Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings"

See other formats




Given By 






Washington, D. C. 

twenty-fifth session 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 9:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the Archives Audi- 
torium, National Archives Building, Washington, D. C, Hon. Philip 
B. Perlman, Chairman, presiding. 

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman, Mr. Earl G. Harrison, vice 
chairman, and the following Commissioners : Dr. Clarence E. Pickett, 
Mr. Thomas G. Finucane, Msgr. John O'Grady, Mr. Adrian S. Fisher, 
Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. 

This is another hearing before the President's Commission on Im- 
migration and Naturalization. Hearings have been held in accord- 
ance with the effort to obtain the information as described in the 
President's statement on the day that the Commission was named, 
September 4, 1952, for the purpose of making a report to him by 
January 1, 1953. 

The Commission has held hearings in New York, Boston, Cleveland, 
Detroit, Chicago, St. Paul, St. Louis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and 
Atlanta, Ga. This day will be the first of 3 days of hearings that are 
projected to be held in the city of Washington on today and October 
28 and 29. 

We had invited to this hearing Senator Pat McCarran, who is chair- 
man of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate which had held hear- 
ings and considered what is known as the INIcCarran-Walter bill, that 
is. Public Law 414, passed at the recent session of the Eighty-second 
Congress, and we also invited Congressman Francis Walter, chair- 
man, of the House Judiciary Subcommittee which considered the 
same measure. Neither one of these chairmen is able to attend this 
session toda5^ We have been in touch with them, and we are informed 
that they will consider submitting a statement of their views on the 
recently enacted legislation, and if they do, it will be incorporated in 
the record of this Commission at this point in our hearings. 

The first person to be heard today is the Attorney General of the 
United States, the Honorable James P. McGranery, and I will appre- 
ciate it if Mr. McGranery would come up and take the chair that has 
been provided here. 




Mr. McGranert. I am James P. McGranery, Attorney General of 
the United States, Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Attorney General. 

Mr. McGranery. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am very happy to be 
here looking at you in the role of Chairman of this' President's Com- 
mission, as I have had the great joy and privilege of looking at you, 
talking with you as a former colleague and as a very able Solicitor 
General of the United States. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. McGranery. I have a prepared statement I wish to read. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Mr. McGranery. Gentlemen, I am honored by the invitation of 
your distinguished Commission to appear before you this morning. 
As the Attorney General of the United States, entrusted with the ad- 
ministration and the enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act which becomes effective December 24, I shall comment briefly 
only on the problems of administration and enforcement. 

Your Commission has already received testimony as to policies 
both from individual citizens and from organizations in various parts 
of the United States. In the present hearings that you are conduct- 
ing at the seat of government, you will avail yourselves of the opin- 
ions of higfhly qualified representatives possessing specialized knowl- 
edge covering the different phases of immigration and naturalization 
policies w^hich you have been commissioned to study and to evaluate. 

The President's Executive order, creating you as a Commission, 
also authorizes and directs you to consider the administration of our 
immigration laws with respect to the admission, naturalization and 
denaturalization of aliens, and their exclusion and deportation. 

Hence, it should be stated to you that, since the Congress recently 
enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department has 
become aware that a number of provisions demand change or clari- 

First, it is my opinion that the new act does not achieve the sim- 
plicity of arrangement to be expected of an exhaustive codification. 
It may even bring about further complications of administration. 
Section 101, for example, was intended merely to cover the necessary 
definition of terms employed in the act. Unfortunately, it contains 
substantive and procedural requirements which better cpuld have been 
set in separate sections. The result is that the act contains unneces- 
sary and intricate cross-references. In addition, references and 
cross-references are further complicated by the use of an unwieldly 
numbering system. 

This criticism goes to the act as a whole. I could discuss exten- 
sively the ambiguities and defects of numerous specific sections, but 
I shall confine myself to a discussion of two or three sections which I 
consider to be more seriously inadequate. 

Section 274 is substantially a reenactment of Public Law 283 of the 
Eighty-second Congress. That law fixed criminal penalties for trans- 
porting into or harboring within the United States certain aliens. 
Such a law is of great potential assistance in dealing with smugglers 


and racketeers in human contraband. In section 274 (a) of the act, 
the second clause reproduces exactly a section of Public Law 283 
which already has been construed by one United States district court 
as unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Another United States 
district court, in acquitting a defendant indicted under the same 
paragraph, commented upon the vagueness of the language and 
construed it narrowly. Thus, the provision of section 274 must be 
clarified if it is to be effective in achieving its very desirable ends. 

The policy of this Nation always has been to exclude an alien on the 
ground of a past criminal offense only if the offense involved moral 
turpitude. This historical policy is changed by section 212, subsection 
(a), clause (10) of the act. It requires the exclusion of any alien who 
has been convicted of two or more offenses (other than purely politi- 
cal offenses') whether or not moral turpitude was involved, so long as 
the total of sentences imposed was 5 years or more. 

Practical difficulties of enforcement result from this provision when 
it is realized that totalitarian countries consistently mask religious, 
racial, and political persecutions as criminal prosecutions. The con- 
ference committee when considering the final version of the act had 
this thought in mind. It said : 

"It is the opinion of the conferees that those convictions which were 
obviously based on trumped-up charges or predicated upon repressive 
measures against racial, religious, or political minorities, should be 
regarded as purely political in nature and should not result in the ex- 
clusion of the alien." 

The practical problem of enforcement is that many aliens from 
iron-curtain countries undoubtedly contend they were convicted of 
*'crimes" when no crime had been committed and their sole offense was 
being politically opposed to those in power. 

It will be impossible to determine the truth or falsity of such 
claims. Trustworthy investigation to establish the truth or falsity 
cannot be made in the countries involved. Hence, I believe, there 
should be some clarification by statute of the nebulous middle ground 
between crimes and political offenses. 

I will now take up section 290 (a) of the act which requires a master 
index of all aliens hereafter admitted to the United States or ex- 
cluded from this country. It requires that such a master index be 
maintained in the central office of the Immigration and Naturalization 

A great many aliens in Canada and Mexico legally cross our borders 
at frequent intervals, some, several times a day. A very heavy burden 
is placed on the Service if it is to maintain a record of all such ad- 
missions, and the law as it now stands would require it. 

Surprisingly this section does not require inclusion in the central 
index of those aliens who are not admitted or excluded — but who are 
apprehended after illegally entering the United States. This class of 
aliens certainly is of much greater concern to security and enforce- 
ment officers. 

We might multiply instances wherein the new act gives the Depart- 
ment of Justice serious problems of administration and enforcement. 
However, I will confine myself to these few criticisms. I have drawn 
your attention only to those few sections which, in my judgment, 
pi'esent the most serious problems. My associates will detail other 


criticisms of the act. I am certain that what they have to say will be 
of ^reat interest and assistance to you in your study. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Does anybody want to ask the Attorney General any questions ? 

Mr. KosENFiELD. General, in your statement you say that you be- 
lieve there ought to be some clarification of section 212 (a) (10) in 
connection with the conviction of two or more offenses? 

Mr. McGranery. That's right. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Would it be possible for the Department, at some 
convenient time, to let the Commission have its proposal for what 
that amendment might well be ? 

Mr. McGranert. We would be happy, I think, to suggest language 
which might perhaps clarify this very difficult question. 

Mr. KosENFiELD. As I understand your observations, they are to the 
effect, despite the conference committee report, the danger still exists 
that people may unjustly either be kept out or permitted in? 

Mr. MgGranery. That's right. It works both ways. There is no 
way at all presently, under the language of the present act, for this 
Department to make a proper and thorough investigation in the coun- 
tries from which they come. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. What would be the result, then, under the present 
circumstances, when this act goes into effect and prior to any possible 
amendment ? What will happen to these people ? 

Mr. McGranert. Well, we either accept their word, or we perhaps 
go into court with a very nebulous reason as to why we exclude them. 

The Chairman. You just do the best you can, that's all. 

Mr. McGranery. That's right, exactly so. 

Mr. Rosenfield. It would be helpful to the Commission, General, 
if we could have your suggestion on that. 

" Mr. McGranery. We wnll be very happy to work with the Commis- 
sion in trying to arrive at some language that perhaps would suggest 
not only a more equitable but an even stronger safeguard to the internal 
security of the country. The real danger lies there. 

The Chairman. General, may I ask you just one question? You 
have indicated in the statement that the questions that involve policy 
matters will be discussed by other members of the Department. There 
is. however, one thing that you 

Mr. McGranery. Excuse me, now, Mr. Chairman, so that I will be 
following your thinking correctly. Only policies insofar as they 
relate to the administration of the act. I have asked my folks to 
restrict themselves to that, rather than to get off into the field of 
policy generally that might belong to the Congress, policy generally 
that might be accepted from other expert authorities in the State 
Department with respect to quotas and the like. The inequities of 
that I would prefer not to discuss. 

The Chairman. That answers the question that I had in mind. 

Tlianlv you very much, General. 

Mr. McGranery. You are welcome, sir, and thank you, gentlemen, 
for having me with you this morning. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the 
record be left open at this point for the incorporation of a statement 
to be submitted by the Acting Solicitor General. 

The Chairman. The record may remain open for this purpose. 


(Tlie statement of the Honorable Robert L. Stern, Acting Solicitor 
General, follows:) 

Statement Submitted by the Honorable Robert L. Stern, Acting Solicitor 
General of the United States 

Office of the Solicitor General, 
Washington, D. C, November 13, 1952. 
Harry N. Rosenfeld, Esq., 

Executive Director, the President's Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalisation, 

Executive Office, Washington 25, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Rosenfield : This is in reply to your letter of October 20, 1952, in 
which you requested my views on the following questions : 

Do you believe that existing opportunities for judicial review of immigration 
orders are adequate? Would you favor a special statutory review procedure 
and, if so, in what form? Or is it your view that existing statutory devices for 
review, in the Administrative Procedure and Declaratory Judgment Acts and in 
the availability of habeas corpus, are sufficient? Would you recommend some 
statute or procedural rule to eliminate cumulative remedies, to minimize dilatory 
tactics, and to give priority to the hearing of court reviews of immigration 
orders ? 

I am strongly of the opinion that the form and other incidents of the judicial 
review of deportation orders should be clarified by legislation. 

Prior to the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. it was 
settled that administrative orders for the exclusion or deportation of aliens 
were reviewable only in habeas corpus proceedings. The general language of 
section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act has created doubt as to whether 
judicial review of such orders continues to be so restricted, or whether such 
orders may now be reviewed in injunction or declaratory judgment proceedings 
or by so-called petitions for review under section 10. The courts of appeals for 
the third and sixth circuits have held that under section 10 judicial review of 
deportation orders is no longer limited to habeas corpus proceedings, United 
States V. Carusi (166 F. 2d 457, abated 168 P. 2d 1014 (C. A. 3) ) ; Podovinnikoff 
v. Miller (179 F. 2d 937 (C. A. 3) ) ; Prince v. Commissioner (185 F. 2d 578 
(C. A. 6) ) ; Kristensen v. McGrath (179 F. 2d 796 (C. A. D. C.) ) ; see also Sardo 
V. McGrath (196 F. 2d 20, 22 (C. A. D. C.) ), while the Supreme Court reserved 
the question in McGrath v. Kristensen (340 U. S. 162, 169). The issue is pres- 
ently pending before the Supreme Court in Martinez v. Neehj (No. 218). 

Under these decisions, the alien has a choice of obtaining judicial review of an 
order for his deportation by commencing an action for a declaratory judgment 
either before or after he is taken into custody, or by habeas corpus proceedings 
instituted after he is in custody. These alternative remedies vary in such re- 
spects as venue, proper pai-ties, and calendar expedition. 

I think it will be agreed that there should be a single, fair, and expeditious 
review of such orders. In the case of deportation orders, I believe that there 
should be an orderly change from the practice that such orders may be challenged 
only in habeas corpus proceedings available only after the alien has been taken 
into custody for the purpose of deportation. While this prerequisite to the avail- 
ability of habeas corpus is normally mitigated by the granting of administrative 
or judicial bail, it is inconvenient to the alien and of no corresponding benefit 
to the Government that he cannot challenge a deportation order which is other- 
wise final until he has been taken into at least nominal custody. I think there 
is general agreement that such orders should be subject to judicial review as 
soon as they are administratively final. The law might well require that review 
be sought within a specified period, such as 60 days, without prejudice to the 
right of the Service to take into custody or deport within that period if the public 
interest so required. 

In my opinion, this change should be made by legislation under which the other 
aspects of such review will be defined adequately. If a form of action other than 
habeas corpus is desired, it should be defined, for example, as a special declara- 
tory judgment procedure or a "petition"' for review on the administrative record. 
Because of the number of such cases, it would seem that they should be required 
to be tiled in the district courts of the United States, rather than in the courts 
of appeals. A venue provision should insure the distribution of such suits on the 
basis of the alien's residence or otherwise to avoid a concentration of cases in 


the District Court for the District of Columbia. A proper respondent, such as 
the United States (tliereby eliminating question of substitution and abatement), 
should be specified, with service to be made upon the officer in charge of the im- 
migration district in which the alien resides. The scope of review could be 
detined by providing that the administrative tindings of fact shall be conclusive 
if supi)orted by .sul)stantial evidence on the whole administrative x'ecord. This is 
the same evidentiary standard as is contained in section 10 (e) of the Admin- 
istrative Procedure Act, and in practice it has often been applied by the courts 
in reviewing deportation orders. 

It is important that provision should be made for expediting such suits in the 
same manner as habeas corpus proceedings are now expedited. It would be in- 
tolerable if an alien could defer substantially his deportation (or exclusion) by 
commencing an action in a district where the state of the docket might preclude 
a hearing for a year or more. 

In 1950, the Department of Justice suggested to Congress that the problem 
be met by legislation providing that habeas corpus proceedings should be the 
exclusive method for obtaining judicial review of deportation orders and that 
habeas corpus should be available for such review regardless of whether the alien 
had been taken into custody. Under this proposal, such matters as venue, the 
expedition of cases and the scope of review would be governed largely by the 
rules developed in habeas corpus proceedings. 

Under either proposal, consideration should be given to eliminating as far as 
possible repetitive reviews of deportation orders which serve only to delay 
deportation. This could be accomplished through a provision modeled on 28 
United States Code, section 2255, which substitutes a motion procedure for habeas 
corpus in Federal criminal cases (see United States v. Huyman, 342 U. S. 205). 
In addition, there should be a provision making the review procedure exclusive 
and the deportation order, unless set aside on review, binding on courts for all 
other purposes, including criminal proceedings. 

It would seem that either approach would serve the purpose of providing for 
judicial review of deportation orders as soon as they become final administra- 
tively, while adequately prescribing the other incidents to such review. A special 
statutory review procedure seems preferable rather than a statutory modification 
of the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus. Historically, habeas corpus was not 
designed to serve as a method to obtain routine review of administrative orders. 
Also, it is likely that a statutory modification of habeas corpus in relation to 
Immigration orders will create confusion in the law relating to habeas corpus 
proceedings generally. In my view, however, the adoption of either proposal 
would be preferable to the existing uncertainty with respect to the review of 
deportation orders. 

The recommendations made in this letter relate only to deportation, not to 
exclusion proceedings. Habeas corpus seems to be an adequate remedy for such 
cases, which arise when an alien is detained upon entry. 

I am authorized to state that the Immigration and Naturalization Service con- 
curs in these suggestions. 
Sincerely yours, 

Robert L. Stern, 
Acting Solicitor General. 

The Chairman. The next witness will be Mr. Knox T. Htitchinson, 
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. 


Mr. Hutchinson. I am Knox T. Hutchinson. I am appearing 
here this morning for the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, sir. The Commission will be glad 
to hear you. 

Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement here 
which I would like to read, with your permission. 

The Chairman. We shall be glad to hear it. 


Mr. Hutchinson. I am happy to have the opportunity to appear 
before this Coiiiniission and to make a statement which I hope will 
be helpful in furthering the important work in which you are engaged. 
I know that the Secretary of Agriculture greatly regrets his inability 
to be here in person because of his absence from the city on the dates 
of your hearings. I also want to assure you that we in the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture are ready and eager to help you in any way we 
can. The subject with which your Commission has been chai'ged — 
to survey and evaluate the immigration and naturalization policies 
of the United States — is both fundamental and complex. By the 
same token, it is also a subject of vital importance to this Nation 
and to its exercise of the solemn responsibilities it has in the leader- 
ship of the free Avorld's struggle for securit}^ and peace. 

My comments are directed primarily toward the implications of 
immigration for agriculture. Since the matter of immigration policy 
is of concern to all segments of our society, and since agriculture is 
only a part in the total picture, my statement will by no means cover 
all phases of the subject relevant to the Commission's assignment. 
Moreover, I cannot claim any intimate familiarity or technical expert- 
ness in connection with the existing or proposed immigration laws. 

Our immigration laws have been built up in piecemeal fashion over 
the years under circumstances very different from those in which we 
find ourselves today and which face us in the future. We are con- 
vinced that our immigration laws need further improvement. They 
need to be modernized, liberalized, and made to apply with justice and 
equity to the free people of the world and to those who have ascaped 
from the tyranny and oppression of communistic governments. Your 
investigations and deliberations will, I am sure, be of great value in 
providing guidance as to how these objectives may be best achieved 
and the specific ways in wliich the}^ might be implemented through 
appropriate legislation. 

The Department of Agriculture has on a previous occasion testified 
in support of H. R. 7376, a bill which would have permitted the entry 
of 300,000 special nonquota immigrants from specified countries over 
a 3-year period. That bill sought, by special legislation, to authorize 
additional immigration into this country in recognition of this 
country's obligation to render aid in alleviating the problems created 
by Communist tyranny and overpopulation in certain European 
countries. In testifying on that bill in behalf of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, I pointed out the benefits that would result from such 
additional inunigration to our country as a whole and to agriculture 
in particular. 

In approaching the whole problem of immigration policy, rather 
than special emergency types of immigration legislation, we in this 
country are fortunate incleed that we can approach the subject with 
the feeling that our own enlightened self-interest coincides with the 
strong humanitarianism that is forever emblazoned in our American 
traditions. We are, after all, a country of immigrants and our great- 
ness rests in part, on the solid foundations that our immigration pred- 
ecessors have helped in building. 

The economic interests of American farm families are inextricably 
tied to the economic welfare and economic progress of our urban and 
nonfarm population. Agriculture is now geared to a high production 

25356 — 52 86 


economy and over the long run the prosperity of American agriculture 
depends primarily upon the market represented by the population 
in the United States. A prosperous agriculture is essential to the 
well-being of our nonfarm jiopulation. During the past decade there 
has been a strong upsurge in our population growth and by 1975 it 
is expected that our population will increase to about 190 million 
people or 20 percent above present levels. 

Wliile our total population has been increasing decade by decade, 
our farm population has been declining since 1916. The rate of de- 
cline became pronounced during the last decade. On one of the 
charts attached to my statement there is shown the farm population 
trend from 1910 to 1950 and a projection of that trend to 1975. Our 
farm population in 1951 was 23.3 million or 15 percent of the total 
population in the United States. If current trends continue, they 
could bring our farm population to a level of less than 20 million by 
1975 or about 10 percent of what is projected for the total population 
of the United States in 1975. 

The losses in farm population since World War II have also been 
reflected in a decrease in the number of farm workers. This trend is 
shown on another chart. In the same years when agriculture was 
losing many of its workers to defense industries and other nonagri- 
cultural occupations, our farms were called upon to increase the 
production of food and fiber to higher and higher levels. It was 
imperative to do this in order to feed and clothe our Armed Forces 
and our increasing civilian population, and to help feed the armies 
and peoples of our allies in World War II. The present defense 
emergency, which began with the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, 
once more imposed upon farmers of this country the great task of 
reaching year by year new record levels of output of food and fiber, 
despite the serious difficulties experienced in maintaining adequate 
numbers of farm workers and adequate supplies of machinery and 
other production goods. Fortunately, science and technology, along 
with hard work and ingenuity of American farmers, have enabled us 
so far to meet the challenge of increased production. But we cannot 
rest solely upon the achievements of the past. Our goals and sights 
for the future must envisage progressively higher levels of agri- 
cultural output. Undoubtedly we shall continue to achieve further 
gains in the productivity of our farm labor force and in the productive 
efficiency of our land and other agricultural resources. Nevertheless, 
there are within this picture of future food and fiber requirements, 
both the need and absorptive capacity of American agriculture for 
some augmentation of the supply of labor which a carefully liberal- 
ized policy of immigration would make available. 

Stated simply, this agricultural production problem is twofold: 
First, we must find ways of increasing agricultural efficiency, especially 
in terms of yield or output per acre, to maintain or improve average 
per capita consumption for our increasing population, with reason- 
able allowance for exports; and second, to assist farmers in carrying 
forward conservation, including flood control and forestry activities 
which will assure maintaining the basic productivity of our soils over 
the indefinite future. This can be done. I have no fear that the 
American population will run short of food or that we will not be 
able to maintain, at least for a considerable number of years ahead, 
a sizable volume of exports. 


Tliere are some problems involved certainly. But American farmers 
liave increased farm output 30 percent, 1952 compared with 1940, and 
i>iven fair prices, a strong research program, and the necessary produc- 
tion requisites, machinery, fertilizer, spray materials, etc., they will 
measure up to the job. 

As I have indicated, the supply of labor available to agriculture 
has been decreasing for some years. The rate of decline in the farm 
working force has gained momentum since we stepped up our defense 
and rearmament program following the outbreak of hostilities in 
Korea. In 1951, farm employment decreased about 300,000 under 
1950, and 700,000 under 19-49. This year the number of agricultural 
workers continues to decrease and may average 250,000 fewer than 
in 1951. 

These losses of farm manpower reflect decreases in hired workers 
as well as among operators and unpaid family workers who have left 
farms to go into defense and other industries and into the xA.rmed 
Forces. And I want to emphasize the fact that these net reductions 
in agricultural employment have occurred despite increased recruit- 
ment activities by the Department of Labor and despite increased use 
of foreign workers from Mexico and other countries in the Western 
Hemisphere — mainly for temporary employment at seasonal jobs. 

The declining manpower situation in agriculture has become espe- 
cially serious with respect to the supply of the skilled experienced 
regular workers so essential to the operation of dairy, livestock, poul- 
try, and other types of farms. These regular workers include, not 
only some of the hired farm workers, but also members of the farm 
operator's family, as well as the farm operator himself. Insofar as 
permanent immigration into the United States is made possible, some 
help would be forthcoming to farmers in providing a source of regular 
hired farm workers to assist in meeting production needs. 

I sliould like therefore to deal a little more specifically with the 
hired farm labor situation as it pertains to the regular or year-round 
farm workers. Early this year we asked our State and county agri- 
cultural mobilization committees to appraise their current agricultural 
manpower situation. A majority of the States characterized their 
situation by terms ranging from "critical" to "tight generally." Most 
of the others indicated that the situation was either tighter than in 
1951 or about the same, with some reporting spot shortages. Only a 
few did not report that manpower was a major problem. 

Almost one-third of the States said their greatest manpower diffi- 
culty was the short supply of regular year-round hands. One- fourth 
said their problem was the short supply of both regular and seasonal 
labor. Reports of farm manpower difficulties came from States in 
all sections of the Nation. The reported demand for year-round 
workers involves not only hired men working under the supervision 
of farm operators, but also farm tenants in some areas. 

These appraisals can be supplemented by results from recent surveys 
of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Between 1949 and 1951, 
there occurred in the United States as a whole a decrease of about 20 
percent in the number of regular hired workers on farms. 

The severity of the decrease and its effects on agricultural produc- 
tion vary in different parts of the country. Special surveys have been 
made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in cooperation with 
the agricultural experiment stations in Wisconsin and Connecticut, 


focused on manpower losses and turn-over on dairy farms. In the 
eastern dairy area of Wisconsin about 8 percent of the farms reported 
nnrei)laced losses of regular workers in the year following Korea. 
Tliese farms also showed substantial decreases in size of dairy herd. 
Among commercial dairy farms in Connecticut about 25 percent had 
unreplaced losses of regular hired labor in the 2 years preceding April 
1952, and about one-sixth of these reduced the size of their farming 
oi^erations because of their manpower losses. 

We recognize, of course, that changes in immigration policy could 
not be expected to solve all of our manpower problems in agriculture. 
But I believe that changes can be made which would contribute to 
meeting the needs of the moderate-size commei'cial family farm that 
requires year-round hired labor. We know that there are in Western 
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Greece, and in other European coun- 
tries many excellent, experienced agricultural workers who cannot 
find productive employment on the limited agricultural land avail- 
able. We have need for them and can use them productively without 
adverse effects on the employment conditions of our own citizens. 

Although we have a great need for farm manpow^er, I would be 
the last to propose the admission of aliens if by so doing American 
citizens were forced into unemployment or denied opportunities for 
occupational or economic advancement. I do not believe what is con- 
templated will have that effect. If proper care is exercised in the 
selection and placement of those to be admitted, there is reason to 
believe that an important contribution can be made to our agricultural 
economy. American farmers are prepared to pay the wages prevailing 
in their communities for qualified agricultural workers, and if they 
can get the help they need, our productive capacity will benefit. 

In closing, I want to stress the fact that farmers are facing an espe- 
cially serious problem in the urgent need for regular or year-round 
labor with actual or potential skills as key workers on sheep and 
cattle ranches and on dairy and certain other types of farms. In 
keeping with trends in food consumption patterns in the United States, 
agricultural production policy in the years ahead will continue to 
emphasize increased production of livestock and livestock products, 
which have heavy requirements for year-round workers. The problem 
of recruitment of skilled domestic regular farm workers is, worker 
for worker, much more difficult than the recruitment of most types 
of seasonal farm workers. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. The Com- 
mission appreciates the time and effort devoted to your very informa- 
tive statement. 

