sociologist who has been interested
for over a quarter of a century at the University of Chicago and now at the
University of California in the study of national and ethnic relations, I wish
to say that in my considered judgment tlie present McCarran bill will have
inevitable unfortunate consequences that will militate against the good, sound
social relations which our Nation is seeking to develop on a world-wide basis.

COMMISSION OX IIMAriGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1135

Features of the bill are such as inevitably lead important national and ethnic
groups to believe that they are unfairly treated. Such attacks on their own sense
of integrity are bound to prejudice the world image of our Nation and to play into
the hands of forelRn powers who are seeking to discredit and misrepresent
our Nation on the inteiMiational scene. It is quite clear to me that the McCarran
bill is full of short-sighted provisions which nng it to be eliminated in order that
•our Nation may carry out its prt^sent world role without being subject to the
jieedless limitations imposed by the bill.
Sincerely yours,

Herbert Blumer.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY G. B. TOLLETT, A. B. C. ROOFING &
SIDING, INC., SEATTLE, WASH.

A. B. C. Roofing & Siding, Inc.,

Seattle, Wash., October 28, 1952.
The President's Commission on Immigr-ation and Naturalization,
Executive Office of the President,

Washington, D. C.
Gentijjmen : We wish to strenuously protest the Immigration Act which is
going into effect in Alaska this coming month.

Conditions are hard enough for contractors in Alaska without having the
added burden of clearance through immigration procedures. We sincerely
feel that this is the silliest act which has ever been enacted and should be re-
pealed before it has a chance to become a law.
Sincerely yours,

A. B. C. Roofing & Siding, Inc.,
G. B. Tollett.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CHESTER R. SNOW, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA

Ketchikan, Alaska, Novemder 6, 1952.
The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization,
Executive Office of the President, Washington, D. C.

Gentlemen : As a citizen of the United States (born Illinois, 1887) and a
25-year resident of Alaska. I write to plead that you do all in your power to
have the McCarran Act replaced with a measure that less objectionably and
more effectively will accomplish the purposes sought.

Unspeakably objectionable is that feature of the law that requires the "screen-
ing" of all persons who would enter the contiguous States directly from Alaska.
This requirement establishes the presumption that every person in Alaska is
guilty of illegal presence there. It places upon each individual the burden of
proof that he is not so guilty. This is a summary and revolutionary abrogation
of the American right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the
beginning of the police state. It is the greatest and most subtle threat to Ameri-
can freedom, from within, that ever has come to my attention. And it is en-
tirely unnecessary to our security, unless important facts are being withheld
from us.

For the cost of planting this seed of the police state and cultivating it, a bet-
ter job can be done, I believe, by American methods. More guards can be placed
where aliens may enter Alaska ; more undercover agents quietly can investigate
suspected individuals.

For these and for other reasons (e. g., see Time, October 27, 1952, p. 23, col-
umns 1. 2, and '.'>; also ]). 77. colunni 2). I pray you. gentlemen, that you em-
ploy every means at your disposal to have substituted for the McCarran Act,
a measure wliich will be more liberal in admitting desirable aliens, more effective
in excluding undesirable ones, and which will do both without indignities to citi-
zens or tli.e imiHM'ilmciit of American freedom.

Thanking you for this opportunity to address you, I am.
Most sincerely and resiject fully,

Chester R. Snow.

i^i^f I.?^ ''^^LIC LIBRARY

, Jlllillillllll

3 9999 06352 477 9

wm^m