Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings"

See other formats



.m Oi%D.h.ri A^\6\ 

Given By 


.^^jl IX'KT 


'/ ~ /-ti s 






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

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 


2a Session J 







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 


25356 WASHINGTON : 1952 




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 


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. 


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. 



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) 








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.- 


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 



union has very vital interest in the immigration and naturalization 

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. 


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 

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


.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 ? 


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 


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 


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 



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 


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. 


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 

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- 


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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 


[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 

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 

Statement of National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards 

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 

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 


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. 


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 


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 


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 


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- 


■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. 


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 

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 


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. 


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

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 

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 

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. 


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- 


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 

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? 


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 

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/^ 


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 

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. 


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:) 


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. 


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. 


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- 


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


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, 

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. 


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 ? 


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 

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 


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. 


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

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 

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 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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 


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? 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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


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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 

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- 


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? 


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 

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 

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. 


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 


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 

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 


(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 

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. 


Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Is Mr. Edward H. Heims here ? 



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 


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 


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- 

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 


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.. 


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 

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


(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 


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- 

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 


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 

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 


"\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 

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 

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. 


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- 

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 

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 


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- 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 ? 


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- 

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 : 


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. 


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). 



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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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

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 

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 

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. 


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;? 


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 

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- 


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. 


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' 

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- 


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 


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.) 




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. 


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. 



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 


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 

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 


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 


opinion between some Congressmen and Senators will be subject for 

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. 


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- 

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 

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 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 

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 


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 ? 


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

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 


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. 


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 


(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 


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 

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 ? 


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 


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? 


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 

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, 


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 

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 


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 


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 

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 


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 

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 

• 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 


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 


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 

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. 


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 


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- 

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? 


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 


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 

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. 


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 


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 

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 

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 


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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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." 


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 


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- 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. 


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. 


(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 


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 

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 

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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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- 

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. 


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 


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 


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 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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 



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 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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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." 


But when the anti-Japanese feeling subsides, when the 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 


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?». 


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. 


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 

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. 


"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 

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 


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 

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 


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., 

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 


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 

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 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 

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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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 : "Out of 400,(M)(> displaced persons and refugees 
admitted into the United States, we had only 'ii 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 

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 


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 

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. 



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) 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 

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 ? 


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 


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, 

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 


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 

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 

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 

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. 


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 ? 


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- 

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 


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 


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 


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^ 


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 


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 

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 ? 


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 


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 

The act also provides that the certificate of identity under section 
360 (B) may be issued by the consular official. 


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 

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 

The Chairman. Thank you. It will be inserted in the record. 

(The memorandum submitted by Jackson & Ilertogs, attorneys, 


.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 

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. 


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. 


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 


(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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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? 


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 


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 

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 


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? 



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 


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 


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 


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 


•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 


]Mr, Van Sch-er. I am Wesley Van Sciver, a research assistant at 
Stanford University and a graduate student, candidate for Ph. D. in 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 ? 


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 ? 


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 


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 

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- 


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 

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. 


"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? 


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. 


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. 


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 

On September 30, 1952, the American Committee for Protection of Foreign 
Born, represented by Mrs. Harriet Barron, submitted a statement to this Com- 

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- 

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 


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; 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 

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 


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, 



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. 


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? 



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. 



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 

Yours respectfully. 

Earl Simoxet. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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