May I ask you one question about it? During the hearings that 
we have held in other cities we were asked in several places whether 
those who advocate an increase in the amount of annual immigration 
to the United States take into consideration the fact that we have 
Armed Forces abroad that have been recruited for the emergency, we 
have in training many young men who have been inducted into the 
Army and the Navy and other branches of the Armed Forces, with 
the hope, at least, that that will only be a temporary measure, and 
they asked whether or not in advocating, as some do, that there should 
be an increase in the amount of immigration permitted each year, 
consideration has been given to the effect of the return of those in the 
armed services. Here you point out that the amount of farm labor 



1910-50 and Projected 1950-75 











1910-50 eSTIMAjeS and I950«0 PHOICCTIONS fROM CENSUS iUltCAU: 1975, USOFflClAL 



Population projections indicate that the total popula- favorable conditions the increase might be even greater. The 

ition of the United States will continue to increase in the expected increase in population will mean an increase in the 

jiext 25 years. Under medium conditions, the population could market for agricultural products, 
■well increase to close to 190 million by 1975- Under the most 

t'nlted States Population, 1910-SO, and projected 19S0-7S j/ 

Total population 


: Total 
, population 

: Year 

: (July 1) 

: Total : 
: population : 

: Year 
: (July 1) 

(July 1) 

: Low 

; Medium [ 


', series 

'. aeries ', 


Millions : 

Minions i 





92.'* : 

: 1930 

123.1 : 

: 1950 





93.9 : 

'■ 1931 

121*. : 


95.3 : 

= 1932 

12U.8 : 


97.2 : 

= 1933 

125.6 : 


99.1 : 

• 193"* 

126.1* : 


100.5 : 

= 1935 

127.3 = 


102.0 : 

: 1935 

128.1 : 

: 1955 





103. U : 

= 1937 

128.8 : 


IOU.5 : 

= 1938 

129.3 : 


105.1 : 

: 1939 

130.9 : 

: i960 


169. U 



106.5 : 

: 191*0 

132.1 : 


108.5 : 

: 191*1 

133. W : 

: 1975 





110.1 : 

: 191*2 

131*. 8 : 


111.9 : 

: 191*3 

136.7 : 


llU.l : 

: 191*1* : 

138. W : 

192f. : 

115.8 ; 

: 191*5 : 

139.9 : 

1926 : 

117.1* : 

: 191*6 : 

11*1.1+ : 

192Y : 

119.0 : 

: 191-7 : 

11*1*. 1 : 


120.5 : 

: 19W : 

11*6.6 : 

1929 : 

121.8 : 

: 191*9 : 

11*9.1 : 

1/ 1913-50 estloates and I95O-6O projections from Census Bureau; 1975, unofficial projection from Census Bureau 
using siollar assuiqitions. 



1910-50 and Projected 1950-75 
















~l 1 1 1 L 1 1 i 1 1 LI l1 1 1 1 1 

1 LI 1 1 1 J_l 1 J IJJ 1 lU l_ 

1^1 1„ 

L .- 

1910 1930 1950 1970 

tASCD ON coopeitATive esriMATts or ihi bu»iau of ACifcuiruRAi ecoNOM/cs 



Since ihu peak of farm population in 1916, the trend in population. The size of the farm population now is about 
number of persons living on farms has been generally down- what it would have been if the average annual r!>te of de- 
ward. The depression in the 1930's brought a temporary in- crease experienced between 1916 and 1930 had continued to 
crease, but World I'ar II with its demand for manpower in the present. 
industry and the armed forces caused a rapid loss in the farm 

Farm population, United States, 1910-SO, anfl projected 19S0-7S 


Number of peraooa i 

I Y»«r 

Nunber of pareona 

II Tear 

Hunbsr of psrioni 

(April 1) 

on fanu i 

.(April 1) 

on fanu 

1. (April 1) 

on farma 

Thouannda i 




32,077 1 

: 1926 


1 1 1942 



32,110 I 

1 1927 


II 1943 



32,210 t 

: 1928 


!< 1944 



32,270 . 

1 1929 



32,320 1 

II 1945 


1 1930 


II 1946 



32,440 t 

1 1931 


II 1947 



32,530 > 

I 1932 


1 I 1948 



32,236 I 

1 1933 


II 1949 



31,661 1 

1 1934 



30,618 1 

1 1935 


II 1950 



31,559 1 

1 1936 



31,641 ■ 

I 1937 


ti 1956 



31,561 1 



It 1966 



30,876 1 

I 1939 


1 1 1975 



30,496 1 

t 1940 



30,443 1 

1 1941 


Eatlnatas 1910-60 from Burasu of the Census and Bureau of Agrloultural EconoKlcs, No. 16As estinates for the 
years 1916-^49 have been revised to be comparable with the new definition of fam population Introduced In the 
1950 Population Census. Frojeotlons for years after 1950 are based on the assunptlon that the fam population 
will oontlQua the average annual rate of dsollne that prevailed between 1916 and 1950. an arerage decrsass of 
0,86 percent per year. 





-1 — J 






The decline in tiie numbers of people working on farms con- families. Mechanization on farms and the movement of farm 
(inued in 1952. Most of the decrease this year has been in the workers to industrial jobs continued to be the major factor in 
numbers of farm operators and th.. unpaid members of their the decrease in number of workers employed in agriculture. 

Fau-m employment: Annoal averages of total, family, and hired employment 
United States, 1910-S2 

"y Preliminary estLnuite. 


iTotal employment: 

Family workers 

Hired wortors 

It Year 

Total enployment : 

Family workors 

• Hired workers 

: Thousar.dB 







: 12,146 



:: 1933 








:: 1934 





: 12,038 



:: 1935 





1 12,033 



:: 1936 





1 12,000 



t! 1937 





: 11,991 



:: 1938 





: 12,016 



:: 1939 





1 11,7S9 



:: 1940 





: 11,348 




: 11,106 



:: 1941 





I 11,362 



:: 1942 




:: 1943 





I 11,412 



:: 1944 





! 11,443 



:: 1945 





! 11,385 



:; 1946 





: 11,352 



:: 1947 





: 11,466 



:: 1948 





I 11.511 



:: 1949 





I 11,243 



:: 1950 





1 11,295 



! : 


1 11,282 



:! 1951 





1 11,161 



SI 1952 1/ 




1 11,258 




: 11,283 



Data pablisaed cnrreotl; la Fam Labor report (BAE). 









»> '*■ w u o 

i »; «' O" 

G^ « i' 2 

° 2 "* c 

U 9.t;-a o 

^-= J " 3 

n j: n I. p 
^S i (J a, 

> 3 li O 2 

-o ^ 
o a . E a 

n" """^ o * 
c .5i >il ° 

t/5-- in 

J= o o 1! 
o -- u <-< « 

« O ^4, 

a w " -c j: 
•2'" -2 3' 
3 o-"" 2 £ 
<j n 3 S "t: 

o -o , 

w >, 3-- 

j: 4) -< 
« «>" - 

3 C S Ifl 

|^ 3 C o 

,,•-"5 «; " 
•n * o =* = 

o j3 -r ■»■ "2 
<xnT. .. cu 

^ 3 S g-g 
fr ° V « . 



1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 





The solid lines on the above chart trace the changes in 
total V. S. food consumption and domestic food production from 
1910 CO 19J2, indicating in overall terms how nearly self- 
sufficient the United States has been with respect to food. 

The dotted lines show two projections of possible future 
food consumption. Neither is a forecast of consumption, or of 
future food requirements. These projections, as well as the 
others on the following pages of this publication, are pre- 
sented as tools which will be useful to analysts in studying 
our food consumption and food production situation. 

The lower of the two projections, to I960, shows what our 
food consumption would total in I960 at the present rate of 
consumption per person, with the population in I960 being 

in line sith the medium population growth projected by the 
Bureau of the Census. 

The higher projection is the one set forth in the report, 
'Future Demands on Land Productivity," made recently to the 
President's Materials Policy Commission. This projection, to 
1975, assumes a 14 percent rise from 1950 to 1975 in the rate 
of food consumption per person, along with a 28 percent in- 
crease in population. This substantially higher projection 
of food consumption was developed from the projected rise in 
disposable income per capita from tl,300 in 1950 to 12,000 in 
1975 and an implicit assumption of the same level of retail 
food prices as the average for 1950. 

Indeies of total (ood consumption and production, 1910-32, and projections 
of consumption ror 1960 and 197S 1/ 
(1947-19= 100) 




:: T«ar 



:': TMT 






:■ 1927 


':'• 19k3 






:: 1938 


:: 19k* 






:: 1929 


:l 19k5 






:: 19k6 






: : 1930 


: : 19k7 






:: 19U 


:: I9k8 






:: 1932 


: : 19k9 






> : 1933 





: 193k 


:: 1950 






: I 1935 


:: 1951 



: : 1936 


:: 1952 






: : 1937 





:: 1938 



:: I960 

2/ 117 




: 1939 






:: 19T5 

i/ lk9 




:: 19kO 






:: 19kl 






:: 19k2 




y terlrvd froB Indax of oItIHad food oouiaqitloD (ualng clrlllsa rat* of oocui^tloo for BllltAry p«rBOQa»l) And tnm tb* lnd«x of rolua* 
of food produotlon for aal* and fara boaa ooatu^ttoa. 

2/ ProJ*otlOD for I96O uatD« n«w rat* of ooacu^tlcu par pvraoD as In 19^ (U2 p«ro«at of 1937*39) Ud Mdlos popuUtloo laorva** a« pi*o- 
^•ot*d bj Buraaa of the Cpoaui. 

y ProjMtloo Id rvport to tha Praaldaat'i thtarlala Polloj CovalailaD, rvpraaaotlng a Ik paroaot looraaaa orar 1^0 U food oooauo^tloo par 
f»rMB aad a ZQ paroant lAoraaaa in Uoltad 3Ut«i populatloo. 

ladeiea ol food coosanptton aod prodactlon pnbMshed correatly !■ Natlooal Food 
Sllaftttoa (BAE) oa 1935-39 baae. 


has decreased from 1950 to 1952, presumably, in part, because of in- 
ductions into tlie armed services, and you say that there is room for 
properly qualified persons to help our economy by filling up these 
gaps that have occurred in the farm population. 

I make that long preliminary statement just to ask you whether, 
in arriving at the conclusions that you do, that factor has been taken 
into consideration ? 

Mr. Hutchinson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have taken that into con- 
sideration, and we know that we are faced with two problems other 
than the one that you mentioned here, reduction of farm labor be- 
cause of induction or as the result of the Korean situation. Even 
before that, we were having rapid declines in farm workers going into 
industry and, mind you, that our gi"eatest draw on the manpower 
during the 2 years since Korea has been in the direction of industry, 
rather than in the direction of the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces 
has taken its pro rata, of course, but we also have a continued rapid 
growing population in this country which is calling on agriculture for 
more and more production, and our figures are based largely on the 
requirements of agriculture over the projected years to 1975, say, on 
the basis of present consumption, and at the same time we must re- 
member during the last 10 or 15 years the average consumption has 
increased about 13 percent per capita, and if we expect to continue that 
upward trend in population and in per capita consumption, agriculture 
will have continued requirements on the very definite upward trend to 
meet our domestic requirement, to say nothing about meeting our 
possible continuing, at least at the present level, of export require- 
ments, or possibly an upward trend in export requirements. 

The Chairman. What you say leads to this further inquiry : A 
Tiumber of farm workers have gone into the armed services, beginning, 
say, in 1950, maybe a little bit ahead of that time because of the 
recent legislation, and, as you say, other farm workers have been at- 
tracted to the cities because they can get employment with these ex- 
panded industries, many of which have also relationship to the war 
emergency or the situation abroad. If that should terminate or slacken 
in some way, wouldn't you have a return to the farms, first, by some of 
those who came off of the farms and who went in the armecl services, 
plus a return of those who would leave the factories or industries 
whose work would be curtailed if the war emergency or these 
emergency conditions terminated? 

Mr. Hutchinson. Certainly, I think we'd have some return to the 
farm; no doubt, under those conditions we would have some return. 

The Chairman. Also from the factories ? 

Mr. Hutchinson. That's right. 

The Chairman. This production, certainly, for arms would be 
curtailed if the emergency came to an end. But do you think that 
whatever return there would be, there would still be room for addi- 
tional farm workers because of the growing population and because 
of the increased consumption here and abroad ? 

Mr. Hutchinson. We feel that there is room for some; yes. 

The Chairman. Are you prepared to make any estimate? 

Mr. Hutchinson. Well, I am not sure that I am. Mr. Chairman, I 
have with me several who probably would like to give an answer more 
definite in figures on that question. 

Mr. Wells, would you suggest someone in our group who might give 
a further answer to the chairman's question, or would you? 



Mr. Wells. I am O. B. Wells, Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural 
Ecouoniics, United States Department of Agriculture. May I ask 
Avhat is tlie question precisely ? 

The Chairman. This last question was whether the Secretary was 
prepared to estimate or to give us an idea as to how many additional 
immigrants he thought could be accepted into the United States. I 
suppose in his case it would be with relationship to the agricultural 
problem only. 

Mr. Wells. In consideration of the two facts you brought out, some 
return from industry and some return from military forces ? 

The Chaiman. Whatever factors might be represented in determin- 
ing an immigration policy for the United States. 

Mr. Hutchinson. That is rather a difficult question, I know, to give 
a concrete answer to, but if someone in my group would like to make 
an effort at it, we would be glad to have it. 

Mr. Wells. Mr. Chairman, I think that the only time that the 
Department, Mr. Secretary, has given a quantity in figures on that is 
when you testified, I believe, on the bill H. R. 7376 to admit 300,000 
over a period of 3 years, which was to the effect we thought we could 
certainly absorb 100,000 a year over and above, I believe it was, the 
regular immigration at the time. 

The Chairman. Is that 100,000 for agricultural purposes ? 

Mr. Wells. No, I think the Department of Agriculture favored and 
thought the country could absorb 300,000 people over a period of 3 
years. I think that is as close as we have come to it. I think the 
answer to your question rests in large part on the agriculture sector 
and in large part on whether there are enough natural resources in 
the United States to employ them. About all I can say to you is that 
most of the people in the United States are looking forward to a rather 
substantial increase in population over the next 20 or 25 years, and I 
don't know anyone who is very much worried about it, because as you 
add people, you add productive ability, too. 

May I say, Mr; Secretary, that if they look at the second chart in 
your prepai-ed statement, the trend in foreign population, you can get 
some statistical information and answer to your first question as to 
liow the trend in population was affected by the return of soldiers and 
others from World War I and also from World War II, and I think 
you will find they made very little dent on the actual trend of the farm 
population because of this rapid shift of farm people into nonfarm 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Wells, what the Department is saying, as I 
gather, is that certainly for the next 3 years you can see the addition 
of 100,000 persons to the population in addition to the 154,000 already 
provided for by existing statute ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Wells. Wliat I am saying is that the Department testified 
specifically in favor of a bill to provide that quantitative figure you are 
talking about, if my memory serves me correctly, and as near as I can 
remember, that is the only figure we have talked about at any time. 

The Chairman. The 100,000 a year that the Department approved 
was for all purposes, and by my question I had hoped maybe we 
■could get an idea as to what the Department thought with reference 
to additional admissions for agricultural purposes only, not taking 
into account other purposes. 


Mr. Wells. I am not aware of any specific study wliich would give 
an answer, as such, to that. There are places in agriculture where 
"\ve very badly need some foreign workers, foreign people who are 
especially qualilied. 

The Chairman. Whether they are foreign or not, I gather you mean 
farm workers. We have heard testimony that there are shortages of 
tliem in different places of the country, and I just wondered whether 
you could give the Commission the benefit of any study that had been 
made as to the amount of existing shortage, if any. 

Mr. Wells. I don't recall a specific estimate. The number of farm 
workers is going down. We are replacing them in some instances with 
lather expensive machinery. There are times and places where we 
are going to need more men rather than machinery. 

Mr. EosENFiELD. May I pursue that just a moment? Was your 
statement in regard to JH. R. 7376 that over 3 years, the country as a 
whole could absorb 100,000 people additional each year? 

Mr. Wells. Yes. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Have you projected how much beyond 3 years we 
could absorb that ? 

Mr. Wells. No; I know of no other study in the Department. 

Commissioner Pickett. I was going to ask a question which relates 
to a comment that has been very often made to tlie Commission, that 
Ave have no right to bring in people, because housing is very short 
and why bring in more people when the people who live here now are 
not able to find suitable places to live. I wonder whether that applies 
on farms. Is there housing available now? 

Mr. Hutchinson. I was going to say that is probably a partial 
answer to your question. I think that you will find more houses on 
farms available for such than you would in other segments of the 
country, undoubtedly you would. 

Commissioner Pickett. I don't know that we have any positive 
figures on that. Does anj^one in your group have any positive figures 
on that, the availability of houses on farms for additional workers? 

Mr. Wells. Not directly, Mr. Secretary, although we do know, as 
a matter of fact, with the decreasing farm population there are many 
areas where there are vacant houses. I may say, tliis will partly 
answer your question, Mr. Chairman. Those people will come into the 
country at a fairly gradual rate, and housing shortages are tem])orary, 
and if the defense emergency might ease off, I think we might like 
some construction work in a couple of years. 

Commissioner Gullixson. I assume in suggesting immigration as 
a solution for farm workers the Secretary is thinking in terms of 

Mr. PIuTciiiNSON. Yes. 

Commissioner Gullixson. And tlie housing involved therein? 

Mr. Hutchinson. Particularly we are thinking on the basis of 
selected workers that will fit the particular needs of agriculture. As 
I pointed out in my statement, the problem is not so serious with tem- 
porary, seasonal workers as we fincl it in some sections for year-round 

Commissioner Gltllixson. It is families that confront us, of course, 
in the immigration problem. 

Mr. Hutchinson. Yes; I think that would naturally follow. 

Commissioner Gi^llixson. One other question. In reading the re- 
port of the President's Commission on ]\Iigratory Labor, we discovered 
this startling thing: That the coming of the beet machine, both for 
thinning and harvesting beets, and the coming of the cotton-picking 


machine had turned the edge so that even the migrant Mexican laborers 
don't find the opportunities that they did just a year or two ago and 
that the cotton-picking machine is moving on across Texas into Lou- 
isiana. Does your Department have a general survey of that problem 
as it may release considerable amounts of American labor ? 

Mr. HuTCHiNSOx. We do know that farms are rapidly becoming 
more mechanized, which fulfills the condition that you described, but, 
at the same time, I think you will find that agriculture is adjusting 
itself somewhat to the available labor supply, rather than taking its 
normal course if we had a sufficient labor supply. We also find adjust- 
ment of agriculture in that direction, as well as further mechanization 
of agriculture. 

Commissioner Gullixson. In speaking of the commercial family- 
size farm, are you thinking quite largely of the more hilly areas where 
the caterpillar tractor can't get in ? 

Mr. Hutchinson. In part, yes; and the type of agriculture itself, 
because there is still much of our agi^iculture, in particular parts of 
the country, that w^e need badly toward improving the diet of the 
American people, which is still largely on a hand-labor basis, because 
it has not been possible to mechanize that type of agriculture. Much 
of our fruit production and vegetable production, and so on, is still 
largely hand labor. 

Commissioner Gullixson. Then this picture would not include the 
sweep of the Great Plains States and the areas where the family-size 
farm has increased from 80 acres to 320 acres ? 

Mr. Hutchinson. AVell, I wouldn't say that the increase in actual 
acres has diverted us from one kind of farm to another. I think they 
are still family farms, but they have been able to move to the larger 
acreage because of the mechanization and because of necessity eco- 
nomically, and to provide an opportunity for a standard of living that 
has become more or less the American pattern. 

Commissioner Gullixson. Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Mr. Secretary, you haven't given any fig- 
ures in regard to the increased age of the farmer. We hear it said 
that the present farmer's age is increasing, and that there is quite a 
problem of replacement. I have heard that almost everywhere in 
Wisconsin, for instance. 

Mr. Hutchinson. Well, we do know that during World War II 
many retired farmers and farmers who should have retired came back 
and remained in agricultural services. During the war period it was 
a patriotic duty and it was a necessity otherwise because of lack of 
available labor, and that condition exists somewhat today. 

In partial answer to the question that the chairman asked a few 
minutes ago, I think that if we had a more ready supply of farm labor, 
many of our farmers who are overdue to retire would gladly place 
themselves in retirement. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do you think that would result in their 
hiring people to operate their farms, who might find themselves own- 
ing the farms eventually ? 

Mr. Hutchinson. Well, that would be probably a natural trend, 
not to the disadvantage of the present ownership particularly. We 
certainly don't feel such farm labor would work to the disadvantage of 
present ownership of the farms of this country to the extent that they 
would push in and take ownership. 

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

Is Mr. Louis Bean here ? 



]Mr. Bean. I am Louis H. Bean, an economist in the Office of the 
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. 

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

Mr. Bean. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement here which I should 
like to read, together with some charts. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Bean. The immigration restrictions of the past 25 years, both 
legal and economic, have retarded the economic growth of this country. 
Our growth in resources, income, and wealth has been great, but it 
would have been even greater. 

We would today have 16 to 17 million more people in this country^ 
or 11 percent more persons in the labor force producing at least $35 
billion more of national output, nearly $30 billion more of national 
income, $15 billion more in wages, and $3 billion more in farm cash 
income. New England would have a national market for its new, 
as well as its long-established industries, 11 percent greater than at 
present. The South would have an even greater outlet for the prod- 
ucts it seeks to market in the Northern and Western States, and the 
Middle Western States would be sharing more fully in the economic 
growth of the country than it is now doing, in view of its lagging 
population trend. Furthermore, instead of 4 million businesses in 
operation today we would have another 500,000 firms, both big and 
little, in manufacturing, construction, wholesale and retail trade, serv- 
ices, and finance. 

Had legal and economic immigration restrictions not held our 
population growth down, we would have had more manpower and even, 
greater industrial capacity with which to wage World War II, and 
to the extent this would have shortened the duration of the war, it 
would have cut down on casualties, kept the money cost of the war 
down, and left us with a smaller national debt. 

These and many other conclusions emerge from the analyses of 
the effect our immigration restriction policies and conditions appear 
to have had on population growth. 

I would call your attention first to the long-time annual record of 
immigration into the United States covering the past 80 years (table 1 
and chart below) . The record shows the well-known waves of immigra- 
tion of the 1840's and of the 1860's and 1870's, of the 1880's and 1890's. 
It shows the wave during the first decade of the century and the 
second one checked abruptly by World War I. These waves of immi- 
gration are associated with the major waves of prosperity that have 
successively raised our economic level to new heights. 

Table I. — United States inwiigra/tion from all countries, 1820-1950 

1820 8,385 1833 .58,640 1846 154, 41(> 

1821 9,127 1834 65,365 1847 234.968: 

1822 6,811 1835 45,374 1848 226,527 

1823 6,354 1836 76,242 1849 297,024- 

1824 7,912 1837 79,340 1850 369,980 

1825 10,199 1838 38,914 1851 379,46ft 

1826 10,837 18.39 68,069 1852 371. 60S 

1827 18.875 1840 84.066 1853 368,645 

1828 27.382 1841 80,289 1854 427,833 

1829 22.520 1842 104.565 1855 200,877" 

1830 23.322 1843 52,496 1856 200, 43^ 

1831 22.633 1844 78.615 1857 251.306: 

1832 60,482 1845 114,371 1858 123, 12S 


Table I.— 



United States i 

121, 2S2 
153, 640 


91, 985 

176. 2S2 

193, 418 

24S, 120 

318, 568 

315, 722 

138, 840 

352, 768 


321, 350 


459. 803 


_ __ 227, 498 







from ( 

ill count) 

455, 302 
560, 319 
579, 663 
439, 730 
285, 631 
258, 536 
343, 207 
230, 832 
229, 299 
311, 715 
448, 572 
648, 743 
857, 046 
812, 870 
026, 490 
100, 735 
285, 349 
782, 870 
751, 786 
041, 570 
878, 587 
838, 172 
197, 892 
218, 480 
326, 700 
298. 826 
295, 403 
110, 618 
141, 132 
430, 001 

•ies, 1820- 



/550— Continued 

805, 228 

309, 556 



1863 _ 







522, 919 

706. 896 

294 314 









335, 175 

307, 255 



279, 678 



1930 _ 

241, 700 










97, 139 

35 576 



23, 068 

1872 _ __ 


29, 470 













23, 946 

36, 329 



50, 244 


169, 986 

141, 857 

138, 469 



669, 431 

7SS, 992 

603, 322 

518, 592 


334, 203 

490, 109 

546, 889 

444, 427 


67, 895 


1878 _ , 




82, 998 

70, 756 






51, 776 








28, 781 

- . 23, 725 












38, 119 

107, 721 



147, 292 



170, 570 




188. 317 






249, 187 

1832—15 months: 1843 — 9 months; 1850 — 15 months; 1868 — 6 months. 
Source : Historical Statistics of United States, 1789^1945. Bureau of Census. 


Before and After Resiricfions 






A A 

^ m 


— ' 

^ A.t%. 



: I 


r E 







Hf V 






........ ,l..,.r..,. 






I860 1880 1900 1920 1940 




MEG. B- 4S86S | 

The record shows the recovery in immigration which began in the 
early 1920's and the extent to w^iich the restrictions imposed after 
1924 and the depression of the 1930's completely altered the long-time 
upward trend. On the average the number of immigrants coming to 
our shores amounted to about 1 percent of our total population. This 
number, more or less, depending on the level of economic activity, we 
absorbed in our economic stride. In line with that normal course we 


should now be absorbing approximately a million and a half persons 
per year. Instead total immigration which had been close to zero 
during most of the 1930's and 1940's, rose to only 250,000 by 1950, or 
only about a sixth of what might be considered as normal. 

The effect of this abrupt check to a long-time trend in the basic 
factor of our economic growth is clearly seen in the census records of 
our total population, particularly in the relation between the foreign- 
born and the native population. 

Our phenomenal economic growth up to World War I was marked 
by a very stable relation of foreign-born to native population, so stable 
that it may reasonably be used as a basis for estimating the extent of 
population loss due to the distortion in that balance which immigra- 
tion restrictions have brought about. (See table 2 and chart below.) 

Table 2.- 

-Total 'population, native and foreign-born, and probable totals without 
immigration restrictions 




born per- 
cent of 


percent of 


total 1 

1870.. . 

38, 558 
50, 156 
62, 622 
75, 995 
91, 972 
105, 711 
122, 775 
131, 669 
150, 697 

6, 680 
13, 516 
13, 920 
14, 204 
11, 595 
2 10, 338 

32, 991 
43, 476 
53, 372 
65, 654 
78, 456 
91, 791 
108, 571 
120, 074 
140, 359 





1890 - - 

1900.. . -- 


1920 . - . 

109, 936 


131, 225 


144, .344 


167, 597 

1 1950 total based on 1910 ratio of total to foreign-born for individual States (see table 4) and 1920, 1930, 
and 1940 prorated. 
- 10,162 foreign-born white plus 176,000 other foreign-bom in 1940. 

In the United States 



- Total U. S. 











Between 1870 and 1910 our total population rose from 38.5 mil- 
lions to 9:2 millions. In that entire 50-year period, the foreign-born 
increased in proportion and constituted about 14 percent of the total, 
the range being from 13.3 to 14.7 percent. Since then the cumulative 
effect of World War I, the restrictions adopted in 1924, and the de- 
pression of the 1930's and World AYar II, have reduced the propor- 
tion to only 6.9 percent in 1950 and to something less than that today. 
If in 1950 we had had as many foreign-born as the long-time balance 
between the foreign-born and native population calls for, our total 
population would have numbered over 167 million instead of some- 
what under 151 million. We w^ould today be 11 percent stronger in 
manpower, in economic activity, and in international security. 

The regional distribution of this loss in population is concentrated 
chiefly in the Northeast. (See table 3 and charts below.) The indus- 
trial area containing the New England, the Middle Atlantic, and the 
East North Central States would today have 11 million more persons. 
The industrial agricultural area containing the Pacific and Moun- 
tain States would today have 3 million more people. The agricultural 
West North Central region would have nearly 2 million more people. 
RelatiA^ely little, probably not more than 700,000, of this 17 million 
loss in population shows up in the region embracing the South At- 
lantic, East South Central, and West South Central States. 

Table 3. — Native and foreign-iorn population ty regions and probable totals for 
1920 to 1950 without immigration restrictions 


[In thousands] 




Total, with- 
out restric- 
tion 1 


25. 286 
30, 376 
43. 289 
49, 897 
57, 580 
60, 095 
65, 941 

6, 381 
10, 006 
10, 374 
7, 343 

20, 565 
23 994 
28, 988 
33, 581 
39, 891 
47. 207 
58, 597 


1900 -. 

1910 . - . - 

43, 289 



52, 709 
63, 204 


68, 531 


77, 188 



10, 555 
13. 193 
16, 522 
20, 547 
24, 132 
28, 372 
31, 659 
36, 849 

10, 114 
12, 673 
15, 959 
19, 821 
23, 285 
27, 571 
31. 0.33 

20, 547 
24. 316 
32, 210 
37, 588 

Footnote at end of table. 




Table 3. 

-Native and forcif/n-horn pnpnlation by regions and probable totals for 
1920 to 1950 ivithout immiyration restrictions — Continued 





Total, with- 
out restric- 
tion i 



8, (iPO 

10, 066 


12, 225 

12, 913 

13, 112 
13, 576 

1, 372 

10, 854 
11, 832 
12, 334 
13, 014 

1890 - 



11, 352 


12, 670 

13, 803 



14, 447 


15, 357 


1880 - 


11. 421 
13, 350 
18, 574 

1, 424 

3, 113 
17. 076 

1890 . 



""' 6,'544 




12, 957 


15, 654 

1950 - . 

21, 64& 

1 1950 total baspd on 1910 ratio of total to foreign-born for individual States (see table 4) and 1920, 1930, 
and 1940 prorated, white population only. 

In the East 



1900 1920 




NEG B-488S0 


In the South 



- S.A., E.S.C. 
and W.S.C* 


1900 1920 




NES. B-4Sa63 

In the West North Central Region 









NEG. B-4SS«4 


In the West 




Pac. and Ml* 









NEG. B- 488S2 

Fourteen individual States would today contain 83 percent of the 
total potential population that we have lost through the legal and 
economic restrictions of the past 25 years (Pennsylvania, New York, 
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, Iowa, and Texas). These 
are the States in which population would be at least a quarter of a 
million greater. They range from a quarter of a million in Texas and 
Iowa to about 21^ millions in Pennsylvania and New York : 

Population loss 

Pennsylvania 2, 611 

New York 2,469 

CaUfornia 1, 687 

Illinois 1, 243 

Massachusetts 1, 087 

Michigan — 
New Jersey- 






Population loss 








Total, 14 States 14, 093 

All other States 2, 804 

Total, United States 16,897 

What this population loss is costing us in potential production and 
national income is quite obvious. In 1951 our national production, 
valued at $329 billion would have been greater by 11 percent of $36 
billion. As a Nation of consumers we would have had $28 billion 
more personal income and would pi'obably have bought about $21 
billion more of goods and services. As wage earners, we would have 
received $19 billion more in our pay envelopes, and as farmers, we 
would have received $3i/2 billion more from the sale of farm products, 
in oiu' domestic markets. 

The income going to individvuds that the various States are losing 
annually as a result of not having the additional potential population 


is, of course, also concentrated in the Northeast. In this region the 
total loss conies to over $20 billion, or 70 percent of the total. The 
Pacific and Mountain States are losing 5.5 billion or nearly 20 percent 
of the total and the West North Central States most of the balance. 

In the following 17 States the income losses range from more than 
a quarter of a billion dollars per year to nearly 5 billion. Those at 
the top of tlie list are : New York, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, 
and Massachusetts, with losses of about 2 to 5 billions per year, and 
those at the lower end of the selected 17 States with a loss of a quarter 
to a third of a billion dollars are: Colorado, Missouri, Oregon, and 
Texas : 

Losses in income in 195t due to iinmimation restrictions 

[Billions of dollars] 

New York 4.9 

Pennsylvania 4. 3 

California 3. 3 

Illinois 2. 4 

Massachusetts 1. 9 

New Jersey 1. 5 

Minnesota 1. 1 

Wisconsin 1. 1 

Ohio 1. 

Connecticut . S 

Washington . 7 


Rhode Island- 





Total 17 States 25.0 

Total, all other States 4. 4 

Total United States 29.4 

The failure to maintain our population grov^ th at the potential 
level also has a specific meaning in terms of opportunities for private 
enterprise. Ever since we have become a predominantly industrial 
nation, particularly since 1900, the number of business firms in opera- 
tion has increased slightly faster than our total population. For 
every 1,000 persons in the population of 1890, our economy provided 
opportunities for 24.6 active business firms. By 1929 we needed 25.5 
business firms per 1,000 of population, and by 1949 the number had 
risen to 26.6. If our pojiulation had been permitted to attain its 
potential of 168 million in 1950, we would in that year have had 
another 400,000 to 500,000 firms, big and little, in addition to the 
4 million in operation. This would probably have included about 
33,000 more manufacturing establishments, 40,000 construction firms, 
23,000 more firms engaged in wholesale trade, nearly 40,000 more firms 
in finance, insurance, and real-estate operations, about 95,000 addi- 
tional service industries, and 180,000 more firms engaged in retail 

At this point I might suggest what this would have meant for the 
agricultural economy. I didn't develop that point, but some of the 
obvious inferences are these: In the case of cotton, our domestic 
consumption would probably be a million bales greater than it is, 
which would involve an outlet for an additional 2i/^ million acres. 
We would be consuming perhaps 80 million bushels more of wheat, 
the product of something like 8 million acres. We would be con- 
suming perhaps 350 million more bushels of corn, the product of 
about 8 million acres. We could carry maybe 9 or 10 million more 
cattle on our farms in addition to those that are now there. 

Another way of presenting the meaning of this 10 or 11 percent 
additional market for farm products would be to say that that is 
practically the equivalent of our total export market. We are deal- 


in<j liere -with the potential consumption of the products of, say, 
around 40 million acres, and that is approximately what our export 
market amounts to. 

These are merely some of the obvious ways of deraonstratinfr the 
economic sifji^ificance of our failure to attain our population potential. 
Many more illustrations could be developed, but I assume they are not 
needed, for the conclusion is obvious. What is clearly called for, for 
a country blessed wnth our abundance of physical resources and enter- 
prise opportunities, is a restoration of an annual flow ot immiirration 
closer to the historical norm that helped bring about our national 
growth to wealth and power. 

Table 4.- 

-Loss of population aand inromr hi/ f<f>itps in lOoJ fliir fr, iuiniif/rotion 


Population 1950 • 

tion loss 

Per capita 



Loss in 














$93 456 

115 520 


38 338 


1 889 206 

368, 638 

817 691 




3, 322, 749 

North Atlantic: 

13, 872 


5. 308 






4, 928, 124 

1,502 345 

Pennsylvania - - 

4, 342, 093 

Total, North Atlantic 

28. 237 

34, 114 

' 5, 877 

10 772 :62 

East North Central: 






1,050 ri6 



2. 396. .504 

Michigan. _ 

1, 458, 294 



Total, East North Central - 

28, 542 



6,230 3S6 

West North Central: 






1, 140, 876 


287, 091 

North Daliota 

227 286 

South Dakota . 


243, 110 

Kansas - 


Total, West North Central 

13, 576 

15, 357 



South Atlantic: 




2, .WS 


2, 076 
2. 095 
1 . 052 
1. 103 



District of Columbia.. 

31, 425 


82, 180 

South Carolina . . 




Florida . - - 

57, 780 

Total, South Atlantic 




483, 294 

East South Central: 


1, 194 






40, 50S 


17, ion 


Total, East South Central 




78, 191 

Footnote at end of table. 


Table 4. 

-Loss of population and income by states in 1951 due to immigration 
restrictions — Continued 


Population 1950 i 

tion loss 

Per capita 



Loss in 




West South Central: 










12, 038 




44, 916 


347, 352 

Total, West South Central 


12, 406 


488, 296 















238, 6.J4 

Idaho _ 

84, 072 


87. 822 


280, 672 

New Mexico. 

55, 943 

.\rizona - . 

263, 488 


14, 952 


68, 986 

Total, Motratain . 




1, 094, 589 






11, 582 





355, ISO 


3. 260. 971 

Total, Pacific 

13, 728 

16, 008 



1 Estimates of population without restrictions based on 1910 proportion of foreign-bom to native white 

The Chairmax. Thank you very much, Mr. Bean. 

Commissioner Pickett. I am not quite clear there about the as- 
sumption being that manpower is the only factor involved in increas- 
ing our output. That would be true, I suppose, if we had limitless 
land ;uid limitless capital. Do you have any comment on that? 

JMr. Bean. My impression is, Dr. Pickett, that there is land that has 
not yet been brought into cultivation; and while there are different 
views as to the limits to which our agricultural land may be expanded, 
I think within that wide range of difference there is room for a gi'eat 
deal more expansion than we have had. So that for the next 10 or 
20 years — and this is not an official view because you can get an official 
view from those who are more closely related to these problems — 
my personal view is that land is not a limiting factor, and doesn't need 
to be if it is. You can get all kinds of views from the soil-conservation 
<»xperts as to the extent to which we can open up land that is not now 
being used for production, land which perhaps is deteriorating and 
ought to be put into production. 

Mr. EosENFiELD. Mr. Bean, on that point, Mr. Hutchison's own 
testimony, just prior to you, indicated — I am reading from the chart 
called the Farm Output Picture, which is the fourth chart : 

If it were urgently needed. American accriculture could increase its total output 
by around one-fifth within about 5 years, provideil there were favorable cost-price 
relationships during the S-year period, as well as availability and use of greatly 
increased quantities of fertilizer, machinery, and other production goods. 

So that even on existing land, presumably, is there not some prob- 
lem of meeting the need tliat you have in mind ? 

Mr. Bean. The only point that this material permits making is that 
the potentialities for expansion are here; that there is no reason that 


I can see, looking at the economy statistically, why there should have 
been that abrupt chopping off of immigration in 1924. Looking at 
the economy just through these figures, I take it as a very arbitrary 
action without any regard whatever to the basic question that you 
raise this morning, 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Bean, I wonder if I may ask one or two ques- 
tions. You say at the very start of your statement that if the restric- 
tions to which you have called attention had not been put into effect 
the country would have had $30 billion more of national income. 
You say, "We would today have 16 to 17 million more people in this 
country, or 11 percent more persons in the labor force producing at 
least $35 billion more of national output," and so forth, 

Mr. Bean. If we had the total population that we should have had 
in 1950, 

Mr. RosENFiELD, Is it fair, then, to say that the restrictions on im- 
migration which prevented this 11-percent increase in labor force 
have deprived the country of $30 billion of national income? 

Mr, Bean, I think it is fair to say that all the restrictions, legal 
and economic — and by that I mean the effect of depression and the 
effect of war, plus the effect of the laws put on our books — have com- 
bined to give us a smaller population than we would have had ; and 
from that I think the inference is clear that with a larger population, 
with our resources abundant, and having full employment, all these 
consequences naturally follow, 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Let me pursue that a little further. That doesn't 
mean that these 30 billion dollars would have gone to the additional 
force of people. You mean 30 billion dollars in large part that the 
people already here would have had but were deprived of; is that 
correct ? Would these 30 billion dollars have gone to the increment of 
population or would they have gone to tlie existing population? 

Mr. Bean. Largely, since this is a statistical operation, it is the 
additional income that additional people would represent. Now, the 
interplay of more people getting more income and their effects upon 
the people who are already here is somewhat complex, but all I could 
do for this purpose is to indicate what is the economic equivalent of 
17 million people for the country as a whole and for the different 

Mr. EosENFiELD. One further question, Mr. Bean. You have men- 
tioned that had this additional population been here, we would have 
consumed domestically a million more bales of cotton. Figures that 
have been made available to the Commission show that since 1933, with 
the inception of the Commodity Credit Corporation, loans have been 
made for cotton to the extent of about 3i/2 billion dollars. Pre- 
sumably that is in part because of cotton surpluses that couldn't be 
used in the normal course of sales and had to be bought vip. Would 
you have any general estimate as to how much less than 31^ billion 
dollars it would have cost the American taxpayer if we could have 
had this additional outlet for cotton? 

Mr, Bean. No. I have no way of measuring that ; but, if you want 
a very rough suggestion, this 10 or 11 percent that I have pointed to 
is, of course, the cumulative effect up to 1950. These operations cover 
the entire period from 1933 to date, I take it. So, if the central point 
of this period is around 1940 instead of 1950, then you might assume 
that not a 10-percent difference would be involved but, say, a 5- or 6- or 


7-pei'cent difference, and that would be my first order of approximti- 
tion, in answer to your question. Instead of 3l^ billion dollars, it 
mifjht have cost us 6 or 7 percent less than that. 

Mr, RosENFiELD. And would the same general approximation apply 
to wheat and corn and cattle ? 

The Chairman. These loans don't represent losses. Mr. Rosen- 
field said "loans," but then he asked you whether, if we had had the 
additional population, it would have decreased the cost to the Amer- 
ican people, which might be assuming the loans were not repaid. 

Mr. Bean. In the case of cotton, actually, I think, the bulk of the 
operations turned out to be profitable. I think all I could say with 
regard to this type of question is that, if a shortage of demand was 
part of the difficulty, then additional consumers would have alleviated 
part of that difficulty. 

The Chairman. Of course, we might have had more loans because 
you would have had a larger cotton crop, and to carry it temporarily 
you might have had to finance it some way. 

Commissioner 0'Git.\DY. I wonder, Mr. Bean, in light of your think- 
ing, how you would explain the thinking of some American economists 
from 1920 to 1929 — and even carried back a little bit earlier, from 
1910 — who voiced the opinion that we were getting more people than 
could be absorbed into the economy. 

Mr. Bean. I have dabbled in the field of economics, and I have 
found it difficult many times to explain the thinking of economists. 
Just as a broad answer to the general question, I think economists, 
like businessmen and politicians and others, tend to fall into some 
easy generalizations, and it was common to say that, if you increase 
the supply of labor, obviously you must reduce its price or its value. 
And I wonder if economists in those days were able to do anything 
more tlian to fall back on that very simple generalization. 

I don't think there was any statistical evidence in the 1920's, for 
exam})ie, that we were beginning to be bothered tremendously by 
technological unemployment. The records now don't show it, al- 
though I seem to remember that economists and others were greatly 
disturbed about it. Now, there may have been some technological 
unemployment problems in particular industries, but it certainly was 
not a national difficulty. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. I have heard economists express the opin- 
ion that the United States could absorb an additional 1 percent to 
the labor force at the present time. In view of your observations, 
that would appear to be a rather cautious attitude. How do you 
explain that? 

Mr. Bean. Well, it is the business of economists to pi'oceed cau- 
tiously, but may I point out where their caution lies. If you recall 
that first chart where we saw the great decline in immigration almost 
to a zero level in the 1930's, and now up to a level only one-sixth of 
what I estimate to be normal, it seems to me 3^ou have to bear in mind 
that from that standpoint there is an accumulated shortage, and to 
increase our labor force by a mere 1 percent doesn't begin to close 
the. gap between the present level of immigration and what I would 
call the potentially desirable level of immigration. Historically, it 
is true that we have added to our labor force approximately 1 percent, 
because this record indicates that immigration has amounted to about 
1 percent of the total population, and presumably approximately 


that percentage of the labor force. But I am impressed by the fact 
that for a number of years now we have created what I call here a 
loss or a potential loss in population and manpower. If wc were 
undertaking to raise our population to where I think it should have 
been, statistically speaking, say up to 168 million instead of 151 million, 
then you have to add more than a mere 1 percent to the labor force. 
Whether that can be done instantaneously is another problem. But 
the economists who are cautious, I think, are cautious because they 
are concerned with what might happen if you increase the present 
numbers. They have not, I believe, dealt with this question of what 
is the upper limit of that policy. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Bean. We appreciate 
your presenting your statement and your charts. 

Mr. Goodwin, you are the next witness. 


Mr. Goodwin. My name is Robert C. Goodwin ; I am Director of the 
Bureau of Employment Security. 

]\fr. Chairman and members of the Commission, the Secretary of 
Labor, Maurice Tobin, was sorry he couldn't be here this morning to 
testify in person on what he considers to be a very important subject. 
He has asked me to preesnt for him his statement on this matter ; so, 
I would like to read his statement. At the conclusion of that, if there 
are any questions, particularly in the area of manpower, I will be 
glad to try to answer them. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear the Secretary's state- 

Mr. Goodwin (reading Secretary Tobin's statement). Mr. Chair- 
man and members of the President's Commission on Immigration and 
Naturalization, I wish at the outset to express my appreciation for 
this opportunity to present the views of the Department on the very 
important question of what our national immigration policy should 

In formulating an immigration policy there are a number of con- 
siderations whicli must be borne in mind. One of the first considera- 
tions I would like to emphasize is the necessity for insuring that im- 
migration does not displace American workers from employment and 
does not adversely affect their wages and other working conditions. 
To the same extent we must insure that immigration is not used as a 
means of exploiting those who come into the country for employment. 
The capacity of the country, from the standpoint of available eco- 
nomic opportunities, natural resources, and geographical area, to ab- 
sorb additional population of course must govern. A major considera- 
tion should be our manpower needs and the contribution that immi- 
gration can make toward satisfying these needs. Because of our his- 
torical humanitarian tradition and ])articularly in view of our position 
of world leadership, we must not lose sight of the need of persons 
abroad to migrate because of political and religious persecution or 
because of surplus populations which threaten economic and political 
stability in countries vulnerable to communism. 


By the same token I want to state emphatically that we cannot lose 
sight of the dangers of Commimist infiltration as a threat to our na- 
tional life. We must take firm and effective measures to prevent the 
entry into our land of Communists and others who would undermine 
our institutions and our democratic system of Government. 

Qualities or circumstances for which we should look in admitting 
persons to this country for permanent residence are those of health, 
mentality, morality, occupational skills, financial responsibility, fam- 
ily ties in this country, and devotion to ideals similar to ours. These 
certainly should be framed in terms of standards and should govern 
tlie admission and exclusion of aliens. 

You will note that these considerations do not include the invidious 
ones of race, color, religion, or the national origin of prospective irn- 
migrants. Such considerations have no place in an American immi- 
gration policy of this day, and they should be eliminated from our 
immigration policy and laws. 

The present national-origin quota system was enacted into law in 
1924. It was frankly designed, among other things, to restrict im- 
migration from countries in eastern and southern Europe on the 
ground that persons from those countries were not suitable for assimi- 
lation into the life of this country as those from England, Ireland, or 
Germany. The clear implications of the national-origin quota system 
are that persons of certain national backgrounds are physically, men- 
tally, or morally superior to those of other national backgrounds. 

After 28 years, it is time that we discarded this concept, which 
never had any scientific or other logical basis. It has been a national 
policy of many years' standing to eliminate as rapidly as possible 
discrimination in all areas based on race, color, religion, or national 
origin. In the 28 years since the national-origin quota system was 
enacted we have made much progress in the elimination of such dis- 
criminations in housing, education, employment, and military serv- 
ice. It is high time that these discriminations were also eliminated 
from our immigration policy. 

Of course, there has to be a numerical limitation on the number of 
pei'sons who can be admitted for permanent residence each year. 
That limitation, however, should be based on our needs and our capac- 
ity to absorb additional population. Since these concepts are subject 
to fluctuation, the overall numerical limitation should not be static; 
provision should be made for flexibility. It may be desirable, for 
example, for the Congress to ])rovide a minimum and a maximum figure 
and to authorize the President periodically to establish a quota in 
between those figures or for the Congress to provide a periodic review 
of a maximum fixed in the law. Perhaps a joint congressional com- 
mittee would be useful in making such a review. Such flexibility 
would, among other things, enable us to take into consideration emer- 
gency needs for migration and to meet them within the framework of 
our permanent immigration statutes without the enactment of tem- 
porary emergency legislation such as the Displaced Persons Act, and 
the })roposed "Special Migration Act." 

1 realize that the Commission would like to have from the Depart- 
ment of Labor an expression of its opinion as to the number of immi- 
grants which the country can absorb each year. While we are not 
prepared to state a maximum in precise numbers, there is no doubt 


that assiiinino;' a continuation of present economic conditions we could 
safely absorb substantially more than the 155,000 quota immigrants 
that are authorized by Public Law 414, which will become effective in 
December of this year. The peak immioration in recent years was 
approximately 250,000 in 1950. I am not aware that it caused any 
economic or social dislocations or that American workers were ad- 
versely affected. 

Any estimate, of course, depends upon the past and expected de- 
velopments in our population and labor force. Mr. Ewan Clague, 
Commissioner of Labor Statistics for the Department, will give in 
greater detail a statistical presentation of these developpments. As 
an over-all conclusion, I would say that the future holds for us a 
continuing fairly tight situation, so far as manpower resources are 
concerned, and that we may safely gage our immigration policies 
accordingly. Of course, any figure arrived at would be subject to 
ready revision under proAnsions for flexibility which I have recom- 

An immigration policy such as we have in mind would, as I have 
indicated at the outset, provide foi- pi-eferences on a reasonable basis. 
One would be on the basis of qualifications or skills which are needed 
in this country. In this respect we could call n])on our experience 
under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which granted preferences 
to persons possessing special educational, scientific, technical, profes- 
sional, or other occupational skills or qualifications needed in the 
localities of the United States in which the persons to be admitted 
proposed to reside. It should be borne in mind, however, that many 
of the skills we need are becoming increasingly short in other parts 
of the world. We would not want to weaken the defense programs 
of our allies. More emjjhasis, therefore, should be placed on admitting 
persons capable of being trained. 

To assist in carrying out such ])rovisions, we have a fully function- 
ing Nation-wide public employment service, which incidentally we did 
not have when the Immigration Act of 1924 was enacted. The public 
employment offices have extensive information as to the employment 
conditions and manpower needs in the areas which they serve. !RIeans 
should be provided for making the facilities of the United States 
Employment Service available to prospective immigrants on an 
organized basis. 

One aspect of Public Law 414 deserves special mention. The law 
repeals the contract-labor provisions of the expiring law and will 
substitute for them, first, a provision for giving preference in the 
allocation of quota ninnbers to the extent of 50 percent of the quota 
for each area to immigrants whose services are determined by the 
Attorney General to be needed because of their education, training, 
experience, or ability, and, secondly, a provision ])ermitting the admis- 
sion of non-preference-quota immigrants and nonquota immigrants 
for the i:)urpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor unless the 
Secretary of Labor has determined and certified that — 

(A) sufficient workers iii the United States who are able, willing, and qualified 
are available at the time (of application for a visa and for admission to the 
ITiiited States) and place (to which the alien is destined) to perform such 
skilled or unskilled labor, or 

(B) the employment of such aliens will adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of the workers in the United States similarly employed. 


Difficulties have arisen in attempting to devise procedures by which 
the Secretary of Labor can carry out his responsibihties to prevent 
the innnigration of workers for settlement in areas in which there 
are "sufficient workers" and whose employment would ''adversely 
affect tlie wages and working conditions of workers in the United 
States similarly employed.'' 

The expiring law excluded contract labor from entry for permanent 
residence with exceptions for certain occupations and with further 
authority conferred to permit entry of skilled workers under con- 
ditions established by the Attorney Genferal. This system has given 
us a real measure of control over entry and placed us in a position 
to prevent, in advance, unwarranted entry. Public Law 414, how- 
ever, reverses this procedure so as to admit all Avho are otherwise 
qualified unless exclusionary action is taken by the Secretary. This 
reversal creates numerous administrative problems. The red tape 
involved in measuring sufficiency' of domestic workers and the adverse 
effect of entry of foreign workers may mean that they will have been 
permitted to enter before any effective determination can be made 
that they should have been excluded. 

Because Public Law 414 has not yet become effective, the exact 
scope of the problems created by the new appi'oach of this law cannot 
be anticipated. Xevertheless we are concerned about and are watch- 
ing closely one area of possible nonquota immigration of woods workers 
from Canada who, after entry for permanent residence and needed 
woi'k in the woods, might move to other work in other areas where 
surplus labor presently exists. We are, of course, planning appro- 
priate consultation and action to head off this possible problem. I 
am just citing this as an example of what we will be faced with 
on a recurring basis under Public Law 414. I am very much afraid 
that in one situation or another this provision of the law may put 
us in a position of acting too late to prevent unwarranted and 
economically harmful entry of foreign workers. 

With the elimination of the national origin quotas the problem 
would, of course, become more acute. For these reasons I think 
it would be wise, in any event, to reenact, with some revisions, the 
present prohibition against the admission of contract laborers, which 
Public Law 414 eliminates. These revisions should include provision 
for the type of employment assistance which the various religious 
and charitable agencies have been giving to immigrants under the 
displaced-persons program. Provision should be made also for per- 
mitting employers to obtain skilled and unskilled w^orkers from 
abroad when it has been determined by the Department of Labor 
that such workers are not available within the United States as is 
done at present only with respect to skilled workers under the so-called 
fourth proviso of the expiring law. 

As another step toward giving effect to the all-im])ortant need 
for insuring adequate protection for American workers, the Com- 
mission should consider and I recommend the return of the Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Service to the Department of Labor. 

As you know, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was 
in the Department of Labor and its predecessor agencies from the 
time of the inception of the Service until 1940, when it was trans- 
ferred to the Department of Justice. This historical association of 
the Innniffration and Naturalization Service with the administra- 


tion of economic and labor supply programs in the Department of 
Labor was no accident. With almost 10 million immigrants entering 
the country between 1900 and 1910 immigration was a major factor 
in the American labor supply. The Division of Infoi-mation of the 
Bureau of Immigration, set up to disseminate information to immi- 
grants of the employment opportunities available in the different 
parts of the country, was the nucleus from which grew a general place- 
ment service and, eventually, the United States Employment Service. 

Recent considerations of immigration policies and administration 
have been most concerned with regulation and control. These are 
important as])ects but they sliould be viewed in the light of present 
economic and political conditions. Our immigration policy should 
be developed witli out ability to absorb additional population and the 
manpower need of an expanding economy, as principal considera- 
tions. It is in these areas that the Department of Labor can make its 
greatest contribution to the administration and development of immi- 
gration policies. In the Department of Labor tlie Immigration and 
Naturalization Service would have the benefit of day-to-clay contacts 
with the United States Employment Service with its current labor- 
market information and its knowledge of the manpower needs of the 
country, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics with its statistics re- 
lating to economic conditions, and with other bureaus of the Depart- 
ment, each of which could make a distinctive contribution to the formu- 
lation of an enlightened immigration policy. 

In addition to its retention of the discriminatory national origin 
quota system. Public Law 414 has several provisions which fail to 
provide fairness to those who have become naturalized citizens or 
are being excluded or deported. The Commission has already heard 
much testimony on these shortcomings of the act. I recommend action 
to remedy these defects wherever they occur. 

In the event that there is delay in the development of a compre- 
hensive revision of the immigration laws, the Department of Labor 
recommends, as a short-term measure, the enactment of emergency 
legislation to meet the problems created by surplus population in cer- 
tain European countries and by the continued influx of political ref- 
ugees from behind the iron curtain into Western Europe. Favorable 
consideration should be given to the Celler and Hendrickson bills 
(H. R. 737() and S. 3109) to authorize the issuance of 300,000 special 
nonquota immigration visas over a 3-year period to political and re- 
ligious refugees from connnunism, to persons of German ethnic ori- 
gin, and to natives of Italy, Greece, and the Netherlands. The eco- 
nomic and political problems created by surplus population and by 
the presence of political refugees in Western Europe are serious. We 
must participate in their solution both as a matter of our self-interest 
and as an exercise of the moral leadership which is expected of us. 

It is quite clear at this point that Western Europe has a substantial 
surplus population available for immigration, of a magnitude that 
cannot be dissipated by immigration to the United States alone. This 
surplus has been estimated at from three to four million persons. 
Spontaneous migration from Western Europe is of the magnitude of 
220,000 a year, which is not sufiicient to offset the anmuil growth of 
surplus, let alone to contribute to its removal. 

The task of alleviating the problem of Western Europe's over- 
population is a task not alone for the United States, but for the entire 


free world. The stakes involved for us are the same stakes for which 
the entire community of free nations is striving. Over and above 
what we ourselves do to admit immigrants there is an additional con- 
tribution that can be made by governments working together. With 
persistence and imagination, and with some resources, new avenues 
of immigration can be opened to a gi'eat number of other areas of 
the world — especially those areas that are now underdeveloped, and 
whose full development cannot proceed satisfactorily. 

This is a problem which the International Labor Organization and 
the other agencies of the United Nations have dealt with in the past 
few years. In part, it is the problem to which nations on both sides 
of the Atlantic have addressed themselves in the Provisional Inter- 
governmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe. 
It has become increasingly clear that a major international effort, 
of the kind which can be best done through the facilities of the United 
Nations, is needed. 

Mr. Goodwin. I would like to say at this point, Mr. Chairman and 
members of the Commission, that if you would like we would be 
glad to submit a supplemental memorandum giving additional infor- 
mation on the international implications of this on the point I have 
just made. 

The Chairman. We would like to have it, Mr. Goodwin. 

Mr. Goodwin. We would be very glad to submit it. 

Mr. Goodwin (continuing with Secretary Tobin's statement). In 
conclusion, I wish to summarize the principle which should govern a 
revision of our immigration laws. First, we must leave behind the 
national origins quota system as a thing of the past and a method 
of unfair discrimination. Second, we must look squarely at the labor 
needs of our country. Within a framework of over-all quota limita- 
tions, we should admit or exclude applicants for entry in accordance 
with reasonable objective standards which assure that those who enter 
are qualified for citizenship. At the same time, some provision should 
be made for giving effect to particular foreign policies through per- 
mitting immigration. Finally I want to emphasize the imperative 
necessity of barring from entry any individuals such as Communists, 
who would undermine our society and institutions. 

An immigration program based upon these principles would be 
fair to our own citizens and to the citizens of other countries. At 
the same time I believe that such a program would be administratively 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Goodwin. Do you know whether 
Mr. Clague, in his testimony, is going to cover the question as to the 
additional amount of immigration that may be needed in industrial 
occupations throu2:hout the country? 

Mr. Goodwin. Yes, sir; his testimony will cover that. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. With respect to section 203 (a) providing 
that 50 percent of the quota of each quota area shall be made available 
to skilled immigrants, whose services are found by the Attorney 
General to be needed urgently in the United States, I am somewhat 
puzzled about what you say, Mr. Goodwin, about the authority of 
your Department in its relationship to the authority of the Attorney 
General to pass on those applications for admission. Are you saying 
that the Secretary of Labor has authority to prevent the admission of 


that 50 percent determined by the Attorney General to be needed 
under section 203 ? 

Mr. Goodwin. Well, the only authority we have of that kind is a 
delegated one by the Attorney General in terms of a certification from 
the Department of Labor as to the existence of our own domestic 

Commissioner O'Grady. But does the Secretary of Labor have any 
jurisdiction over this 50 percent of skilled immifrrants under section 
203 if the Attorney G-eneral does not see fit to ask his advice as to their 
need ? 

Mr. Goodwin. Well, as far as that p-oup is concerned, I believe that 
is rioht. Over and above the 50 percent, there is 25 percent that has 
no limitation on it, and then there are those from the countries of the 
Western Hemisphere, nonquota group, where we have the same prob- 
lem. That is the kind of problem I referred to that exists with the 
Canadian woods workers and might present itself in terms of some 
of the other countries in the Western Hemisphere. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Can you tell us how this would be admin- 
istered as a matter of practice? 

Mr. Goodwin. There are theoretically ways that it can be done, and 
we have explored those with the Department of Justice. They have 
said that the load on them would be greater than they could handle, 
at least with present resources, and they have indicated that they 
consider them administratively infeasible. 

Commissioner O'Grady. From the standpoint of the Attorney Gen- 
eral, how do you think this can be administered? 

Mr. Goodwin. When they get the individual application and find 
out where that person intends to go in this country and what kind of 
work he intends to enter or what the relationship is that he may have 
worked out with the employer — when they get all that information, 
then the way the law is written, about the only way you can check 
on those items is to check with us individually on that person, and it 
is on that basis that Justice has said that they couldn't handle the load. 

The Chairman. Thank 3'ou very much, Mr. Goodwin. The record 
will be kept open at this point for the insertion of the supplemental 
memorandum dealing with the international implications of Western 
Europe's overpopulation, which you have olfered to furnish us. 

(The supplemental memorandum follows:) 

Supplementary Statement of the Department of Labor Staff on Interna- 
tional Efforts to Deal With the Problems op Surplus Population in 
Western Europe 

It is quite clear at this point that Western Europe has a substantial surplus 
population available for emigration, of a magnitude that cannot be dissipated 
by emigration to the United States alone. This surplus has been estimated at 
from three to four million persons. All recent estimates of the situation — those 
made by the Director-General of the International Labor Organization in con- 
nection with the consideration of the problem at the ILO's Naples Migration Con- 
ference in 1951, by the Secretai-y General of the United Nations in his report to 
the Economic and Social Council of the U. N. in 10.51, and by the Director of 
PICMME in his report to the recently concluded session of that organization — 
agree on these figures. These estimates are confirmed by our own information 
from United States missions abroad. 

Spontaneous migration from Western Europe is of the magnitude of 220.000 a 
year, which is not sufficient to offset the annual growth of surplus, let alone to 
contribute to its removal. 


The task of alleviating the problem of Western Europe's overpopulation is a 
task not alone for the United States, but for the entire free vrorld. The stakes 
involved for us are the same stakes for which the entire community of free na- 
tions is striving. Over and above what we ourselves do to admit immigrants 
there is an additional contribution that can be made by governments working 
together. With persistence and imagination, and with some resources, new 
avenues of immigration can be opened to a great number of other areas of the 
world — especially those areas that are now underdeveloped, and whose full 
development canont proceed satisfactorily unless their lack of trained manpower 
is overcome. 

Tlie present problem of Western European surplus largly involves an entirely 
different kind of problem than is involved in either present spontaneous immigra- 
tion or the refugee migration of the recent past. Unlike the refugees, the 
European surplus is a citizen surplus. The people involved have status, rights, 
benefits to their credit under national social security systems. Unlike i-efugees, 
they have responsibilities of citizenship in their countries, and their countries, 
have obligations toward them as citizens. A basic problem, in addition to the 
provision of immigration opportunity, is that of inducing the worker to pull up 
deep roots and go to another land to live. This would not be much of a problem 
if the United States were a land of unlimited immigration possibilities. But this 
is not the case, and potential migrants to other lands, particulai-ly the under- 
developed countries of the world, want some assurance that there will be reason- 
able opportunities for employment when they arrive, and either some transfer- 
rence of the rights the.v have acquired at home or an outlook for the future in 
the new land that will warrant abandoning those rights at home. A part of the 
surplus problem is the problem of refugees from behind the iron curtain. Wh'le 
some of these persons are now stateless refugees in a sense similar to the state- 
lessness of the wartime refugees, the great bulk are Germans who have fled from 
East nermnny to West Germany and have statiis within the German citizenry. 

This prol)lem of surplus population in Western Europe is one to which the ILO 
and the other agencies of the United Nations have addressed themselves in the 
last few years. In part, it is the problem to which nations on both sides of the 
Atlantic have addressed themselves in the Provisional Intergovernmental Com- 
mittee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe. It has become increasingly 
clear that a ma.ior international effort, of the kind which can be best done 
through the facilities of the United Nations, is needed. 

The ILO, the FAO, the WHO, and UNESCO have, in their technical-assistance 
programs, given high priority to the promotion of migration and have shaped 
specific programs to this end. Leadership among U. N. agencies has been assumed 
by the ILO. whose role in this respect is based on official U. N. administrative 
action. PICMME has concentrated on the problem of transport, and the IBRD 
on the problem of financing migration in connection with economic development. 

The ILO, for example, with funds contributed by the Organization for Euro- 
pean Economic Cooperation (OEEC), an oi'ganization of the European nations 
receiving Marshall plan aid, has undertaken several projects basic to the facilita- 
tion of migration such as, for example, the major task of developing international 
comparabilit.v of occupational classification through an instrument like our own 
Dictionary of Occupational Titles that helps to coordinate occupational selection 
and placement work among nations. This task is basic to a sound international 
migration program. Its achievement is truly a landmark, and should do much 
to facilitate the international recriiitment of the skills that are desired. 

The ILO has sent technical missions to several countries, including a number 
in Latin America, with the specific objective of opening up new immigration 
sources. The recent report of the ILO's special representative to Brazil, presented 
in conjunction with the development of a legishitive program within Brazil, is 
an outstanding example of a promising teclmical-assistance venture. 

The activity of the ILO began as long ago as 1920, when the organization set 
up a committee to study and develop measures to protect migrant workers. The 
standards which have since been developed, at various times, are the basic world 

After World War II the ILO intensified its work in migration, and finally 
developed a major program that was presented at the 1951 Migration Conference 
held in Naples. The Naples Conference did not adopt the proposals of the ILO. 
At the time. United States concern, as expressed by the United States delegate 
to the Naples Conference, and as evidenced by United States congressional action, 
was concentrated exclusively upon the preservation of transportation facilities 

25356—52 88 


about to be surrendei-ed by the IRO. The United States Government indicated 
that it was not prepared to embark upon longer-range and more far-reaching 
proposals for other international steps to aid migration, such as financial or other 
assistance in the development of national immigration plans. 

The FAO has been engaged in the development of land-settlement schemes 
which might afford an outlet for migrants. The AVHO has, together with ILO, 
been working on the question of the medical standards which might be used in 
connection with migration administration programs. UNESCO has developed 
programs for language training of migrants. 

PICMME has provided transportation facilities for the movement of migrants 
under existing governmental plans for movement, where the provision or financ- 
ing of transportation facilities has been an obstacle. At recent PICMME meet- 
ings there has been a considerable expression of interest by other governments, 
particialarly those of the underdeveloped countries, in the development of an 
international migration program that goes beyond the furnishing of 

The questions (a) of further development of the substance of an international 
migration program, and (ft) determination of the most appropriate international 
mechanism for carrying out such a program will be important issues before the 
United States Government in the period ahead. 

Each of the agencies concerned with migration problems has found that its 
programs will help to facilitate the movement of migrants and even to get some 
movement started. But it has been quite clear that any major additional move- 
ment of migrants, in numbers sufficient to meet the needs of the situation, would 
require substantially new financial outlays, broader application of technical 
assistance techniques, and a ma.lor new effort directed at mastering the develop- 
ment of new immigration opportunities in the receiving counti'ies, as well as 
discovering and, if necessary, helping to finance the utilization of existing migra- 
tion opportunities. 

It is clear that this effort cannot be the financing of migration per se, but that 
it must be tied intimately to the financing of general economic development. 
It is also clear that, if proper technical attention is given to the matter, many 
developmental situations in the world that are now under way or seeking financ- 
ing can become substantial areas for the absorption of migrants, and that new 
in-migrant blood and skills can make major contributions to these efforts. The 
reports of technicians that have come to our attention indicate that this is the 
case in situation after situation. 

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as the 
United States Export-Import Bank, have indicated their willingness to consider 
the financing of migration costs in connection with economic development pro- 
grams. In one major case, that of Australia, a major bank loan was predicated 
on the contribution that a developmental and in-migration program could make 
to the Australian economy. Additional positive steps are needed, in connection 
with these banking operations and in connection with our own point 4 activity, 
to insure that maximum advantage is taken of hitherto-neglected opportunities 
to promote migration in connection with all United States financial expenditures 
in the underdeveloped areas. 

The files of United States Government agencies, for example, will show a 
number of specific programs for development of economically sound migration 
projects in Latin America that have failed to come to fruition solely because 
of inadequate technical preparation and lack of financing. 

Too often, those concerned with economic development have assumed that 
basic development, once achieved, will cause an automatic flow of migration 
without special effort. While this may be true to a certain extent, it is also 
true that vast additional opportunities for migration can be developed if special 
technical activity of a kind not now being given is directed specifically toward 
migration goals in connection with development work. This calls for specially 
trained and directed staff, preferably attached to point 4 and U. N. technical assist- 
ance missions concerned with general economic development and development 

The question of additional capital funds for promoting immigration oppor- 
tunities cannot be separated from the question of additional funds for economic 
development generally. The question of additional capital funds for develop- 
ment generally is under active discussion within the United Nations and the 
governments chiefly involved in the question of possible financial contribution, 
notably the United States. We do not desire to comment on the general question 
of flnancing economic development. We should like to say this, however, that 


^vhenever and to whatever extent additional funds are made available, there 
should be a clear and forthri^'ht statement of intention to use these funds in such 
a way as to maximize the creation and utilization of migration opportunities 
stemming from such economic development. 

Efforts to promote migration should not wait upon the realization of such 
funds, however. Steps can and sliould be taken now, through the technical 
assistance facilities of the U. N. and its specialized agencies, to develop and pro- 
mote immigration opportunities wherever it is feasible to do so. There is today 
general recognition of the fact that the technical assistance f;icilities of the U. N. 
agencies are the most promising resource for action. The report of the Director 
of PICMMB, dated October 6. 1952, on Technical Aid and International Financ- 
ing for the Encouragement of Migratory Movements from Europe is in part a 
catalog of what the U. N. technical assistance progi-am can do and is doing to 
promote migration. It illustrates the basic reliance that must be placed on the 
U. N. agencies in the development of an international program. 

The United States should be prepared to support, together with other nations, 
special activities of the United Nations anil its si>eciaiized agencies, such as the 
ILO, in this area. If additional funds are needed, the United States should be 
prepared to contribute to joint efforts. Only in this way can the full resources 
of the free world be mobilized to attack the problem of overpopulation in Western 
Europe. Vvithout such a cooperative international program, not only will the 
problem grow in intensity — with all this means to the disruption of the economic 
and social stability in those free nations of the world which we are helping to 
reconstruct economically and militarily — but increasing pressiu-e will be brought 
to bear in the United States to provide, alone, the tinancing and the immigration 
opportunities necessary to relieve the problem. 

It is the opinion of the Dei'artment of Labor stalf that recommendations along 
the lines suggested above — emphasis on special point 4 and U. N. staff to add 
migration content to development projects, statements of policy intent in legis- 
lation and in international instruments to use developmental funds to aid 
migration, and United States support of special U. N. activities to promote inter- 
national efforts to deal with the problems of surplus population in Western 
Europe — should be included in the Commission's report to the President, in a 
manner which can form the basis of administrative and legislative programs. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Ewan Clagiie here? 


Mr. Clague. I am Ewan CI ague, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, 
United States Department of Labor. 

With your permission, I shall like to read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. We sliall be pleased to hear it. 

Mr. Cl.\gue. The President, in establishing the special Commission 
on Immigration and Naturalization, has stated that our immigration 
laws are "based on conditions and assumptions that have long ceased 
to exist." The obligation to reassess our immigration policies in terms 
of our national interest is the basis for the directive that the Com- 
mission consider "the admission of immigrants into this country in 
the light of our ]:>resent and prospective economic and social condi- 
tions and of other pertinent considerations." 

My testimony seeks to present facts pertinent to this particular 
responsibility of the Commission, with special reference to the fore- 
seeable elfect, in the present decade, of various annual rates of immi- 
gration upon our economy and the Nation's work force. 

We consider these facts under domestic and world conditions radi- 
cally different than those existing earlier in this century. However, 
it is possible that some of our present views about immigration have 
their origin in thinking and attitudes toward our economy which pre- 
vailed during earlier periods. An appraisal of our views in the light 


of present conditions is important to rational consideration of the- 
urgent problems which confront us today. 

Chanoing views of our economy today reflect changing trends in 
population growth which have occurred in the last decade, in contrast 
to earlier decades. Despite increases in the number of people in the 
United States, the rate of po])ulation growth tended to decline- 
throughout the past century until the 1940's. A long-term downward 
trend in birth rates and, after World War I, drastic restrictions on 
immigration resulted in a slowing down in population growth. Dur- 
ing the 1930's, the long-term downward trend in births was accelerated 
as depressed economic conditions led to postponement of marriages^ 
deferral of births, and further curtailment of average family size. 
A birth rate in 1910 of about 30.1 per 1,000 in the population declined 
to a low of 18.4 in 1933. Despite reductions in mortality, the average 
annual rate of population increase dropped from 3 percent per year 
in the 1850's, to 1.5 percent during the 1920's, to 0.7 percent per year 
in the depressed 1930's. 

The decline in rate of growth was abruptly reversed during the 
decade of the 1940's when it reached the annual rate of 1.4 percent 
per year. A dramatic upsurge in birth rates was recorded, reaching a 
peak rate of 26.6 per thousand population and almost 4 million births 
in 1947. At present we see no signs of significant slackening of higher 
birth rates, the rate in 1951 being 25 per thousand. Factors con- 
tributing to this expectation are: First, a trend toward a younger 
average age at first marriage ; second, a possible reversal of the down- 
ward trend in average size of family; and, third, a reduction in fer- 
tility ditferentials among social and economic groups. The greatest 
relative increases in fertility during the past decade have occurred in 
the upper social and economic groups. 

On the basis of pre-1940 population trends, a continued decline 
in the rate of population growth with a leveling off and possible 
decline in absolute numbers, was expected by the end of the centur}^ 
For example, in 1947 a total United States population of between 
165 and 170 million was projected by the United States Bureau of the 
Census for 1975. Currently, in view of recent trends in births and a 
further sharp reduction in mortality, the population for 1975 has 
recently been estimated at 190 million. 

The recent changes in the size, composition, and distribution of 
the population have not only acted to accelerate the over-all rate of 
economic development in the United States, but have also profoundly 
influenced our expectations as to future economic trends. The shift 
from the exjiected further slowing down of population growth over 
to the anticipation of continued rapid growth in total population 
has been reflected in a greatly changed attitude toward economic 
development. From a tendency to emphasize problems of a "mature" 
economic structure leading to "stagiiation," we now are concerned 
primarily with questions related to a dynamic, expanding, and highly 
flexible economy. In some measure, we may ascribe the high rates 
of capital ex]:)enditures in recent years to this change in the climate 
of economic thinking. 

Our dynamic and expanding economy implies a corresponding 
growth in emi^loyment opportunities for our work force. Although 
we cannot rule out the strong possibility of short-term fluctuations 
in employment conditions, we may confidently look forward to a 


'Continued uptrend in our Nation's manpower needs. In addition 
to the secular trend toward higher levels of employment, there is to 
be considered the special manpower impact of our partial mobiliza- 
tion program. The scale of our national security efforts cannot be 
precisely foreseen in future years, but we must assume that for a 
long time to come it will be necessary to maintain our military and 
industrial strength at very high levels relative to that of earlier peace- 
time periods. This means, specifically, that our Armed Forces will 
■continue to require the services of a substantial segment of our young 
male population and that a significant fraction of our civilian work 
force will be engaged in the production of military goods. This 
sustained demand for manpower for national defense will be super- 
imposed on our expanding normal peacetime requirements. 

Tlie "normal"' growth of the work force results almost entirely 
from the additions of younger persons who reach working age and 
■enter gainful employment upon the completion of their schooling. 
Hence, it is relevant to consider some special problems which our 
partial mobilization program makes more acute because of certain 
•characteristics of our population growth. Several factors contribute 
to a reduction in the potential additions to the civilian work force 
which may be <^xpected from younger age groups during the present 

There has been a sharp increase in the number of young children 
in the population over tlie past decade, with about 81/2 million more 
children under age 10 in 1950 than we had in 1940. In contrast, the 
number in the age group which will provide the main additions to 
the Nation's work force during the next decade has actually declined. 
In 1950 there were '2 million fewer yomig people in the age group 
10 to 19 years than in 1910 — a decline of about 8 percent — reflecting 
the low birth rates of the depression of the 19o0's. As a result, the 
annual net inflows of young workers into the labor force are currently 
at the lowest point in many yeurs. 

Among 3'oung women, earlier age at marriage and increased birth 
rates have significantly affected the labor force potential of a large 
segment of the population. The proportion of women in the younger 
age groups in the labor force has declined over the past decade. In 
April 1950 about 41 percent of all women aged 20 to 24 years were 
in the labor force, com})ared with almost 48 percent in April 1940. 
In the context of the partial mobilization situation, higher marriage 
and birth rates mean th;it the number of additional young women 
that can readily be drawn into the labor force has been reduced. 

The number of young men annually reaching the military age of 
18, at about 1 million this 3'ear, is 200,000 less than in 1940. In order 
to reach and maintain present Armed Forces goals, we have had to 
draw on the backlog of men in the present selective service age groups 
(18 to 25) built up during the pre-Korea period when the draft was 
inoperative. Currently we are drawing more young men out of the 
selective service pool into the Armed Forces than enter this pool each 
year. As a result, the number of young men available for induction 
under the Universal ISIilitary Training and Service Act and present 
deferment policies will be comparatively low during most of the 
decade. Not until the end of this decade will the number of men 
coming of age for military service begin to rise significantly as a 
result of the higher birth rates of the 1940"'s. In 1960, it is estimated 


that the number of men 18 years of age will total nearly 1.4 million^ 
or more than 1300,000 higher than this year. 

The preceding facts serve to emphasize the frequently reiterated 
statement that, in comparison with countries found within the Soviet 
orbit, our greatest relative shortage is in manpower resources. Our 
national self-interest requires that every consideration of our situation^ 
inckiding immigration policies, recognize this paramount fact. 

The effect of inflows of immigration upon our economy, population, 
and work force is a vital consideration. A rational view of this can 
be attained by understanding the particular facts in relation to the 
whole. These are presented in table 1 below which projects the popu- 
lation and labor force until 19()0 under assumptions of net annual 
immigration of 100,000, 200,000, 800,000, and 400,000. 

According to these projections a net annual immigration of 300,000, 
from this year until 1960, would result in an addition to the population 
of a total of 2.6 million. This would represent 1.5 percent of a total 
projected population of about 172 million. 

By 1960, the annual net immigration of 300,000 persons would add 
1,3 million workers to the labor force. In a projected total labor force 
of almost 73 million by 1960, the proportion resulting from immi- 
gration constitutes only 1.8 percent of the total. To recapitulate, a 
net immigration of 300,000 a year would constitute, by 1960, less than 
2 percent of the total population and work force. 

Another view is obtained by estimating the effect of immigration 
on the rates of population growth, in comparison with rates during 
preceding decades. Table 2 below presents the annual rates of popula- 
tion growth in each decade since 1850, and estimates the rate during 
the present decade under varying assumptions of net immigi^ation. 
With immigration of 300,000 a year until I960, the annual rate of 
popidation increase would be 1.3 percent — less than the annual rate 
in any decade except the depression 1930's. An annual inflow of tliis 
size would increase the rate of growth only two-tenths of a percent 
above that wliich would occur if there were no innnigi'ation whatsoever 
after July 1, 1952. 

Additional facts serve to give perspective on the effects of possible 
inflow of 300,000 or more immigrants a year. Experience of previous 
decades provides a sharp contrast. In the decade 1900-1910, when 
our total population increased 16 million, more than 50 percent of 
the increase was directly due to a peak immigration of 8.8 million. 
In the following decade immigrants constituted about 40 percent, or 
5.7 million in a total population increase of 13.7 million. In the decade 
1950-1960, on the other hand, an average annual net inflow of 300,- 
000 immigrants would constitute only 1.5 j^ercent of the popula- 
tion growth during the decade. With an annual inflow of 400,000, the 
proportion would be 2 percent.^ 

These tremendous increments tx3 our total population in the past 
may be compared, with some relevance, to recent drastic internal 
shifts in our population which occurred between 1940 and 1950. A 
vivid exam])le is found in the State of California, whose population 
increased about 53 percent during this decade. Of the total increase 

^ Tlie figures on increases due to immigration are for persons who entered the country 
during that particular decade. They do not include the additions due to births among 
these immigrants or among those of preceding decades. The projections to 1960 do include 
estimated births among immigrants. 


of almost 4 million in that State's population, about 2.6 million — 72 
percent of the increase — were in-miffrants from other States. More- 
over, the non white population of the State during this decade increased 
116 percent (a total of over 350,000 persons), in comparison with an 
increase of 50 percent in the white population. The additions to the 
nonwhite population resulted from the migration of Negroes from 
other States, primarilj^ from the predominantly agi'icultural States in 
the South, in response to wartime employment opportunities. They 
have remained to participate in the expanding peacetime economy of 

In presenting figures of 300,000 and 400,000, I am not, of course, 
indicating that these would be the appropriate maximum figures to 
place in an immigration law. I mention them only for the purpose 
of giving the Commission some basis for judging their possible effect, 
particularly in view of the fact that frequent testimony has advocated 
the yearly admission of 300.000 or more. 

Table 1. — Projections of population and lahor force, July 1955 and 1960,^ under 
varying assumptions of net annual immigration after July 1, 1952 

Immigration assumption 

Population, all 




Labor force, 14 
years and over 



Assuming no net Immigration after July 1, 1952 

Assuming net annual immigration after July 1, 1952, of: 





Additions to population or labor force resulting from net annual 
immigration of: 



300,000 - 


Percent of total resulting from net annual immigration of: 





























1 Based on population projections of the U. S. Bureau of the Census assuming medium trends in birth 
and death rates. 

Note. — Figures do not necessarily add to total because of rounding. 
Soiuce: U. S. Bureau of the Census and U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 


Table 2. — Population growth in each decade, 1850-60, with 1960 projected under 
various assumptions of vet annual immigration after July 1952 



Net increase 
per decade 

Annual rate 

of increase 

in preceding 











105. 7 











1880 . 









1930 _ . 


1940 . 


1950 1 . 


1960 ' 2 _ 

Assuming no net immigration after July 1, 1952 






Assuming net annual immigration after July 1, 1952, of: 



200,000 - . 






' Includes Armed Forces overseas. 

2 Based on population projections of the U. S. Bureau of the Census assuming medium trends la birth 
and death rates. 

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census and U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The Chairman. Thank you very mucli, Mr. Clague. 

Mr. KosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should 
like to submit for incorporation in the record at this point a commu- 
nication received from the Honorable Charles A, Coolidge, Office of 

The Chairman. It may be inserted in the record. 

(The communication follows:) 

Statement Submitted by Hon. Charles A. Coolidge, Assistant Secretary of 


Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
Washington 25, D. C, October 25, 1952. 
Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director of the PrcHidcnfs Commission on Ininiigrution and 
Naturalization, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Rosenfield : I am writing this letter as the result of a conference 
with yourself and Mr. Jackson of my staff at which I am advised it was decided 
that oral testimony would not be presented before the Commission but instead 
a written statement would be submitted. While the Department of Defense 
wishes to cooperate fully with the C'onnnission and is willing to testify if re- 
quested, in view of the limited information we have to submit I agree that a 
written statement is preferable. 

The Department of Defense expresses no opinion with respect to the issues 
involved in the broad question of the desirability of quotas as provided in Public 
Law 414, since it is not within the Department's field of responsibility. 

The Department of Defense has not found that the security provisions in the 
law have hampered the securing of personnel for the Department of 
Whatever the requirements might be from the standpoint for security for en- 
trance into the country, the Department's own criteria for acceptance of a 
person for employment are as strict if not more so tlian the provisions of the law. 

The Department favors the present section 101 (a) 27 (A), especially as it 
applies to members of the Armed Forces. 

The Department also approves section 203 (a) (1). It has found that section 
valuable in obtaining scicTitific personnel. In fact, we would oppose any sub- 
stantial change in, or deletion of, this section ; and it is my understanding that 


you have been kind enonch to sive assurance that if there is any possibility of 
such action the Department will be given adequate opportunity to be heard. 
If we can be of further assistance, please let nie know. 
Sincerely yours, 

Charles A. Coolidge. 

The Chairman. Is Colonel Griffing here ? 


Colonel Griffing. I am Col. Joel D. Griffing, chief planning officer 
of the Selective Service S^^stem. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Colonel. The Commission will 
be glad to hear from yon. 

Colonel Griffing. ]Mr. Chairman, the Director of the Selective 
Service System, Major General Hershey, is very sorry that he could 
not be here himself this morning. He does consider it an honor and a 
privilege to have been asked to appear before this Commission. He 
has sent me to represent him and if I may do so, I will read a prepared 
statement of Major General Hershey in response to the request con- 
tained in your invitation to appear. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Colonel Griffing (reading General Hershey's statement). Esti- 
mates of availability of manpower for the Armed Forces must be con- 
sidered and understood according to the time and the circumstances 
which influence manpower requirements of the Armed Forces. 

"Availability"' as we use the term in tlie present limited expansion is 
not the same "Availability" we would speak of in an all-out emergency 
on general mobilization. 

At the present time the first and most restrictive limitations upon 
availability are statutory in that under existing law only a part of 
our military manpower potential is liable for training and service. 

Secondary limitations which apply within the ranges of current lia- 
bility reduce sharply the actual availability. This reduction is pro- 
gressive with the operation and the passage of time. For example, 
the persons first registered under the 1948 act included eight age 
groups up to and including the age of 25. Among them, especially in 
the upper four ages, there were so many who had served in the Armed 
Forces during the war or who had been found disqualified for such 
service, that very few were found then to be available for induction. 
In addition to the veterans' exemption there was the provision for the 
deferment of married men, so actually our availability included only 
the single nonfather, nonveterans among the 8,000,000 registered 4 
years ago. Single, Nonfather, nonveterans were little more than 25 
percent of the total registered and their availability for service was 
materially reduced by the high physical and mental standards for 
acceptance fixed by the armed services. 

After inducting approximately 30,000 men in late 1948 the Army 
discontinued induction calls in January 1949. Enlistments had in- 
creased with the renewal of selective service and all the services felt 
that their needs as seen at that time would be met by a recruiting effort 
supported by the existence of the draft machinery. 


Consequently, the vast majority of our single, nonf ather, nonveteran 
registrants wlio were iit and available from the upper two and one-half 
age groups had, by late 1950, passed the age of liability, and all who 
served prior to 1950 were exempt from further service by induction 
when the expansion of the Armed Forces began in the latter part of 
that year. Thousands of married men also had reached the age of 
26 before the 1951 amendments to the act limited dependency defer- 
ments to fathers and extreme hardship cases. 

At the outbreak of the Korean trouble in June 1950, the total regis- 
tration stood at 10,725,000 which included the new registrants since 
October 1948. From that total it appeared then that our potential 
availability w-as about 3,600,000. The expansion of the Armed Forces 
by enlistment and induction has consumed this accumulated potential 
and cut deeply into the numbers which were added since 1950 by new 
registrants. On September 30, 1952, our registration totaled 13,569,500 
but our gross working potential was but 1,417,500, of whom not more 
than 50 to 60 percent really will become available under existing 

This analysis has been undertaken to sharpen the significance of my 
opening comment that military manpower availability is always some- 
thing to be thought of in close relationship to the time and circum- 
stances of military requirements. 

If we had to go into a full mobilization many of today's limitations 
would be lifted so as to provide more men for the armed services. With 
such action the problems faced by civilian users of manpower would be 
increased and classification actions by Selective Service would be much 
more difficult than they are at this time. 

As to the contribution of aliens to the armed services, I feel that at 
this time, they will contribute only as they are within the current ages 
of liability, are physically, mentally, and morally fit, and free of 
dej)endents. I include in mental and moral fitness such qualities as 
attitude, understanding, and acceptance of the responsibilities which 
go with the privileges of living in our country. The few cases which 
have come to our attention may not be representative of the attitude 
of most of these people, but I cannot dismiss the resistance to the law 
and outright effort to avoid service on the part of some of them as any- 
thing less than a warning that a firm understanding about this obliga- 
tion should be had with all who seek to join us. 

I would not suggest that it is a factor which should influence us to 
deny good people the American opportunity, but like the situation 
mentioned above, reports upon our recent effort to recruit aliens abroad 
for military service may supply some information worth careful 

A dispatch dated April 9, 1952, from Heidelberg, Germany, tells us 
that "after a year of effort, only 220 displaced persons have been 
recruited into the United States Army. The quota for these aliens 
was set at 12,500. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. May I interrupt? You mean "recruited over- 

Colonel Griffing. Yes. [Continues reading:] 

The report went on to explain that since the passage of the law 
permitting their enlistment, 5,000 aliens had applied, but 1,000 never 
appeared to pursue their applications, others failed to meet the require- 
ments of age, or the physical and mental tests, and there were 1,100 


applications pending with about 180 new applications coming in each 

The law which offered aliens the opportunity to enlist in the United 
States Army also offered eligibility for United States citizenship after 
5 years of honorable service. 

In time of great emergency when the military forces require great 
numbers of men for long indefinite periods of service the supporting 
labor forces require people with skill and ability. Men not of military 
iige can then conti'ibute to the whole national effort, but the degree to 
which they can contribute depends considerably upon the qualifications 
they really possess. 

Recent arrivals I understand have been selected and admitted upon 
the basis of what they claimed tiiey could do, but reports have reached 
me that many of these persons later were found to be without the skill 
they had claimed, or Avith little or no expei'ience in the work they came 
in to perform. 

I am not able to say that this has been widespread, but if we are to 
assess the value of the alien to the military and industrial strength of 
the Nation, it occurs to me that every possible assurance should be had 
that he is what he represents himself to be and fully understands that 
great obligations attach themseh^es to the great privilege of United 
States residence and citizenship. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Colonel. 

The next Avitness will be Dr. Shryock. 


Dr. Shrtock, I am Dr. Henry S. Shryock, Jr., Assistant Chief, 
Population and Housing Division, United States Bure;ni of the Census. 
I am accompanied by Dr. Henry Sheldon, also of the Bureau. 

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

The ChatkMx\n. You may do so. 


Dr. Shryock. The Buieau of the Census of the Department of Com- 
merce is essentially a fact-finding agency rather than one charged with 
the formulation of Gover]iment policies or programs. Accordingly, 
in the present instance, it has no recommendations to offer concerning 
national policy on immigration. The Bureau does stand ready, how- 
ever, to make available its ^jertinent population statistics and its tech- 
nical facilities as called upon. 

Presumably, representatives of the Bureau of the Census have been 
asked to testify before this Commission in order to outline the infor- 
mation the Bureau can make available on the subject under consider- 
ation, to summarize the metliods wliich were, and which might be, used 
in determining immigTation quotas, and to give some indication as to 
future trends in the po])ulation of this country. 

The statistics collected in decennial censuses which bear directly on 
the problem of immigration are those relating to the foreign-born and 
native persons of foreign or mixed parentage. The former set of sta- 
tistics have been collected by country of origin since 1850, and the 


latter, again by country of origin, since 1890. In addition to informa- 
tion on conntry of origin, statistics on other cliaracteristics of the 
foreign stock snch as age, sex, year of immigration, citizenship, and 
mother tongue have been collected at various censuses. 

As the Bureau of the Census was represented on the committee 
which performed the technical w^ork involved in determining the na- 
tional origins of the white population of 1920, it does possess informa- 
tion on the methodological background of this calculation. In addi- 
tion, the experience of its staif in the field of population estimates and 
projections puts the Bureau in a position to olfer technical advice and 
assistance in indicating the probable results of computing base popu- 
lations for the assignment of immigration quotas under various as- 
sumptions, and also to provide estimates of future trends in popula- 
tion under varying conditions. 


OF 1920 

The calculation of figures on the national origins of the 1920 popu- 
lation was carried out by a joint committee of the Department of Statc^ 
Department of Commerce, and Department of Labor in the period 
between 1924 and 1929. The connnittee was charged with the respon- 
sibility of "determining as nearly as may be * * * the number of 
inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 attributable by birth 
or ancestry '' to areas defined by the 1924 legislation as quota countries. 

For the purposes of this calculation, the committee divided the white 
population of 1920 into four components : ( 1 ) foreign-born white, 
(2) native white of foreign parentage, (3) descendants of Colonial 
stock (i. e., descendants of the white population of 1790), and (4) the 
native white population of native parentage descended from persons 
who had immigrated since 1790, refei-red to as "grandchildren and 
later generations." 

Foreign-born white : The foreign-born white population, by country 
of birth, enumerated in the 1920 census was accepted as the foreign- 
born white element, although some redistribution (described below) 
was made by country of origin. 

Native white of foreign parentage : The 1920 figures were used as 
representative of the native white component in the same manner as 
those for the foreign-born white. 

Colonial stock : By an ingenious use of the figures on the native white 
population, by parentage and age for 1890, 1900, 1910, and 1920, the 
number of descendants from the population of 1790 was estimated. 
The logic of this calculation ran somewhat as follows: The per- 
centage of native white persons of native parentage for a given 
quinquennial age group in 1920 was known, and by referring this age 
group to the 5-year period in which they were born and examining the 
nativity of persons in the reproductive period at that time, the per- 
centage of their parents who had native ]:)arents could be determined. 
These parents then could be referred back to their parents and again 
the percentage determined and so on to 1790 or later. By chaining 
together these percentages, it was possible to arrive at a figure for the 
colonial stock. 

The figure for colonial stock was distributed by country of origin on 
the basis of an analvsis of surnames of household heads listed on the 


schedule of the 1790 census. A distribution of this type had been 
developed and published in the Bureau's Century of Population 
Growth, and this distribution was used initially. In the final calcu- 
lation, however, a distribution developed in a project sponsored by 
the American Council of Learned Societies was used. In this latter 
project, a more soi)histicated, analysis of the names on the 1790 sched- 
ules was made and the results checked against independent estimates 
of national stock based on an analysis of historical data on colonial 
immigration. It has been said, on occasion, that the final determi- 
nation of national origins involved the use of surname analyses 
(name check) of names listed on the schedules of the 1920 census. 
All available evidence seems to indicate that this was not the case, and 
that the determination of national origins from surnames was limited 
to the colonial stock and based only on the analyses of 1790 listings. 

Native of native parentage descended from postcolonial immi- 
grants: This group represented the residual ]3art of the native of 
native parentage population in 1920, once the colonial stock had been 

The distribution by country of origin was made proportional to the 
immigration totals, by country of origin, for the period 1820 to 1870 
(with estimates for the period 1790 to 1820) weighted by the length 
of the period of time covered by the immigration, that is, groups which 
had immigrated throughout the entire period were assigned greater 
weights than those represented only in the last few decades of the 
period. In this manner a national origins distribution of the grand- 
children factor in 1890 was obtained. The figures were then brought 
forward to 1920 by the use of appropriate mortality and fertility 

The committee then had a set of figures, by country of origin, for 
each of the four factors. These were adjusted to conform to current 
boundaries and became the basis for assigning quotas. 


Given the legislative directive that the determination of national 
■origins "shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of 
particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immi- 
gration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population 
as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such 
other data as may be found to be reliable," the committee did an 
amazingly thorough and ingenious job. Because the basic data avail- 
able were limited in scope, however, and, in many instances, the precise 
information necessaiy was not available, the accuracy of the final 
figures is subject to certain limitations. 

Some of the elements subject to question are as follows : 
The calculation of the total number of descendants of colonial 
stock: The general method used in determining this number was 
probably the only feasible way of obtaining the desired result. In 
the early part of the nineteenth century, the population consisted 
largely of descendants of colonial stock, so there was not much room 
for error over this period. In the later censuses, the native popula- 
tion included an increasing but unknown proportion of descendants 
of later immigrants, and even though backward chain computations 
irom the 1890 census gave fairly good over-all estimates of total 


natives of native parentage for years near 1890, the estimates for 
descendants from colonial stock were relatively weak for the inter- 
mediate period, which was remote from both 1890 and 1790. 

Allocation of the colonial stock to countries of orio:ni : The use of 
surnames in any allocation of this sort obviously ])roduces less accurate 
results than the use of direct information on country of origin. How- 
ever, there appears to have been some controversy as to the adequacy 
of the allocation and eventually a revised, and presumably better, set 
of figures was used. This situation does not invalidate the distribu- 
tion in most general terms or in large categories such as northern and 
western versus southern and eastern Europe, but it does seem reason- 
able to infer a certain margin of error in the classification. 

Grandchildren and later generation of immigrants and their dis- 
tribution by country of origin : "VVliatever margin of error is contained 
in the estimate of colonial stock is also present in the grandchildren 
factor since the two are merely complementary parts of the total popu- 
lation of native white of native parentage in 1920. Likewise their 
distribution by country of origin was, for lack of better data, based on 
cumulating immigration figures. Here again the basic data are some- 
what remote from those which Avould be most desirable — i. e., statistics 
on country of birth by age, sex, and year of immigration for the entire 

Adjustments for boundary changes: The basic legislation required, 
in general, that immigration quotas be based on current boundaries. 
Census and immigration statistics, however, going back through time 
reflect a variety of political geographies. 

In this context the changes in European boundaries following World 
War I are of greatest significance, particularly since the 1920 census 
statistics on country of origin were based on pre-World-War-I bounda- 
ries. The last step in the calculation for each of the four components 
or factors was to adjust covmtry-of -origin figures based on census 
distributions to a current boundary basis. In this process, use was 
made of whatever data Avere available, European statistics on emigra- 
tion, census statistics on mother tongue, immigration data on races 
or peoples (ethnic stock), passenger lists, and the like. It is clear 
that among these data there was an extremely wide range of reliability. 
For some countries, in certain periods, the emigration statistics were 
completely adequate for the purpose, for other countries and periods 
it became necessary to dignify statements of "few" or "many" or 
"large" or "small" with arbitrary numerical values. 

Conceptual limitations: From an a priori point of view, the chief 
limitation of the national origins determination is the assumption of 
uniform rates of fertility and mortality among the four major com- 
ponents and the nationality groups within them. There is certainly 
evidence to suggest that this is a very bold assumption, but the assign- 
ment of differential fertility and mortality rates among generations 
and nationalities would also involve a number of bold assumptions as 
well as a great deal of extra computation. 

There is general agreement that the fertility of the foreign-born has 
been higher on the average than that of the native population, and 
there is scattered information on the fertility of nationality groups. 
It is likewise agreed that fertility rates of the native white of foreign 
parentage are appreciably lower than those of the foreign-born white, 
but there are only fragmentary figures on differences by country of 


origin. Data for the other two components — i. e., the Colonial stock 
and grandchildren are completely lacking. Some inferences might be 
made in terms of religions differences and difference in urban and rural 
residence for the latter groups and then applying more or less empirical 
fertility factors. It is evident, however, that such a calculation would 
involve the assignment of somev\'hat arbitrary values to such items as 
the distribution of the several population components by religious 
affiliation and urban-rural residence. 

Furthermore, even if we had complete data on fertility and mortality 
by national origins we should still lack information about the undoubt- 
edly large amount of intermarriage among the four basic population 
components and among the various national stocks. Many persons 
who are living or have lived in the United States are of more than one 
national origin. 

Conclusion: It is clear then that the national-origins figures are 
subject to some margin of error at a number of points, as they are 
a product of components of varying accuracy. Granting, however, 
the principle of national origins as a basis for setting quotas and 
the type of data to be used, as specified by Congress, and finally the 
limitations of these data, the results are as accurate as can reasonably 
be expected, and although an infinite variety of variations in method 
could be introduced, it would be difficult to demonstrate that the 
results of any of these variations would be appreciably more accurate. 
It is also clear that, in the context set by the legislative directive,, 
any sort of calculation would have resulted in larger qoutas for the 
countries of Northern and Western Europe than for those of Southern 
and Eastern Europe. 


Data on the foreign Avhite stock are not yet available from the 
1950 census. The Bureau of the Census has, however, made a rough 
calculation bringing forward the 1920 distribution to 1940, which 
shows moderate difference in quotas for some countries (exhibit A 
incorporated in the appendix) . The 1940 data have not been adjusted 
for boundary changes subsequent to 1937. It will be noted that the 
larger differences occur in the countries in Central and Eastern Europe 
which were heavily involved in the post- World- War-I boundary 
changes — particularly Russia and Poland. These shifts point, on 
the one hand, to the difficulties in making adjustments for boundary 
changes and, on the other, to the tendenc}^ on the part of immigrants 
to report to the Census on the basis of boundaries as they existed at 
the time of immigration as opposed to current boundaries. 

If legislation were enacted requiring the development of a national- 
origins population of 1950 for quota purposes, the Bureau of the 
Census would recommend bringing forward the 1920 poprJation by 
simple, direct methods, that is, 1950 figures on the foreign-born white 
and native white of foreign parentage Avould be used, the other two 
componets would be brought forward from 1920 by using appropriate 
general fertility and mortality factors, and it would be assumed, 
that for these components, there would be no change in the distribu- 
tion by national origins. Estimates of the number of persons sur- 
viving from the births to native of foreign-parentage women during 
the 30-3'ear period would be computed, distributed by the national 


orio^ins of women in the child-bearing period, and added to the 
grandchildren factor. 

It is onr considered opinion that, in view of the limitation of 
available data as detailed above, any elaboration of method much 
beyond that outlined would represent a waste of time and effort. 
It should be noted in this connection that a period of 4 or 5 years 
was needed to complete the 1920 estimate. The elaboration of method 
involves an increase in the number of assumptions. Theoretically 
such assumptions may sound and lead to greater accuracy. In prac- 
tice, however, the empirical data needed to use them effectively are 
all too frequently lacking, and it is necessary at many points to 
assign somewhat arbitrary numerical values. The net result may be 
then that, although the theoretical solution to the problem is superior, 
it would be difficult to demonstrate that the actual results were more 
accurate than those derived from simpler methods. 


Under the provisions of Public Law 414, orientals of nonwhite race 
are included in the quota population. The quotas are based, however, 
on census figures which have not been subjected to the elaborate treat- 
ment accorded the white-quota population. It is our opinion that 
since the census attempts to count Chinese, Japanese, and other 
Asiatic peoples as racial or nationality groups, the census figures re- 
flect the total number of immigrants plus their descendants, and there- 
fore, there is no reason to deal with them in terms of generations. In 
fact, such a calculation might well result in replacing reasonably ac- 
curate figures with less accurate figures. 

It has also been suggested that Negroes should be included in the 
quota population. The problems raised by this suggestion are more 
complicated, since the census figures identify as Negro all persons 
having any observable degree of Negro blood. Although there is 
general agreement that there has been a good deal of racial mixture, 
involving not only Negroes and whites but also Negroes and Indians, 
there is no really acceptable evidence from which to derive actual 
figures for the proportions traceable to each of the races. Granting 
such a figure could be determined, there would be the further problem 
of assigning the white element to the proper component and country- 
of-origin gi'oup, and the larger part of the Negro element to areas 
in Africa on the basis of an examination of the annals of the slave 


The estimated population of the United States on July 1, 195'0, 
Avas about 151.7 million. With no immigration, recent projections of 
the population, according to "medium" assumptions, indicate totals of 
ir)8.9 million in 1960 and 186.7 million in 1975. Those are our so- 
called best or medium series, and it indicates some notion of the range 
of uncertainty here, however traceable, particularly as Mr. Clague 
has brought out — uncertainty about the birth rate. 

The "low" projections for the decade 1950 to 1960, which assume 
no immigration and birth rates somewhat above the depression level, 
indicate an increase of about 13.5 million. The "high" projections for 
the same decade, again assuming no immigration and birth rates at 


approximately current levels, indicate an increase of about 23.8 

With no immigration then, in the decade 1950 to 1960, an increase 
somewhere between 13.5 and 23.8 million might be expected. If a net 
annual immigration of 200,000 is assumed, the corresponding range 
would be from 15.8 to 26.1 million, so that you have an increase in 
the range of about 2 or 3 millions at either end. 

Exhibit A 

Table 1. — Estimated distribution of the white population, ty country of origin, 
for the United States, 1940 

Totals for "Colonial stock" and "Grandchildren and later generations" represent projections, by age, 
of the corresponding 1920 totals which appear in S. Doc. 259. These projections were oljtained by the 
application of age-specific birth rates for the native white population and age-specific death rates for the 
total white population to the appropriate 1920 totals. For these 2 groups, the 1940 distribution by country 
of origin is assumed to be the same as that of 1920. The figures for "Immigrants" and "Children of im- 
migrants" are adjusted figures from the 1940 census] 

Country of origin 



Postcolonlal stock 



of immi- 

dren and 
later gen- 


118, 2H, 870 

50, 260, 462 

67, 954, 408 

11, 419, 138 

19, 083, 692 

37, 451, 578 

Quota countries. 


49, 086, 781 


Baltic States 







Great Britian and North- 
ern Ireland 



Ireland (Eire) 







Russia (U. S. S. R.) 


Sweden . . . 

Switzerland '. . . 

Syria and Lebanon 



All other quota countries. 

Nonquota countries. 6, 959, 057 

1, 235, 421 
571, 998 
946, 707 

1, 877, 128 
840, 778 
393, 643 

2, 172, 455 
19, 491, 435 

47, 585, 848 
320, 645 
662, 767 

13, 420, 244 

2, 318, 997 

3, 769, 680 
328, 528 
278, 799 

3, 152, 453 
210, 169 
2, 347, 718 
1, 248, 835 
147, 262 
165, 402 
518, 930 
254, 541 

17, 164 

733, 178 

66, 586 



933, 789 

3, 696, 688 

38, 714, 800 

2, 217, 307 

1, 663, 802 
91, 541 
10, 469 
28, 850 

46, 744 
264. 275 
473, 407 


1, 173, 681 

62, 169, 032 

9, 921, 937 

17, 169, 303 

1, 218, 257 
571, 998 
213, 529 

1, 810, 542 
727, 326 
388, 409 

1, 238, 666 
15, 794, 747 

8, 871, 048 

320, 545 

662, 767 


655, 195 


299, 678 
278, 799 

3, 147, 219 
163, 425 

2, 083, 443 
775, 428 
147, 262 
165, 402 
518, 930 
250, 280 

344, 643 
188, 893 
54, 046 
457, 434 
138, 401 
103, 098 
1, 239, 797 

163, 519 
254, 408 
572, 967 

1, 626, 236 
262. 517 
995, 104 
88, 242 
116, 130 

1, 042, 587 

47, 785 

445, 798 

88, 437 
60, 942 
81, 740 

196, 759 

89, 028 

508, 655 
230, 291 
60, 745 
781, 149 
244, 562 
149, 912 
3, 213, 682 

143, 318 
288, 843 

1, 514, 907 

2, 665, 698 
205. 165 
535. 878 

1, 752, 283 

142, 083 



51, 093 

78, 754 

78, 696 
237, 978 

87, 819 

5, 785, 376 

1, 497, 201 

1, 914, 389 

35, 077, 792 

364, 959 
98, 738 
571, 959 
344, 363 
949. 155 

6, 225, 954 

13, 808 



984. 185 

338, 784 

829, 375 


69, 352 

44, 998 

689, 165 



527, 498 

17, 566 


84, 193 

73, 433 

2, 373, 786 

25356—52 89 


Table 2. — Estimated distribution of the ichile population, hi) country u 
for the United t^taics, lU'iO and lUid 

<f ori(jin, 

Country of origin 


Quota countries 

Austria --- 

Baltic States 

Belgium _ _ 

C zechoslo vakia 

I )(-nmark 


F ranee 

( lermany — 

Groat Britain and Northern Ireland 


Hunfrar y 

li eland (Eire) 



Xor way 




Russia (U. S. S. R.)- — - 



Switzerland _ _ . _ _ _ . 

Syria and Lebanon 



All other quota countries 

Nonquota countries 

Estimated population 



235, 421 
571, 998 
946, 707 
877, 128 
840, 778 
393. ()43 
172, 455 
491, 435 
585, 848 
320, 645 
662, 767 
420, 244 
318, 997 
719, 311 
769, 680 
328, 528 
278, 799 
152, 453 
210, 169 
347, 718 
248, 835 
147, 262 
165, 402 
518, 930 
254, 541 

6, 959, 057 


89, 506, 558 

843, 051 

440, 235 

778, 328 


704. 783 

339. 436 

1. 841. 689 


39, 216, 3.33 

182, 936 

518. 7.% 

10. 65.3, 334 

3, 462, 271 



3, 892, 796 

262, 804 

175. 697 


150, 258 


1.018. 70S 

73, 442 

134, 756 

504, 203 

170, 868 

5, 314, 357 


1940 1 I 1920 2 


1, 666 


2, 531 
1, 1.34 


2, 929 

26, 279 

64, 157 




7, 113 








,3, 165 







1, 413 






3, 080 

25, 957 

65, 721 






2. 377 






.3. 314 






1 Calculated on the assumption that 150,000 is to be distributed in pniixirtion to the 1940 population 
originating in the countries listed. 

2 Quotas as presented in S. Doc. 259. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Shryock. 

The Commission will now stand in recess until 1 : 45 o'clock this 

(Whereupon, at 1 p. m., the Commission recessed to reconvene at 
1 : 45 p. m. of the same day.) 





twenty-sixth sksslox 

Washington, D. C. 

Tlie President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 1 : 4.") p. m., })ursuant to i-ecess, in t]ie Areliives Auditorium, 
National Archives Building AVasliinoton, D. C, Hon. Philip B. 
Perlman, Chairman, presiding;. 

Present: Chairman Pliilip B. Perlman, Mr. Earl G. Harrison, Vice 
Cliairman, and the following Commissioners : Dr. Clarence E. Pickett, 
Mr. Thomas G. Finucane, Msgr. John O'Grady, Rev. Thaddeus F. 

Also present : Mr. Harr}' N. Rosenfield, executive director. 

The Chairman. The Commission will please come to order. 

The first witness on our agenda for this afternoon is Col. Benjamin 
G. Habberton, 


Colonel HABr.?:KTox. I am Benjamin G. Habberton, Acting Com- 
missioner of Inunigration and Naturalization, in the absence of Com- 
missioner Argyle R. Mackey: iu)rmariy, I am Deprity Commissioner 
of Immigration and Naturalization, "Washington, D. C. 

The Ciiaik:max. You may proceed. 

Colonel Haki'.ektox. May I say informally before proceeding, Mr. 
Chairman and gentlemen, that it is a personal pleasui'e to be here, 
since I know some of you personally and have been associated with 
some of you in other activities and other endeavors. I want to say, 
too, that I greatly admire your stamina. I should think that it would 
take a great deal of it to perform the task that you have just per- 
formed and are continuing now to jjerform, listening to one witness 
after another, hundi'eds of them, 1 am sure, in all i)arts of the country, 
over a long j)eri()d of time. 

The CHAiinrAX. Colonel, we ought to say that it wouldn't have been 
possible without the cooperation the Commission received from your 
Service all over the United States wherever we have been. 

Colonel Habkerton. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Chairman. 
It was a great pleasure to do it. 



With your permission, I will read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Colonel Habbekton. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commis- 
sion, the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Argyle 
R. Mackey, has asked me to convey to yon his profound regret at his 
inability to be here today. As his deputy and as Acting Commissioner 
in his absence, it is my pleasure to appear before you in his place and 
stead. However, the invitation you have extended to me leaves me 
with mixed emotions, for it is with a feeling of deep humility that I 
address myself to the subject of your inquiry. My responsibilities 
in the Immigration and Naturalization Service date* back a scant Syo 
years, as compared with numerous officials whose Service experience 
extends back 20 and 30 years, and even more. The remarks of these 
older and wiser heads might perhaps be more appropriate than those 
of a relative newcomer like myself. 

The policies and laws you are surveying spring from problems 
which are undoubtedly among the most significant of our day. How- 
ever those policies are shaped in the laws which finally emerge, it is 
the responsibility of the Service to carry them into force. While our 
democratic ideal is a government of laws and not of men, we cannot 
shut our eyes to the ultimate interrelation between our laws and our 
]mblic officials who give them effect. It is upon the knowledge, judg- 
ment, and integrity of these public servants that the living law 

In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the men and 
women of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for there have 
been some who have been critical of the Service. Before I joined the 
Service, I had spent more than 10 years in the practice of law and 
more than 5 years in the Armed Forces and in United States military 
government. Based upon this experience, I wish to say that in my 
opinion it would be most difficult to find anywhere, in the Government 
or in private enterprise, so large a group of men and women who are 
as able, conscientious, and devoted to duty as are the public servants 
in the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They have given 
and are giving their best efforts to administer our immigration and 
naturalization laws fairly and effectively. I think they are doing a 
fine job. I am proud of my association with them and with the Service 
as a whole. 

Having stated that there has been criticism of tlie Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, I may add that it has been, in general, of two 
kinds : First, there is criticism that the Service is too severe in its 
administration of the immigration laws; second, there is criticism 
that the Service is too liberal in its administration of the immigration 
laws. Perhaps the inference to be drawn from this contrariety of 
opinion is not too unflattering. Indeed, it may denote a very healthy 

The public at large is, I believe, little aware of the tremendous vol- 
ume of the business transacted by the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service and of the variety of complex problems involved. From 
A\hat one may read in the newspapers and current periodicals, one may 
gain the im])ression that the work of the Service consists only in iso- 
lated and unrelated cases of individuals whom the Service has de- 
ported or excluded from the United States. It perhaps escapes public 
attention that during the fiscal year 1952 our -national boundaries were 


crossed more tlian 100 million times by citizens and aliens arriving at 
our approximately 450 ports of entry from foreign lands, and that 
more than 50 million of these were by aliens. Each one of these cross- 
ings constituted an entry into the United States. This represents 
only one segment of the Service's numerous and varied responsibil- 
ities and is typical of the immense and never-ending surge of regular 
business which goes on in routine fashion, day after day. It would be 
quite remarkable if, in such a mass of transactions, mistakes had not 
been made. We are of course sure that mistakes have been made, and 
are being made, and perhaps will continue to be made. We are equally 
sure that they are honest mistakes, and we feel very keenly that, in 
the light of the aggregate numbers involved, the percentage of error 
has been reassuringly low. 

As the Attorney General pointed out in his appearance before you 
this morning, the Immigration and Nationality Act becomes effective 
on December 24, before your Commission will have finished its work, 
and the Department of Justice must be prepared at that time to assume 
its responsibilities thereunder. One part of the preparations long- 
under way in the Department is the promulgation of new regulations 
implementing the act. Present indications are that the new regula- 
tions will be published as Notice of Rule Making in the Federal Regis- 
ter on or about November 8. The public will thus be given an oppor- 
tunity to become acquainted with the provisions of these regulations 
and to propose additions or changes in advance of their publication in 
final form just before December 24. Since the President has directed 
this Commission to give particular attention, among other things, to 
the administration of our immigration and cognate laws, I am sure 
you will find the new regulations most informative in this regard. 

In addition, this Commission has requested the Service to furnish 
data and statistics in various areas of Service activity. You have 
asked for a considerable volume of information concerning private 
relief bills introduced in the Congress ; concerning the practices and 
policies of the Service with reference to the exclusion of certain 
aliens without hearing, based upon confidential information the dis- 
closure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest; con- 
cerning the practice and policy of the Service with respect to deten- 
tion of aliens ; and finally, concerning the qualifications of the Serv- 
ice's hearing officers. We have supplied this information, and we 
trust it will be useful to the Commission in conducting its studies and 
in reaching its conclusions. 

This morning, the Attorney General commented briefly on some of 
the inadequacies of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I should 
like to pick up that discussion where he left off, and point out some 
additional provisions of the new act which should be altered or 
clarified in the interest of better administration and more effective 

Section 318 of the new act, for example, proliibits the naturalization 
of an alien who has been found deportable or against whom deporta- 
tion proceedings are pending, "except as provided in sections 027 and 
328." Sections 327 and 328, hoMever, do not contain the provisions 
referred to. Those sections waive some of the general naturalization 
prerequisites in the cases of aliens in the classes specified. If it was 
the intent of Congress to grant to those aliens the additional exemp- 
tion of permitting naturalization notwithstanding the pendency of 


(U'portalioii proceed lino-s, tliat exeiuptioii should hisve been added to 
tliose specitically enumerated in sections 827 and :)2S. The conference 
report on II. K. HfiTS evinces a congressional intent to grant sucli an 
exemption to aliens who have served in onr Armed Forces. Section 
r)2S cleai-ly relates to such aliens, but section .^>27 does not. The exist- 
ence of so impoi'tant a waiver should not depend upon inference or 
C(mjecture. Such ambiguity makes administration unnecessarily 

Section 203 (b) of the act provides that quota innnigration visas to 
the first preference group (the skilled si)ecialists) shall be issued by 
the State Department in the order in which a petition on behalf of 
each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General. Section 204 
requires that such a ])etition be approved by the Attorney Ger^eral 
before the State De])artment may authorize issuance of the visa. In 
making the date of filing the application with the Attorney General 
the decisive factor goveriiing the order in which visas are issued, the 
act imposes an almost intolerable administrative burden on the Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Service, which is forced to set up an addi- 
tional elaborate system to keep track of the petitions and their filing 
dates. Moreover, one person could tie u]) the entire quota for some 
foreign country l)y filing a visa petition for 100 aliens from that coun- 
try. Regardless of the date on which any of the I'jetitions are ap- 
proved, the visas must be issued in the order in which the petitions were 
filed. The Service Avill have difficulty in setting up and maintaining 
a system Mdiereby petitions will be filed and disposed of in some equi- 
table order, so that proper results will follow. The State Department 
will be in the difficult position of not knowing in any month how many 
visas it can issue that month, since on any day it may receive from the 
Attorney General an a])proved petition which had been filed a long 
time previously. This section of the act should be amended to avoid 
the administrative difficulties inherent in its present form. 

Section ?)r)6 (c) changes the prior law by permitting final naturali- 
zation hearings to be held within 00 days ])receding an election, but 
provides that in such cases the petitioner may not take the oath of 
allegiance until the 10th day following the election. Oddly enough, 
tliere is nothing in the law which forbids holding a final hearing the 
very next day after an election and letting the aliens whose petitions 
are then heard take the oath of allegiance at that time. The result is 
that, for no readily discernible reason, some applicants cannot acquire 
citizenship until 10 days after an election whereas others can become 
citizens the very dav followino- the election. Apart from the apparent 
inconsistency involved, this distinction imposes an unnecessary diffi- 
culty on the Service in administering the naturalization laws insofar 
as it requires the reappearance of petitioners in those cases heard and 
granted within the HO-day period. 

Various sections of the act require an alien to establish that he has 
been a person of good moral character for the ])eriod of time specified. 
Section 101 (f) declares tliat no person who has committed adultery 
during such period shall be regarded as a person of good moral char- 
acter. The term "adultery," however, has different definitions in the 
crimi)ial laws of the various States. In addition, there still exists in 
some States a distinction between the elements of the crime of adultery 
and the elements of adultery as a civil offense which gives rise to a 
cause of action for divorce. For the benefit not only of the Department 


of Justice ill its adiiiiiiistratioii of the law, but also for the j>-uidance of 
the courts which will pass upon such issues in naturalization hearino;s, 
Conjrress miaht well clarify the nieanino- it intended to impart to the 
term ''adultery" in this act. 

Section -toO of the act chan<res the <>ronnds for revocation of judicial 
naturalization from "fraud" or ''illegality" to "concealment of a ma- 
terial fact" or "willful misrepresentation.*' Section 402 of the act, 
however, sets up "illegal or fraudulent procurement" as the jrrounds 
for }-evoking naturalization obtained under Public Law 414, Eighty- 
second Congress, relating to the naturalization of certain persons who 
had been expatriated by voting in Italy. Of course, the determination 
of grounds for denaturalization is a matter of legislative policy. 
Apart, however, from the seeming lack of basis for making this dis- 
tinction in grounds, the existence of the distinction imposes additional 
burdens on the Department of Justice. Since the grounds for revoca- 
tion under the new act will vary according to tlie basis on which the 
naturalized persons acquired citizenship, the tasks of enforcement 
officers are rendered unnecessarily difficult in conducting investiga- 
tions, making determinations, framing complaints, and trying suits. 
The matter should be clarified. 

Section 249 of the act ])rovides, as does existing law, for the creation 
of a record of lawful entry in the case of certain aliens who entered the 
United States prior to July 1, 1924, and of whom there is no record of 
lawful admission for permanent residence. One of the requirements 
of both the old law and the iieAv is that the alien shall not be subject to 
deportation. Under section 241 (d) of the new act, however, all the 
grounds for deportation are retroactive, and under section 241 (a) 
(2) there is no longer any statute of limitations for aliens who entered 
Avitliout inspection or at a time or place other than designated. Thus, 
any alien who entered the United States wnthout inspection, even 
though })rior to Jul}^ 1, 1924, is theoretically subject to deportation and 
hence ineligible for the benefits of section 249. The only way such an 
alien could adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident 
while in the United States would be by suspension of deportation, a 
procedure more burdensome and expensive not only to the alien but 
also to the Government. Since it is not apparent that Congress 
intended this result, section 249 might well be clarified. 

Section 214 (c) of the act provides for a petition by the "importing 
employer" to import certain aliens as nonimmigrants under section 
101 (a) (15) (H) "in any specific case or specific cases." There are 
many employers in this country who, in connection with their activi- 
ties in various forms of seasonal work such as timber cutting, and fruit 
and vegetable harvesting, processing, and canning, annually import 
for temporary periods thousands of aliens from nearby foreign coun- 
tries. Section 281 (6) of the act sets up a fee of $10 for each petition 
filed under section 214 (c) . The statute should be clarified to indicate 
whether it was the intent of Congress that each such employer must 
file a separate petition and pay a separate fee of $10 for each alien 
employee sought to be imported. 

Chapter ?> of title III of the act spells out the circumstances under 
which naturalized citizens may lose their citizenship. There is noth- 
ing in the act, however, which requires such expatriated persons to 
surrender their certificates of naturalization. The result is that such 


persons may continue to retain tlieir certificates, which they may use 
improperly in obtaining recognition as citizens of the United States. 
It would seem that for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of 
the law, some pi'ovision might be made to give the Government the 
right to repossess the evidence of citizenship, such as the naturaliza- 
tion certificate, of expatriates. 

These are some, not all, of the items in the new law which will tend 
to add to the difficulties of administration. The probing eye of this 
Commission will undoubtedly discover others, and experience in actual 
operation under the act will reveal still more. We trust that the new 
Congress will give prompt attention to our needs in this regard. 

Thank you for this opportunity of appearing before you and stating 
some of our views on this important subject. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Colonel. 

Mr. FiNUCANE. Colonel, just one question. The present law, that is, 
the new law, requires the filing of an application or petition to receive 
a nonquota visa because of relationship to citizens, and so on. Do you 
think it would expedite administration of the law and relieve the 
Immigration Service of a good deal of unnecessary work if that pro- 
vision were eliminated and let the consul take care of the entire 
matter — eliminate the petitions filed with the ImmigTation Service 
and let the entire application be filed with the consul ? 

Colonel Habberton. I think that it would certainly simplify the 
procedures. It would eliminate some work. I am not sure that I 
should be convinced of the wisdom of eliminating what might appear 
to be an additional check by the Department of Justice, which has such 
enormous responsibilities under this law. Undoubtedly, it would 
simplify it. Undoubtedly, it would eliminate a certain amount of 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do you think it would be better if the law 
were such that, for example, Canadian woodsmen who are admitted 
temporarily to work in the jNIaine wood industry could be encouraged 
to r-emain in Maine permanently, so there would be a permanent source 
of such labor, instead of their being required to return to Canada at 
the end of the period for which admitted ? 

Colonel Habberton. Monsignor O'Grady, I think that is a matter 
of legislative policy about which the Immigration Service, which is 
charged only with administering and enforcing the law, should prob- 
ably not express an opinion. 

Commissioner O'Grady. But I understand that your Service had 
expressed an opinion on the question of division of powers, and that 
is a very basic question of policy, isn't it? 

Colonel Habberton. Yes, sir; I think that is a question going to 
enforcement, and we do make policy with reference to enforcement. 
I think, however, that the question of encouraging Canadians to come 
to this country permanently, rather than for temporarj^ periods, is a 
matter of regulative policy, rather than enforcement. 

I think that our job is to enforce the law the way the Congress 
makes it. If the Congress provides for their temporary admission, 
Ave will admit them temporarily, and we will try, at the expiration of 
their authorized stay, to encourage them to return. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Under section 203 (a) (1), providing for 
allotment of 50 percent of the quota of each quota area to highly 


skilled immigrants, how do you think that will work as a practical 

Colonel Habbkkton. Our understanding of the means by which the 
50 percent who will be chosen mider section 203 is in general as fol- 
lows : The statute states that the determination will be made by the 
Attorney General. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do you expect he will have to do it in each 
individual case, in other words case by case ? 

Colonel Habberton. That's right, sir. Now, however, we have 
very great respect for the competence of the Secretary of Labor and 
his specialists in the Labor Department to detemine by the machinery 
which they have what skills and kinds of ability are needed in the 
United States. 

Commissioner O'Gr^vdy. If it will be done case by case, will it be 
necessary to refer each case to the Department of Labor? 

Mr. Habbertox. I do not think it would be necessary to go quite 
that far, sir. The act says that the Attorney General will make the 
determination in the individual case. 

Commissioner O'Grady. As a practical matter, though, doesn't an 
industry usually select a skilled worker, or a particular worker, on 
the basis of what it requires, and in your opinion will this not mean 
the Attorney General has to determine whether there is a need for a 
skilled worker or workers in a general area? 

Colonel Habberton. Well, the responsibility is the Attorney Gen- 
eral's. Now, we certainly expect to be in constant consultation with 
the Department of Labor, and we also expect to be in constant con- 
sultation with other agencies of the Government — with all agencies of 
the Government who, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have 
competence in advising him as to just what are these skills and abilities 
that are needed. 

Commissioner O'Grady. How long do you estimate it will take for 
an emploj'Cr to obtain an immigrant woi'ker under such a procedure? 
Will it be a matter of months? 

Colonel Habberton. No, sir; we don't anticipate that it will take 
that long. 

Commissioner O'Cirady. Now, do j'ou think it will take a week, or 
2 weeks? 

Colonel Habberton. I shouldn't want to confine myself quite that 
closely, but, franklj^, we do not contemplate that it is going to be too 
terribly difficult. It's not going to be prohibitively difficulty. 

Commissioner O'Grady. What do you mean by "prohibitively diffi- 
cult" as far as filling a particular job is concerned? 

Colonel Habberton. Do you mean filling a particular job, or filling 
jobs in general? 

Commissioner O'Grady. Let us assume for the moment it will be on 
a job-by- job basis. 

Colonel Habberton. All right, sir. I will say I don't think it will 
be prohibitively difficult, taking it job by job. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do you think American industry will be 
satisfied with such a procedure to fill jobs? 

Colonel Habberton. I was granting you your own facts. I don't 
think it is going to be done that way. You are asking me to assume 
that it is done that way. I think that it will be done not always upon 
an individual basis. 


Commissioner O'Gkady. Do you think it is desirable to admit skilled 
^vorkors from a country where they are needed, as. for example, skilled 
vrorkers needed in the defense industries of our western allies? 

Colonel Habberton. Well, I am sure that is a question on which 
you will hear many witnesses who will have some competence. That 
is a matter of hi^rh policy not connected with administration and en- 
forcement, and on which I disclaim havinp; any peculiar competence. 

The Chairman. Thank you very Colonel. 

Colonel Habbertox. Thank j'ou, INlr. Chairman and members of the 

The Chairman. The next witness on our schedule is Mr. Edward S. 

]\rr. R >SEXFiELD. Mr. Chairman, in connection Avith the appearance 
of Mr. Maney, the Chief of the Visa Division of the Department of 
State, may I read into the record a communication from the legal 
adviser of that Department? 

The Chairman. You mav do so. 

(The letter follows:) 

The Legal Adviseu, 

Department of State. 
WASiriNGTOx. Octo'ber 2), J9'>2. 
Mr. Harry N. RosenfieM), 

Executive Director, Prefident's Coiiiriiisf<i<)H on Tnnnif/ratioii 
and Naturalization, Washington, D. C. 
Dear I\Ir. Rosenfieed : Reference is made to your re<|uest that INIr. Edward 
Strait Maney, Ciiief of the Visa Division, testify before the I'resident's Commis- 
sion on Immigration and Naturalization on behalf of the Department. 

Inasmuch as tlie views of the Department will be presented to the Commission 
by the Secretary of State, the Department does not regard it necessary for Mr. 
Maney to appear. 

Sincerely yours, 

Adrian S. Fisher, 
The Legal Adviser. 

IMr. RosENFiELU. At the present moment the assionnient of a time 
for Secretary of State Acheson's testimony before the Connnission de- 
pends upon his availability from U. N. duties. 

In the event it Avill not be possible for the Secretary to appear per- 
sonally, I should like to request, Mr. Chairman, that the record remain 
open at this point for insertion of any prepared statement the Secre- 
tary may wish to present. 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

(There follows a prepared statement submitted by the Honorable 
Dean Acheson, Secretary of State:) 


President's Commissio:s on Immigration and Naturalization 

]\Ir. Chairman, members of the C(jmmisslon, I am glad to have this opportunity 
to assist the Commission in making a fresh examination of the United States 
immigration policy. Immigration, like most important facets of oui' national 
life in these times, is closely linked with our foreign policy and objectives. I 
wish, therefore, to outline to you cei'tain characteristics which, it seems to me, 
our immigration policy should have, if it is to contribute elfectively to oiu' foreign 
polic.v. These cliaractci-istics can then Ix' balanced in your deliberations with the 
important considerations of domestic policy concerning which yon are receiving 
testimony from other witnesses whose primary re.sponsibilities iire in tlie field 
of internal policy. 


Our imniigriition policy with lesppct to particular national or racial groups, 
v.ill inevitably be taken as an indication of our general attitude toward them, 
espet'ially as an indication of our appraisal of tiieir standing in the W(n'ld. It 
will, thei'efore, shape their attitude toward us and toward many of our other 
policies. For this reason, and in order to achieve consistency between our foreign 
policy and our historical belief in equality, the tirst characteristic of our immi- 
gration policy should be freedom from discrimination on the basis of nationality 
or race. This becomes obvious when we examine some of the psychological effects 
that past immigration policies have had on our relations with other countries, 
and the effect we can reasonably expect our present policies to have when they 
come into force. 

It is true that so far as formal government-to-government dealings are con- 
cerned, there is littie or no difficulty in the sense that relations ai'e strained, 
or cooixiration less full. Nonetheless America's position in the eyes of foreign 
peoples is deeply at1"ccted. and this is a vitally important point in the mid- 
twentietlK'entury world situation. 

The most damaging aspect of American immigration policy as a matter of 
formal foreign relations and of the psychological position of America vis-a-vis 
foreign peoples, was the policy of exclusion of Asians from immigration to and 
naturalization in the United States. Although absolute exclusion is now a thing 
of the past, too many discriminations remain, which in their effect on other peo- 
ples differ from exclusion only in degree. The case of Japan best illustrates 
the effects of a discriminatory policy, for the resentment generated in Japan 
was an important factor among many others contributing to the deterioration 
of relations between Japan and the United States and plunging the two countries 
into war. When the 1924 act was passed barring Asians from immigration to 
the United States, it was regarded by the Japanese as a national affront. The 
Japanese Ambassador in Washington resigned in protest, returned to Japan and 
left the diplomatic service. American diplomatic and consular officers then 
in Japan were given special police protection. Resentment was nation-wide, and 
it continued imtil the ultranationalists were able to use it effectively in building 
up the autiwhite and anti-American animosities necessary for their rise to power. 

The Inunigration and Nationality Act of 1952, while it eliminates the exclu- 
sion of Asians, places Asia under the national origins quota system which since 
1924 has governed immigration from all other parts of the world outside the 
Western Hemisphere. Siiperimposed on the national origins system insofar 
as Asia is concei'ued. however, are the Asia-Pacific triangle provisions, which 
necessitate charging to the quotas of Asian countries immigrants from all areas 
who are attributable by as much as one-half of their ancestry to peoples indigen- 
ous to the triangle area. 

The lifting of the bar of exclusion caused deep gratification in Asia when the 
act was passed, but the racial discrimination apparent in the triangle provisions 
can be expected to keep alive some feelings of resentment. As the act is not 
yet in effect, there has been little opportunity for the effects of the small Asian 
quotas to be felt. Indeed, it may be some time before any objections are raised, 
for, partly owing to the previous absolute bar. Asians are not in the habit of 
thinking of en]igration to the United States, and many of those who might think 
of it, could not meet the financial or other requirements imposed. Further, in 
India and Pakistan, resentment against United States policy has been largely 
a matter of principle — a dislike of racial discrimination in any form — rather 
than frustration of a desire to emigrate, so that removal of the bar has improved 
the situation there. Nevertheless, the combination of very small quotas for Asia 
and the Asia-Pacific triangle provisions still furnish ground for Asian suspicion 
of United States motives. 

In the colonial and other dependent areas, an even less satisfactory situation 
has come into being. The new act provides that colonies shall have quotas of 
100 each, instead of unlimited use of the quota of the governing country. The 
difficulties are most clearly evident in the important strategic area of the 
Caribbean. The fact that this area has been the imly part of the Western 
Hemisphere subject to quotas has always been an unpleasant irritant to these 
colonial peoples. In the case of the Pritish West Indies, the large and always 
undersubscrihed P.ritish quota was open to them. They have not, therefore, felt 
the practical effects of the discrimination implicit in their unique status in the 
hemisphere. No more than 2.500 immigrants have entered the United States 
from the Pritish West Indies in any one year. Henceforth, however, no more 
than <S00 (100 foi- each of the 8 British territories) may enter each year. 
Alread.v, months before the effective date of the act, various British West Indian 


legislatures have passed resolutions denouucing tliese provisions. This is even 
less to be wondered at when it is remembered that Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican 
Republic-, all near neighbors of the ISritish territories and eiiually parts of the 
Caribbean area, have nonquota status like tlie rest of the Western Hemisphere. 
I'l'ominent West Indian leaders and newspapers have protested the obvious 
discrimination, and both West Indian and British (Jovernment officials have 
informally bron.cht the seriousness of the matter to the Department's attention. 
Further, the United States members of the Caribbean Connnission (a body formed 
by executive agreement between the United States, the United Kin.i-'dom, France, 
and the Netherlands to plan for the economic and social development of the 
Caribbean area) have formally protested to the Department against the colonial 
quota provisions as being a threat to the work of the Commission itself, as well 
«s to the work of the Department in its relations to the Comnussion. 

In view of all this, it is clear that United States immigration policy not only 
causes resentment weakening the friendship of some of our neighbors but also 
causes or emphasizes ecouonuc dislocations tliat weaken those neighbors whom 
we need as strong partners and who can furnish us with sites for military bases 
and strategic raw materials. 

Other colonial areas that will be of increasing importance to the West ar*; 
those in Africa. Although tliere lias as yet been no problem there, it should not 
be assumed that there never will be. Nationalism is growing rapidly in Africa, 
and Africans are, of course, extremely sensitive to racial discrinunation. There 
are at present about four or five hundred west African students studying in the 
United States. AVe want these men and women to go home friends of America, 
ready to use their skills and intelligence in strengthening the free West. But 
if we discriminate against their countries, or against any other peoples, we shall 
lose their good will. 

Again, one of the chief problems now facing the United States information 
offices in Africa is how to combat the anti-American racial propaganda ])ublished 
in local nationalist papei's. While with one hand we spend time and money to 
fight that propaganda, with the other hand we feed the propaganda mill with our 
discriminatory policies. 

In J^urope, the difficulties facing us result in part from the national-origin 
quota system, which is based squarely on the tlieory that the best Americans 
are tliose of particular national or racial origins. This theory, always deroga- 
tory to our friends, is inci'easingly at variance witli our protestations of ecptality 
and with oiu- efforts to woi'k fruitfully with all peoples. Especially where it 
strikes countries like Italy and Greece, which are mucli concerned with emigra- 
tion as a solution to their population problems, it has engendered soreness and 
doubt that inhibit progress toward mutual trust. 

So much for tlie question of discrimination. 

In the modern interdependent world community the United States has come to 
have a strong positive interest in the population problems besetting nations witli 
which we are cooperating in tlie defense of the free world. Therefore, in addi- 
tion to demonstrating to the world that the people of one race or nation are 
inherently no more or less desii'able in our eyes than those of any other, the 
second characteristic our immigration policy should have is flexibility. This 
would permit us to make a special contribution to the solution of population 
problems, two of which are particularly important to our present objectives. 

One is the problem of ovei-popnlation in certain European countries. It is a 
fundamental premise of Uin'ted States policy that the economic and political 
stability and military strength of free nations is essential to United States 
security. A primary obstacle to the attainment of such stability and strength 
is the presence in Italy, Western Germany, the Netherlands, and Greece of excess 
population which these countries cannot assimilate at a tolerable standard of 
living and an advantageous level of ]»roductivit.v. Since this excess population 
cannot be fully employed in these countries at any foreseeable level of their 
economic development, it creates in each the acute threat of political instability 
that large-scale unemployment nearly always brings. It is no accident that the 
conntry with the greatest overpopulation problem, Italy, has the largest Com- 
munist Party in Western Europe. Moreover, the continuing pressure of excess 
population on limited i-esources is a serious threat to the general economic via- 
bility of these countries, which has been the goal of so much United States effort 
and expenditure. 

Immigration of this excess population to the United States cannot, of course, 
he the primary solution of the problem. The major emphasis is still on further 
eiconomic improvement within the particular countries and within the European 
area as a whole; in the long run, economic expansion will increase the numbers 


of people who can be productively employed within the area. Meanwhile, the 
United States, as part of the Mvitnal Security Program, is participating with 18 
other governments in the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the 
Movement of Migrants from Europe. The Committee is moving migrants chiefly 
to Canada, Venezuela, Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand, and a number of the 
member governments have embarked on generous special immigration programs. 

However, the present rate of economic expansion and migration can take care 
of little more than the annual increase in surplus population in the whole of 
free Europe. In the case of Italy, where the overpopulation problem is especially 
acute, the present total annual emigration will have to be more than doubled for 
a period of 10 years if substantial alleviation is to be achieved, and this despite 
increases in domestic opportunity. Acceptance by the United States of a sub- 
stantial number of additional immigrants from Italy and other countries suffer- 
ing in the same way would not only contribute directly to a solution but would 
also place us in a firmer position to urge other countries to join our efforts in 
this direction. A special effort to reduce the overpopulation problem to manage- 
able proportions would be a njost effective step toward our foreign-policy goals. 

Another special problem of equal importance is that of the escapees from 
Communist countries. These people arrive in the border countries destitute. 
They have lost their liomes, their property, and often their families. They have 
a deep hatred for communism ; they kno-w from experience what it means. They 
have a deep love of freedom, having been so long without it. If they are left to 
shift for themselves in lands already burdened witli surplus population, they will 
not be able to find work and will be disillusioned about the meaning of "western 
democracy." As their disillusion grows, and word of it spreads, it will be diffi- 
cult for us to convince the captive populations behind tlie iron curtain that the 
free world is interested in their fate. With our aid, other countries are trying 
to make possible a new life for these escapees. But these efforts do not by them- 
selves meet the need. To welcome escapees to the United States on a scale im- 
possible under the present quota restrictions would be a vital step in making our 
policy toward the satellite peoples effective. 

Summing up, then, the immigration policy that would contribute most to the 
success of our foreign policy is one that is at once free from discrimination on 
the basis of nationality or race and flexible enough to permit special efforts 
to help solve particular population problems important to the security of the 
free world. I believe that, with wisdom and patience, both these aims can 
be achieved. Special immigration programs' will, of course, open to certain 
selected groups opportunities not available to others. However, as long as 
such programs are clearly related to our objective requirements and to the 
special needs of nations joined with us in the common effort, they will in no 
way imply a judgment of people made on the basis of race or nationality. 
They will not, therefore, contradict the nondiscriminatory character which our 
immigration policy should have if it is to help and not hinder us in reaching 
the goals of our foreign loolicy. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, I also have a communication from 
Dr. A, Wetmore, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, which I 
should like to have incorporated in the record. 

The Cir \trmax. It may be inserted. 

(There follows the communication from Dr. A. Wetmore, Secretary^ 
Smithsonian Institution:) 

Statement Submitted by A. Wetmore, Secuetaky, Smithsonian Institution 

Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D. C, OctoMr 23, 1952. 
Mr. Harry N. Rosexfield, 

Executive Director, President's Conniiission on 
Immigration and Naturalization, 
Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosexfield : Acknowledgment is made of your letter of September 
30 in which you ask whether the Smithsonian Institution can provide your Com- 
mission infoi-mation on (1) the anthropological and biological assmnptions of 
the national-origin quota system (2) the assimilability of peoples of different 
races and nationality. (?,) the general character of the ethnic composition of the 
United States of America, and (4) the validity of the racial and ethnic classifi- 
cation upon which the existing national quota system is based. 


I have referred your request to a group of anthropologists on our staff who 
have reported to me that, so far as they can determine from the material avail- 
able to them, the national-origin quota system selects "white" immigTants in 
proportion to the previous contributions of the various national-origin groups 
to the population of the United States up to an arbitrarily chosen year. To us 
there do not seem to be any biological or anthropological assumptions involved 
in this, and in any case it would apiiear that the arbitrariness of this system 
would effectively nullify any such assumptions. 

The rates of assimilability of peoples of vari(nis races and nationalities must 
depend on many factors. In general, the more deviant the appearance, language, 
and customs of immigrants, the greater resistance they may encounter from the 
established population, and hence the more slowly they may be assimilated, 
.sociologically as well as biologically. Our anthropologists have not personally 
investigated this complex process of amalgamation, but they cite as one of the 
few studies available an Ethnic Survey of Woonsocket, R. I., by B. B. Wessell, 
University of Chicago Press, 1931. 

The present ethnic composition of the United States is, in the opinion of our 
anthropologists, a matter of record in the statistical compilations of the Bureau 
of the Census and the Immigration and Natui'alization Service. Aside from 
this quantitative record, almost nothing seems to be known about the qiialitative 
aspects of our population or a))out the emergence of what might be considered an 
American type. 

Finally, the anthropologists point out that the national-origin quota system, 
as its name indicates, has a national rather than a racial basis. The two, scien- 
tifically are not identical since, for example, peoiile of several races are consid- 
ered French nationals. No one in this institution would be able to .ludge the 
validity of the classification of nati(malities used for immigration purposes, 
since this is in the field of political science, a field outside our scope. A statement 
on race that may be of interest has been prepared for UNESCO by a panel of 
scientists of international standing, and is available in published form in the 
periodical Man, volume 52, article 125, pages 90-91, June 1952. 

From these opinions of our anthropologists, it appears that the problems on 
which you are seeking help do not involve the present fields of competence of 
our staff, and any further help they might give your Commission would be of 
necessity through reference to standard publications. Our inability to help in 
this instance in no way reflects unwillingness, but simply the fact that our 
specializations run in other directions. I am, 
Sincerely yours, 

A. Wetmobe, Secretary. 

The Chairman. Our next witness will be Dr. Jack Masnr. 


Dr. Masur. I am Dr. Jack Masiir, Assistant Snrgeon General and 
Chief, Bureau of Medical Services, United States Public Health 
Service, Federal Security Agency. 

With your permission, I will read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. We wnll be pleased to hear it. 

Dr. Masur. On behalf of the Public Health Service of the Federal 
Security Agency, may I say that we appreciate the invitation of the 
Commission to report on the role of the Service in the surveillance of 
health problems involved in the admission of aliens into our country. 

The concern of the Public Health Service with such problems dates 
back to the turn of the nineteenth century, when our first hospital was 
set up in an old, unused barrack building on Castle Island in Boston 
Harbor. The Service was established originally to provide medical 
care for American seamen. Many of them contracted illness in foreign 
ports. Others were infected by ships' passengers who were ill. 


Physicians of the Public Health Service organized the first attacks 
on the epidemics of cholera, plague, yellow fever and other infectious 
diseases that were imported into our port cities year after year, until a 
Federal quarantine law was passed by Congress in 1878. And a 
decade later, medical research in the Public Health Service came to life 
in a one-room laboratory in the Staten Island hospital where Dr. 
Joseph J. Kinyoun, fresh from his studies with Koch and Pasteur, be- 
gan his research on cholera and other infectious diseases where tens of 
thousands of innnigrants were pouring into the Port of New York, 
bringing those diseases to his very door. 

I suppose no one knows more than our Public Health Service physi- 
cians of the tragedy that illness and physical disability can bring to 
families who seek to enter this country as immigrants. The tired, the 
poor, and the homeless who come to enter the "golden door" are indi- 
viduals to us. Because of the tragedy that sometimes occurs, for 
example in TB cases, we often reexamine an alien's case again and 
again to determine whether the disease has become sufficiently healed 
to permit him to enter the country. 

But since the Surgeon General is charged, under the Public Health 
Service x\ct, to prevent the spread of connnunicable disease, and since 
we must also carry out the obligations of the United States under the 
international agreements, those tasks command our first attention. 

Here in this country we have fought for years against VD, TB, 
mental illness, and other diseases. We have been especially successful 
in eliminating the deadly, infectious diseases like cholera, yellow fever, 
and smallpox. For example, last year only 11 cases of smallpox were 
reported within the country. But we cannot afford to overlook the 
fact that smallpox is still endemic in many parts of the world, that the 
incidence of TB is many times higher in some European countries 
than it is here. 

As you know, the law provides that aliens may not be admitted to 
this country if they are suffering from mental illness, tuberculosis, 
dangerous contagious disease, or any other mental or physical defect 
which would be a health hazard to the community or impair their 
ability to earn a living. 

The medical examination of aliens is conducted by the Division of 
Foreign Quarantine of the Public Health Service. The Division 
maintains staffs in various consulates in Europe, Great Britain, Can- 
ada, Mexico, Cuba, and Hong Kong. In this country we have stations 
and personnel at all maritime ports of entry, at international airports 
and along our international boundaries. 

In order to give medical examinations to aliens in countries of their 
origin, Public Health Service officers and supporting personnel are 
assigned to 23 American consulates; 10 in Europe, 10 in Canada, and 
one each in Cuba, Mexico, and Hong Kong. In addition, medical 
officers at quarantine stations on the United States side of the Mexican 
border perform examinations for the consulates in ]Mexico. 

In Europe, where the bulk of the work for immigrants is done, the 
Service maintains a supervising medical office in l*aris. This office 
is staffed with a medical director and specialists in tuberculosis and 
psychiatry to direct and aid the work of our own Public Health Serv- 
ice medical examiners at the larger consulates and to consult with the 
consuls and local medical practitioners at the smaller consulates. 


In general, we have assigned Public Health Service officers to all 
consulates having sufficiently large workloads to j ustif y the utilization 
of one American physician. In Europe, these larger consulates 
account for about two-thirds of all immigration visas issued. 

At the two hundred-odd small consulates in different parts of the 
world, where the workload is smaller, local physicians are designated 
by the consuls to examine visa applicants. The Public Health Service 
has no specific authority in the selection of these local physicians, 
or in the supervision of their work. However, our Paris office assists 
the consuls as much as possible in the selection, and instructs them 
in the regulations, and procedures established l)y the Service. Our 
specialists in tuberculosis and psychiatry advise these local physicians 
in their respective fields, insofar as possible, to assure that the stand- 
ards of American medical practice will be followed. Virtually all 
of the immigrants who arrive in this country, and are found to be 
inadmissible for medical reasons, are those who have been examined 
by the local physicians working through the smaller consulates. Trag- 
edies of deportation, or the separation of families could be avoided 
with closer adherence by the local physicians to the standards followed 
by the Public Health Service. 

In view of the need for more advisory service to the local phy- 
sicians, we hope that, next year, we will be able to afford more staff' in 

The medical reexamination of aliens upon arrival at a United States 
port is required by law. But his reexamination is primarily an inspec- 
tion and review of the medical record and chest X-i'ay of each indi- 
vidual. If for any reason the examiner suspects that a person has 
an excludable condition which was not detected abroad, the immigrant 
is required to have a more detailed medical examination. These 
examinations are made usually at our Public Health Service hospitals 
or out-patient offices. 

Most of the persons requiring further examination need additional 
X-rays, either because the X-ray attached to their papers is not ade- 
quate, or because of faulty interpretations made at the time of the 
original examination. If, after thorough examination, an innnigrant 
is found to be afflicted with an excludable condition, he may be 
deported by the Immigration Service following the required legal 
hearings. However, if the condition is subject to cure within a 
reasonable time, arrangements may be made for treatment in this 

In the innnigration medical work, tuberculosis is probably the most 
important disease, from the standpoint of both the immigrant and 
our responsibility for protecting the public health. Because of the 
importance of detecting tuberculosis, routine chest X-rays have been 
required of all visa applicants over 10 years of age since September 
1948. In Europe, the Service maintains X-ray machines in the con- 
sulates staffed by our own physicians. At all the smaller consulates, 
prospective immigrants must obtain X-rays, serological examinations 
for syphilis, and other laboratory tests from local physicians desig- 
nated by the consuls. 

As you are well aware, we have recently had some comj)]icated prob- 
lems in connection with the displaced persons arriving with possible 
active ])ulmonary tuberculosis. There was a high incidence of tuber- 
culosis among these people. They were examined by local and refugee 


physicians employed by the Intenuitional Refugee Organization, and 
by alien physicians employed by the Public Health Service in IRO 

Because of the limited number of physicians available for this work, 
and the inadequacy of facilities, about 150 DP's who had what ap- 
peared to be active tuberculosis arrived in this country. Arrangements 
were made for practically all of them to receive treatment here. A 
few are still being treated. In order to reduce the tragedies of threat- 
ened deportation, we sent a board of independent tuberculosis spe- 
cialists to Europe to aid in the examination. 

During the f)i/2 years of the DP program, nearly a half million 
persons were given medical examinations. Four tliousand had to be 
rejected because of pulmonary tuberculosis. An additional 6,000 were 
excluded because they could not meet other medical requirements. 

In the course of the regular immigration program — that is, in 
addition to the examination of DP's — we examined 112,000 immi- 
grants in various parts of the world during the past fiscal year. About 
600 of those examined abroad by our Public Health Service personnel 
were unable to meet the health requirements. Of the persons arriving 
at United States ports of entry, and at the borders, about 100 failed 
to meet the health requirements. As I said before, the great majority 
of these were examined originally by local physicians designated by 
the smaller consulates. 

Since the immigration laws make all aliens entering the country 
subject to medical examination, large numbers of nonimmigrant aliens 
aie examined by the Service at United States ports and borders. The 
largest category is crew members and workaways on arriving steam- 
ships. We inspected 900,000 during the last fiscal year. The next 
largest group is temporary visitors. The numerous alien business- 
men, visitors, tourists, diplomats, and in-transit travelers who come 
to this country are generally not referred for medical examination. 
However, consuls in foreign countries, or immigration officers at 
United States ports may refer any alien to the Public Health Service 
for medical examination where there appears to be good reason. Other 
categories of aliens that may be examined are those with reentry per- 
mits, local crossers on the Canadian and Mexican borders, and alien 
visitors in this country who plan to depart and reenter as immigrants. 

The new immigration and naturalization law does not include any 
drastic changes in the criteria for the medical examination of aliens. 
There are a few changes in terminology which do not vary materially 
from the previous law. There is also a modification of the appeal 
provisions. Under the present law an alien can appeal only in case 
of insanity or mental defect. The new law permits appeal by any 
immigrant declared to have any mental deficiency or anj^ disorder. 

Undoubtedly the Commission has seen the reconnnendations made 
by the Federal Security Agency when the new law was under consider- 
ation. But since you are concerned here with the whole problem of 
immigration, I should like to present a brief explanation of some 
of the improvements which we believe to be desirable to the effective 
and equitable administration of the medical examination of aliens. 
They are largely changes in terminology. But we believe them to be 
important because of the inequities which may result otherwise, 

25356—52 90 


For example, we would like to su^-^est that the Commission take 
under consideration the modernization of the terminology "insane," 
^'feeble-miiided" and "mental defect/' The term "feeble-minded," 
for example, does not have the exact medical significance necessary for 
modern diagnosis. It is a generic term a))plicable to varying degrees 
■of mental ca})acity. We would suggest that tlie terms "idiot," "im- 
becile," and ''moron" l)e substituted, since they are categories recog- 
nized in medical terminology and would, we believe, include most 
persons likely to require special supervision, to become an economic 
burden, or to present a more than normal risk, of transmitting to 
<'hildren any strain of mental weakness. 

The term "mental-defect" has the same fault. We believe that 
"mental disease" would be better, since it covers such incapacitating 
disorders as the obsessive, compulsive, or hysterical types which may 
seriously impair an individual's ability to live a normal life. 

It may seem to you that these shades of meaning or interpretation 
are minor matters- But we believe, from long experience, that they are 
essential to the best administration of the immigration and naturaliza- 
tion laws. 

One is always faced with the dilemma of administrative routine 
versus the sympathetic handling of cases as human beings on an 
individual basis. 

This is the ever-present incubus in the administration of a program 
that deals directly w^ith the lives of ])eople. But because the terms 
of the law do have a great impact on immigrants and their families, 
and because accurate terminology is important to our efforts to protect 
the public health, we urge the Commission to study carefully the sug- 
gestions that have been made by the Federal Security Agency. 

The Chairman. Thank yon. Doctor. 

Is Professor Harberger here^ 


Professor Harberger. I am Arnold C. Harberger, professor of eco- 
nomics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. I was a former 
staff member of the President's Materials Policy Commission. 

I don't have a prepared statement. I came down here to answer 
whatever questions you gentlemen might have to put to me on, I 
presume, the subject of what effect differing immigration policies 
might have on the long-term economic growth in the American econ- 
omy. This is the field in which I workecl on the Materials Policy Com- 
mission, and I am here prepared to answer whatever you may put 
to me on that subject. 

Mr. RosENEiELD. For the record, you are talking about the Presi- 
dent's Materials Policy Commission, the so-called Paley Commission, 
is that right? 

Professor Harukroer. That's correct. 

Tlie Chairman, You were a member of that Commission? 

Professor Haiujergeh. I was on the staff of that Connnission. 


The Chairman. And will you for the record just briefly describe 
wliat the purpose of that Commission was ? 

Professor Harbp:kger. The purpose of that Commission was to 
determine what would be an advisable long-range materials policy 
for the United States. In the process of finding out what would be 
advisable, we had to take a look into the long-range future. We took 
as our target date 1075. 

The Chairman. You said ''materials." Now, what materials? 

Professor Harberger. Raw materials, all exluuistible resources, es- 
sential materials, whether domestically produced or not. 

The Chairman. Do you mean materials needed in the expanding 
economy of tlie United States? 

Professor Harberger, Correct. Now, my particular specialty was 
in the long-term aspects of this, looking at the year 1975 and trying 
to figure out what were the forces which would govern the growth 
of our economy up to then. Naturally, the size of a labor force in 
1975 was an important matter for our consideration. However, in 
the final analysis, I would suspect that any difference in the size of 
the labor force which plausible, different immigration policies would 
make would have no effect on the standard of living in the United 
States. It certainly is true that if the United States were to remove 
all barriers to immigration, to allow anyone from anj?^ part of the 
world who w^anted to come in to come, we would probably see some 
substantial fall in the average level of living. However, immigration 
at the rate of 100,000, 200,000, 300,000, or even 400,000 a year can easily 
be absorbed by the United States economy without any lowering of 
the rate of increase in our standard of life. 

I can give you a reasonable picture of how^ this works, I think, by 
separating out three forces which go to raise our total productivity 
in the economy. One of the forces is improvement in technology, 
invention technique, that sort of thing. Another force is the amount 
of capital equipment that w-e work with, and the third thing is the 
increase in our labor force. 

Now, on tlie basis of what we luive done in the past, the standard 
•of living of the average American has risen about 1 to 11/^ percent 
per 3'ear. due solely to this technological factor and solely to our in- 
ventiveness in developing new techniques. Furthermore, we can an- 
ticipate by 1975 a substantial doubling in our stock of capital equip- 
ment. If our labor force were, by 1975, to also double, which means 
to go from 60,000,000 to 120,000,000, we could anticipate, nevertheless, 
that the average worker would live some 30 percent better than the 
average woi'ker today. 

Now. we anticipated, in our own work, an increase in the labor 
force of only about -SO percent, going from about 00,000,000 to about 
82,000,000, Even wdth that very small increase in the labor force, 
the standard of living of the average worker was expected to rise by 
about 50 percent. So that the effect of an increase in the labor force 
on lowering the average standard of living is obviously very small. 
On the one hand, if j^ou assume an increase of only 30 percent in the 
labor force, you get your standard of living likely to go up by 50 


percent. When you assume an increase of 100 percent in the labor 
force, which is completely implausible, your standard of living still 
goes up by 30 percent. 

Now, I suspect that any immigi'ation policies which your Com- 
mission is likely to be interested in might be of the order of changing 
our oO-percent increase in the labor force to perhaps a 40-percent 
increase in the labor force, and, within that very small range, I sug- 
gest that the effect can be no more than negligible. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Would you say that we have been helping 
friendly counti-ies in building up their capital equipment by export- 
ing capital? 

Professor Harbeeger. Exactly. 

Connnissioner O'Grady. We have heard testimony to the effect that 
where a country cannot absorb its labor supply because it may have too 
many refugees who cannot be taken into the popidation of those 
countries, or surplus population that cannot be gainfully employed, 
that it has hindered the development of the economy. So that, while 
in one respect we are trying to build up a country by exporting capital, 
at the same time we have the question of how you are going to deal 
with that labor supply that has been thrown on that country. There- 
fore, do you think Ave can separate this question of immigration policy 
from the question of our economic policy in dealing with other coun- 
tries in regard to the improvement of their economies? 

Professor Harbergkr. I think we can separate it for certain prob- 
lem.s, but we needn't. If we say that additional immigration into 
the United States would not hurt our economy and we see that extra 
population is hurting the economies of some of our friends, the ob- 
vious inference is to take this excess burden of population off of them 
and bring it over here where it will be no burden. 

The Chairman. Were you here when Mr. Louis H. Bean testified 
this morning? 

Professor Harberger. No ; I was not, sir. 

The Chairman. He submitted a paper to the Commission in which 
he argues that the restrictive inmiigration i)olicies of the past re- 
tarded the economic growth of the country. 

Professor Harberger. That's an arguable proposition. 
The Chairman. You have not seen his paper? 

Professor Harberger. I have not seen his pa})er. I came independ- 
ently to the conclusion it had not retarded the economic growth of 
the country but that substantial immigration would not hurt. 

The Chairman. He Avent much further than that. He said if 
we had had the kind of immigration that had existed prior to the 
time of these restrictions, that oui' country would have been richer eco- 
nomically, and that we would have had a larger income. 

Professor Harberger. We would have had a larger population and 
certainly a larger income, but the point I make — I don't know Avhether 
Bean said this or not — Ave Avould have a larger per capita income, and 
this is Avhat I am arguing : we Avould have no smaller income. 

Commissioner (iuLLixsox. Just one question. I believe the Mate- 
rials Policy Commission on Avhich you Avorked gave considerable at- 
tention to the exhaustion of natural resources in America? 
Professor Harberger. Yes. 

Commissioner Gullixson. They covered particularly the land ero- 
sion by Avater and Avind? 


Professor Haeberger. Well, in part. 

Commissioner Gullixson. Supply of iron ore, for instance? 

Professor Harberger. Yes, indeed. 

Commissioner Gullixson. And your prognostications for the fu- 
ture would then be based on heavy importations from other countries 
of natural resources? 

Professor Harberger. On substantial importations, yes. 

Commissioner Gullixson. That would be in lumber products, forest 
products, and iron ore and petroleum ? 

Professor Harberger. In all of these things, but I would say more 
importantly in mining nonferrous metals, such as copper, lead, and 
^inc, where our own position is not as good for the future as it is in 
all of tliese. 

Commissioner Gullixson. Then would you say that our position in 
the future woukl be based on international relationships to a degree 
not hitherto known ? 

Professor Harberger. Yes, indeed; necessarily. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Professor Harberger, you have said that substan- 
tial immigration would not hurt the United States. Do your cal- 
■culations for the future and your estimates of the future indicate that 
more immigration will be needed for the United States, as well as 
merely not hurt it ? 

Professor Harberger. No; I can't see that finely into the future. 
I doubt that anybody can, to be able to assert that additional gener- 
alized immigration would be necessary. One thing, however, I can 
say, and that is that in certain specific industries there are certain 
specific skills on which we in the past have definitely relied on immi- 
gration and in which today we are fairly badly put, simply because 
the immigration has not been so rapidly forthcoming since 1920, let 
alone now. 

The skills to wliich I refer are those into wliich American boys, 
I^eople brought up in the American environment, somehow just don't 
want to go. 

Mr. Rosenfielb. What are those ? 

Professor Harberger. I refer to barbers and tailors, and appar- 
ently coal mining is another field into which the young people of 
America are very, very reluctant to go, even at quite high wages. As 
a result, what is happening in each of these occupations is an aging 
of the population tree, so to speak, and we are now relying on very old 
barbels, very old tailors, and very old coal miners, ancl in the long 
run these people are going to die off, and we are going to have a ter- 
rible time trying to bribe young Americans, who somehow have an 
diversion to these occupations, to go into them. 

Now, it seems to me that the obvious thing is to get Europeans or 
other people who liave no aversion to these occupations, to bring them 
in and let them provide us with the same services at something like 
the same costs that we have been accustomed to paying in the past. 

]Mr. RosENFiELD. Would you be able to provide the Commission 
with a list of these various occupations and trades which are in this 
situation, or likely to fall in this situation ? 

Professor Harberger. I can certainly try. 

Mr. Rosenfield. Thank you. We would find it useful. 


iNIr. Chairman, I should like to request that th.e record remain open 
at this point for the incorporation of such a list if Professor Harberger 
is able to furnivsh it. 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

(The additional information furnislied b}^ Prof. Arnold C. Har- 
berger is as follows:) 

Johns Hopkins Univeksitt, 
Department of Political Economy, 

Baltimore, Md., October 30, 1952. 
Mr. Harky Rosenfield, 

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Rosenfield : On Monday you requested a list of occupations in which 
a very considerahle rise in remuneration would be necessary to induce native- 
born Americans to come in sufficient numbers to meet our future needs. On 
Monday I mentioned tailors and barbers. To these I would like to add furriers, 
shoemakers, miners, domestic servants, and possibly masons, waiters, and laundry- 
operatives. Personally, I would not advocate special preferences to be set up for 
immigration in these categories. If immigration is unrestricted, we can rely on 
the immigrants themselves to choose to enter these fields in which remuneration 
is from their point of view quite high, although from the pulnt of view of Ameri- 
cans it may be insufficient or barely sufficient to induce them to work there. 

I must emphasize again that these judgments about the precise occupational 
classes for which the situation holds is a personal one, based only on my experi- 
ence as a general economist. If you are interested in more precise information,. 
I suggest that you get in touch with Mr. Seymour Wolfbine, who studies occu- 
pational outlooks for the BLS ; Charles Stewart, who used to study occupational 
outlooks and is currently Deputy Director of the BLS ; and Ernest Rubin, who 
is currently making a study on immigration for the National Bureau of Economic 

But I wish to emphasize again my belief that occupational discrimination 
is ill-advised. We cannot know in advance the areas in which immigx'ant labor 
will have the greatest comparative advantage, but we can rely on the self-interest 
of potential immigrants and on the self-interest of their potential employers 
to channel such immigrants as we admit into the appropriate occupations. One 
of the basic faults of our current immigration policy, it seems to me, is that by 
discrimination on criteria of national origin it effectively discriminates also' 
along occupational lines. This is because the particular countries of origin 
from which we are willing to accept most of our immigrants currently are coun- 
tries in which people have much the same aversions to particular occupations 
as do our own workers. I therefore would tend to use a list of occupations such 
as this, not to advocate occupational discrimination in favor of the occupations 
on the list but rather to show how our present immigration laws effectively 
discriminate against occupations on the list. 

After my testimony, i\Irs. Penton asked me to include in this letter a statement 
concerning the source of my estimate that the average vv'orker in 1975 would 
have a real income about .^0 percent higher than the average worker in 19.50. 
In my testimony this estimate was associated with the labor-force increase of 
about oO percent, which we assume in the Paley Commission study. Though 
not explicitly brought out in the Paley report, it is easily derivable from the 
figures on labor force and gross national product which are presented there. 

I hope this information meets your immediate needs. 
Yours sincerely, 

Arnold C. Harberger. 

The Chairman. Professor Harberger, we have had some testimony 
here and in other places that there is a movement away from the farms 
and that farm labor is also needed. Did you find that? 

Professor Harbergei{. In certain places. It is a very much region- 
alized thing. It is still true of American agriculture as a whole that 
there is too much labor, but there are lots and lots of isolated places, 
particularly the more prosperous areas, in which something like a 
labor shortage has deA-eloped, You see, in agriculture as a whole, 
most of the population is on these poor farms in the South, and one 


of the great economic problems of our country has been to try to get 
these people off the farm into more productive pursuits, and this, I 
think, still characterizes American agriculture as a whole when you 
count that in. When you get out to the citrus-fruit area and to a lot 
of the places which use highly seasonal picking labor and things like 
that, it is certainly true that something like a labor shortage exists, or 
holds at least seasonally in lots of these agricultural areas. 

Mr. RosENriKLD. I wonder. Professor Harberger, if you had any 
observation on a statement made by the Assistant Secretary of Agri- 
culture, Knox T. Hutchinson, this morning. He said : "Almost one- 
third of the States said" — he is reporting on a survey — "their greatest 
manpower difficult}^ was the short supply of regular year-round 
hands." Then he goes on to say : "One-fourth said their problem was 
the short supply of both regular and seasonal labor." I call your 
attention to the first observation that one-third of the States fonnrl 
their greatest manpower difficulty in year-round shortages. 

Professor Harberger. This is within agriculture ? 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Within agriculture. Does that conform with your 

Professor Harberger. This particular area of agriculture has not 
been a study of my ow^n, and 1 can only claim to have done a reasonable 
amount of reading and. watching the figures. My suspicion here is 
that the reason why these people find a shortage of agricultural labor 
generally is because they don't realize that the price of labor all over 
the country has gone up, and they are trying to get labor at the good 
old wages and are not ready to pay the competing prices which actu- 
allj' compete with industry in the cities. 

The Chairman. Professor, that isn't what we heard from other 
w^itnesses around the country. Take the small farmer, for instance. 
In the old days, we were informed, he kept his sons at work for a 
certain period of time; now they go off to school, go off to college, 
they go to the university, and when they finish they don't want to 
come back on the fai'm and help the parent with the farm chores. 
They are in the professions or in some other line of work. That was 
also stated to be true of the small farmer, and it wa& also indicated to 
us that he can't pay the workers that he had the wages that they can 
get in the large cities and in the factories, and so they leave the farm. 
As a result, it has been reported that the fanner is unable to gather 
the labor supply that he did before, wdiether it was in his own family 
or whether it was the hired man, not because he doesn't know that a 
new day has come in wages, because he is also earning more through 
his crops than he ever received before. But there appeared to be a 
definite shortage, a year-round shortage in some areas of the country. 
But you say you haven't prepared any figures yourself, or you haven't 
made the study ? 

l-*rofessor Harberger. No ; I haven't. 

The Chairman. That's what apparently led to the statement that 
almost one-third of the States of the United States reported to the 
Deparment of Agriculture on the survey, that there Avas a shortage of 
regular, year-round hands, and on top of that there are seasonal short- 
ages which lead to the importation of the "wet-back'' and other sea- 
sonal laborers. 

Thank you very much. Professor, we appreciate your coming. 

Ts Mr. Davis here ? 

1426 COMMISSION 'on immigration and naturalization 


Mr, Davis. I am James P. Davis, Director of the Office of Terri- 
tories, Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we appreciate the opportnnity to 
appear here and to discuss the Immigration Act in the light of our 
situation in the Department of the Interior. Up to the present mo- 
ment the Department of the Interior does not find that it has any 
observations to present on the major provisions of the act or on its 
general pliilosophy. The problems with which we are concerned 
are rather limited in scope and affect only the passage of both aliens 
and citizens between our Territories and the mainland of the United 
States, and in some cases between Territories. Let me say paren- 
thetically and briefly that we are using the word "Territories" here in 
its broad sense of areas under the jurisdiction of the United States 
which are not States. 

My office in the Department of the Interior has a general respon- 
sibility for Federal i-elations with those Territories. We are sort 
of a "department of the exterior" of the Department of the Interior. 
Those Territories at the present time, though, to which I shall be re- 
ferring later, include Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 
Guam, the Marianas, Samoa, and the Territory of the Pacific Islands, 
the former Japanese mandated area which is now under a civilian ad- 
ministration set up by Executive order under the general direction 
of the Secretary of the Interior. 

We, as I said, are very happy to call to the attention of this Com- 
mission some of our views in regard to these areas. The immigra- 
tion law has not always taken into account the particular problems 
confronting the Territories of the United States, and the new Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act is, in our view, open to criticism in sev- 
eral particulars. I shoidd like to comment on some of these problems 
briefly by reading a prepared statement and to offer a more detailed 
written statement for incorporation in the record. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Davis. First of all, we are deeply disturbed by the provision 
of the new act, section 212 (d) (7), which imposes restrictions upon 
the travel of aliens from the Territories to the continental United 
States. Section 212 (d) (7) requires that an alien who has been law- 
fully admitted to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Kico, the Virgin Islands, 
or Guam, and who then comes to the continental United States, must 
be examined at the time of his entry into the continental United 
States, to determine whether he is within any of the classes of persons 
who are excluded from admission. The Immigration and Nationality 
Act applies to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and 
Guam as fully as it applies to the continuental United States. No 
alien can enter these Territories without being as thoroughly screened 
upon admission as he would be were he entering at San Francisco 
or New York. If he is barred from entering the continental United 
States, he is also barred from entering these Territories. In effect, the 
language of section 212 (d) (7) means that an alien, lawfully admitted 
to one of the Territories, cannot later travel to the continental United 
States without being subjected to a second examination. 


This requirement appears to us to be burdensome, valueless, and 
discriminatory. An alien residin^^ in Alaska, which is a part of the 
United States as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
should be as free to travel to Seattle as an alien residing in Seattle 
is now free to travel to Spokane- Each is traveling from and to points 
within the United States. There should be no greater burden upon 
one than upon the other. 

But, in addition, in order adequately to enforce the provision, it 
appears that all persons traveling from the Territories to the conti- 
nental United States, whether they be citizens or aliens, will neces- 
sarily be screened in some manner. Until regulations for the en- 
forcement of section 212 (d) (7) are issued, we cannot know what 
forms this screening process will take. But enforcement authorities 
cannot determine whether an alien has met the requirements of section 
212 (d) (7) unless they are first able to determine wdiether he is or 
is not an alien. It, therefore, appears reasonable to assume that 
United States citizens, as well as aliens, will be required either to 
carry documentation or to submit to questioning before they are al- 
lowed to enter the United States from the Territories. Introducing 
such complications to travel between the Territories and the conti- 
nental United States can produce no salutary consequences. Normal 
intercourse with the Territories will be hindered, and this in turn 
may be expected to affect adversely the rapidity of Territorial devel- 

At this point I should like to introduce some figures as to the 
volume of this travel. I have the total volume of such travel to the 
mainland for Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico for the years 1950 
and 1951. For Hawaii the total number of aliens was 4,200 for 1950; 
7,446 for 1951. Citizens from Hawaii to the mainland, 70,403 in 1950 
and 82,877 in 1951. From Alaska I do not have a breakdown for 
aliens, but the total number of persons from Alaska to the mainland 
was 84,376 in 1950 and 111,570 for 1951. 

Commissioner Pickett. Do these people come on visitor's visa, or 
do they have no visa ? 

Mr. Davis. They are American citizens, they are in precisely the 
same shape as you would be if you went from here to New York. 

Commissioner O'Gradt. Did you say the new act has more rigid re- 
strictions than the old law ? 

Mr. Davis. The new act would apparently require a more rigid 
screening of the persons coming to the mainland than the previous 
act. It has been the custom since the war days to have an immigra- 
tion check made at the airport, usually at the point of departure in 
Puerto Rico and in Alaska. I believe that has not been true in 
Hawaii. I can't say for sure about that. There has been some sort 
of a slight immigration check on persons coming onto the planes or 
ships coming to the mainland. But this would apparently require 
a much more careful examination and documentation of such persons. 

If I may complete the figures, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Did you say aliens from Alaska is 84,376? 

Mr. Da\^s. No; there is no breakdown between aliens and citizens 
for that one. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Would that include people coming in for 
business, businessmen ? 


]Mi-. Davis. Business, ])leasui'e, sill purposes. This is the total vol- 
ume of tlie traffic. 

From Puerto Kieo to (he mainland in 11)50, 5,851 aliens and in 1951, 
(5,528 aliens. In 1950 there were 117,507 citizens and 144,021 in 1951 
from Puerto Rico. 

I fjive you those figures merely to illustrate that this is not a trifling 
and insignificant matter but one that does affect the convenience and 
tiie efficient and rapid movement of very large numbers of American 
citizens, as well as those aliens who happen to be in the Territories. 

Although the legislative history of the section is not revealing, we 
surmise that it was motivated by a belief that the security of the 
United States required it. I submit that security considerations are 
no less important in the Territories than they are in the continental 
United States, and that in such strategic areas as Alaska, Plawaii, 
and Guam, they may, in fact, be even more important than in many 
other areas of the IJnited States. A ]:)ei'son who cannot enter the 
continental United States should hardly be allowed to enter one of 
these Territories. There is no reason to assume that immigration 
officers will be less vigilant in the performance of their duties in the 
Territories than they are elsewhere in the United States. And there 
is, therefore, I suggest, no reason to require the same alien to be twice 

I, therefore, urge, first, that section 212 (d) (7) be struck from the 
Immigration and Nationality i^ct. 

I would secondly call to your attention a problem relating to the 
entry into the United States of r(^sidents of the Trust Territory of 
the PaciHc Islands. In 1947 the United States Government approved 
tlie Trusteeshi]) Agreement with the Security Council of the United 
Nations, providing for the administration by the United States of the 
territory comprehending the Marshall, Mariana, and Caroline Islands 
formerly under Japanese mandate. By Executive order of the Presi- 
dent, the Department of the Interior was charged with the adminis- 
tration of civil government in the trust territory' effective July 1, 
1951. This Government has assumed responsibility luider the Trus- 
teeship Agreement for the economic, political, social, and educational 
advancement of the trust territory, and we have, among other things, 
authority to enact such legislation as may be necessary to advance 
the purpose of the agreement. 

There have always been close ties between the people of the trust 
territory and the people of Guam. The two areas are culturally sim- 
ilar, and Guam, located close to the geographic center of the trust 
territory islands, has become a commercial and educational center for 
the entire area. Because the Immigration Act of 1924, with its quota 
and documentary requirements, has never applied to Guam, movement 
by trust territory residents into Guam has been comparatively free. 
They have entered Guam to attend school, to visit friends and relatives, 
and to carry on business. It is important that they continue to do this, 
for Guam offers educational and commercial opportunities which are 
of real importance to the development of the trust territory. 

Tlie Department of the Interior has ]n'epared organic legislation for 
the trust territory which we contemplate will be introduced in the 
Eighty-third Cougress. The legislation will confer trust territory 
citizenship upon natives of the trust territory, and it will also provide 
for the amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow 


the entry into the United States without passports or visas of non- 
immigrants from the trust territory. In view of the trust territoiy 
annual quota of 100, comparatively few trust territory citizens will 
seek to enter the United States as permanent residents, and we believe 
that, with respect to them, the documentary requirements generally 
applicable to all other aliens will not be unduly onerous. But the 
problem with respect to nonimmigrants is far greater. We believe they 
ought to be allowed to enter Chiam, and, if their interests require it, 
Hawaii and the continental United States as well, without being re- 
quired to secure the documentation required of most other aliens. We 
consider that tlie obligations of the United States as administering 
authority of the trust territory justify the relaxation of immigraion 
barriers to this extent, and that such relaxation is required in order to 
encourage the development of the trust territory. 

We therefore urge that a new section be added at the end of title II 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that such a section pro- 
vide tliat while citizens of the trust territory shall be deemed to be 
aliens for purposes of Federal innnigration laws, subject to all such 
laws, citizens of the trust territory who enter the United States as 
nonimmigrants shall be exempt from the documentary requirements 
generally imposed upon nonimmigrants. We suggest that the High 
Commissioner of the trust territory, with the approval of the Secre- 
tary of State, be authoinzed to issue regulations governing the entry 
of nonimmigrants who are trust territory citizens. Proposed language 
to accomplish this purpose appears in my written statement. 

Thirdly, we recommend the expansion of the two definitions of 
"child" in the new act to include adopted children. The present defi- 
nition of "child," which, in effect excludes adopted children for non- 
<]uota-inmiigrant purposes, presents a problem with respect to the 
movement of United States nationals from American Samoa to other 
parts of the United States. 

Because of common cultural ties, close family relationships, and 
geogra])hic proximity, the people of American and Western Samoa 
constitute in effect one conn)umity, alth.ough Western Samoans are 
aliens while American Somoans are United States nationals. 

Western Samoa, for the information of the committee, is a trustee- 
ship under the administration of New Zealand. American Samoa 
is a territory under the administrative supervision of the Depart- 
ment of the Interior, an American territory. Many American 
Samoans have adopted children of Western Samoan extraction. 
Should these x4.merican Samoans wish to travel to other parts of the 
Uniied States, they will be able to do so, Avhile still keeping their 
families intact, only if quota numbers are available for their adopted 
children. INIany American Samoans have already traveled to Hawaii 
and the continental United States, and we anticipate that more will 
follow, for the present Samoan economy cnnnot adequately support 
the growing Samoan population. Bu.t this migration could be deterred 
if, because of the narrow definition of "child," United States nationals 
could not bring their adopted children with them to their new homes. 

We urge, therefore, that the definition of "child" for immigration 
purposes be expanded to include adopted children. And we further 
urge that the definition for naturalization purposes be expanded to 
include, at least, children adopted under the laws of American Samoa. 

Fourthly, we recommend that an effort be made to clarify the status 


of certain Filipinos, luimbering betwee ntliree and four thousand, who- 
are now residing in Hawaii. These Filipinos entered Hawaii in 1946 
under a section of the Philippine Independence Act which authorized 
the Department of the Interior to introduce Filipino labor to meet the 
needs of Hawaiian industry. In 1945 and 1946, the Hawaiian pine- 
apple and sugar industries faced a critical labor shortage. Some 6,000 
I ilipinos, who were then United States nationals, were at that time 
brought into Hawaii under regulations of the Department of the In- 
terior. Many of them have since returned to the Philippines, but sev- 
eral thousand remain. Those remaining are under no obligation to 
return, for neither the law, the Department regulations, nor their labor 
contracts required it. Although they were "legally admitted" in 1946 
and were at that time nationals, they were not "legally admitted for 
permanent residence" and they have, since July 4, 1946, been con- 
sidered aliens. They are not now free to move anywhere outside 
of Hawaii. They can enter the United States only as nonimmigrants 
or as nonquota immigrants. If they were to travel to foreign terri- 
tory, they could only reenter Hawaii under existing immigration laws. 

These Filipinos have long since been absorbed in the Filipino com- 
munity in Hawaii. They have married, become employed and set- 
tled, and many are the parents of United States citizens. There is 
nothing to single them out from the many United States citizens of 
Filipino extraction residing in Hawaii. They were carefully screened 
upon their original entry under Interior Department regulations and 
they were medically examined; by officers of the United States Public 
Health Service. 

We therefore urge that these persons be accorded the status of per- 
manent residents, so that they may become naturalized citizens and 
may travel freely to all parts of the United States. 

Finally, I should like to refer to the matter of the entry into the 
Virgin Islands of the United States of residents of adjacent islands 
in the Caribbean. 

In effect, that refers only to the residents of the British Virgin 
Islands, which are immediately adjacent to the A^irgin Islands of the 
United States, divided only by a narrow water channel, and which 
have habitually for centuries passed back and forth very freely. This 
is a problem with \^hich the Department of the Interior has long been 
concerned, and we are pleased that the new immigration act assists 
in bringing about a solution. We are concerned, however, that the 
regulations to be issued to carry out the provisions of section 212 (d) 
(4), may provide for the waiver of documentary requirements only 
with respect to nonimmigrants from adjacent islands who are entering 
the Virgin Islands for 29 days or less. This time limit has been im- 
posed in the past, and it appears likely that it will be imposed again. 
Tlie time limit, we are informed, results from tlie alien-registration 
provisions which require registration of all aliens who are present in 
the United States for 30 days or more. We believe that there are 
many instances in, which visits of longer than 29 days are desirable 
and necessary, and that the alien-registration provisions, while re- 
quiring such nonimmigrants to register, do not themselves prevent 
visits of over 29 days. We believe that documentary requirements 
should be waived with respect to nonimmigrants entering the Virgin 
Islands from adjacent islands for periods up to 6 months, and we 
further believe that it would be desirable if the Attornev General were 


to provide a simple system for tlie registration of siicli nonimmigrants, 
as lie is authorized to do under section 263 (a) of the act. 

That concludes the reading of my oral statement, Mr. Chairman. 
Unless there are any questions, I would like to submit for the record 
a more detailed prepared statement. 

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

Your detailed statement will be inserted in the record. 

(The detailed statement follows:) 

The United States immigration laws liave not always taken into account the 
particular problems confronting the Territories of the United States. In the 
view of Territorial residents, and of the Department of the Interior, the new 
Immigration and Nationality Act is open to criticism in several particulars. I 
should like to point out these problems and to suggest possible solutions to them. 

1. Travel from the Territories to the continental United States 

Section 212 (d) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides, in perti- 
nent part, as follows : 

"The provisions of subsection (a) of the section, except paragraphs (20), (21), 
and (26), shall be applicable to any alien who shall leave Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, 
Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United States, and who seeks to enter 
the continental United States * * *." 

Subsection (a) of section 212 prescribes the classes of aliens ineligible to 
receive visas and excluded from the United States. The Immigration and Na- 
tionality Act applies to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, tlie Virgin Islands, and 
Guam as fully as it applies to the continental United States. No alien can enter 
any of the five designated Territories without being as thoroughly screened 
upon admission as he would be were he entering at San Francisco or New York. 
An alien who is barred from entering the continental United States is also 
barred from entering the five Territories. 

In effect, the language of section 212 (d) (7) means that an alien who has 
been lawfully admitted to one of the five designated Territories and who then 
comes to the continental United States, must be examined a second time to deter- 
mine whether he is within any of the classes of persons who are excluded from 
admission into the United States. 

We believe that no useful purpose can be served by requiring such a second 
examination. The requirement appears to us to be burdensome, valueless, and 
discriminatory. An alien residing in Alaska, which is a part of the United 
States as defined in the immigration law, should be as free to travel to Seattle 
as an alien residing in Seattle is now free to travel to Spokane. Each is traveling 
from and to points within the United States. There should be no greater burden 
upon one than upon the other. 

But, in addition, in order adequately to enforce the provision, it appears that 
all persons traveling from the Territories to the continental United States, 
whether they be citizens or aliens, will necessarily be screened in some manner. 
Until regulations for the enforcement of section 212 (d) (7) are issued, we 
cannot know what form this screening process will take. But enforcement au- 
thorities cannot determine whether an alien has met the requirements of section 
212 (d) (7) unless they are first able to determine whether he is or is not an 
alien. It therefore appears reasonable to assume that United States citizens, 
as well as aliens, will be required either to carry documentation or to submit 
to questioning before they are allowed to enter the United States from the 
Territories. Introducing such complications to travel between the Territories 
and the continental United States can produce no salutary consequences. Normal 
intercourse within the Territories will be hindered, and this in turn may be 
expected to have an adverse effect on the rapidity of Territorial development. 

Although the legislative history of section 212 (d) (7) is not revealing, we 
surmise that the drafters were motivated by a belief that it would advance the 
security interests of the United States. We submit that security considerations 
are no less important in the Territories than they are within the continenal 
United States. This is surely particularly true of such strategic areas as Alaska, 
Hawaii, and Guam. A person who cannot enter the continental United States 
for security reasons should not be allowed to enter the Territories. We would 
hope and anticipate that immigration officers would be as conscientious in the 
performance of their duties in the Territories as they are in the continental 
United States, and that a second examination of the same alien would be mere 


We would also point out that the Iinniit,'rati<iti Act of 1017, as amended, which, 
has prescribed the catesjories of excludable aliens now incorporated in section 
212 (d) (7) of the new act. has from the outset applied to the designated Terri- 
tories (8 U. S. C, l!)4(> ed., sec. ]7o). Persons barred from entering the con- 
tinental United States under section 8 of the 1917 act have also been barred 
from entering Alaska, Hawaii. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 

We urge, therefore, that section 212 (d) (7) he entirely struck from the act., 
and that the Teri'itories to which the act applies be treated, for all ]iurposes,. 
as parts of the United States 

2. Immigrntinn into the United states hji citizens of the trust territori/ 

Under tlie trusteeshi]) agreement with the Security Council of the United 
Nati(ms. approved l)y the United States Government on July IS, 1047. the United 
States is designated as the administering authority of the Trust Territory of 
the Pacific Islands, a territory comprehending the Marshall, the Mariana (ex- 
cluding Guam), and the Carolina Islands, formerly under Japanese mandate. 
The Department of the Interior, by Executive Order 102()5 of June 20, lO-^lU 
is charged with the administration of civil government in tlie trust territory. 
In the trusteeship agreement, the Government of tlie United States has assumed 
responsibility for the economic, political, social, and educational advancement 
of the territory, and it is authorized, among other things, to "enact such legis- 
lation as may be necessary" to carry out the provisions of the agreement. 

Because the people of the trust territory and the people of Guam are ethni- 
cally and cultui-ally similar, the community of interest and the intercourse 
between the two areas have alw^ays been great. Guam is not a pai-t of the trust 
territory, but because it is close to the geographic center of the trust-t^>rritory 
islands. Guam has liecome a connnercial and educational center for the entire 
area. Under existing law. movement into Guam by trust-tei-ritory residents has 
been quite unrestricted. Although the Inunigration Act of 1017. with its qualita- 
tive restrictions on tlie entry of aliens, has always applied to Guam, the Immi- 
gration Act of 1924. which imposes quota and certain documentary require- 
ments, does not. Trust-territory I'esidents have therefore entered Gum com- 
paratively freely to attend school, to visit friends and relatives, or to carry on 
business. It was important that they do so in the past, and it will be equally 
imi'ortant in the future, for Guam offers educational and commercial oppor- 
tunities which are of real imiiortance to the development of the trust territory. 

The Department of the Interior has prepared organic legislation for the trust 
territory wliich, we contemplate, will be introduced in the Eighty-third Congress. 
The legislation will, among other things, confer trust-territory citizenship upon 
natives of the trust territory, and it wnll also jirovide for the amendment of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to allow the entry into the United States 
without passports or visas of nonimmigrants who are trust-territory citizens. 
In view of the trust- territory annual quot;i of 100. comparatively few trust- 
territory citizens will seek to enter the United States as permanent i'esidents, 
and we believe that with i-espect to them the documentary requirements generall.v 
applicable to all aliens will not be unduly onerous. But the problem with re- 
spect to nonimmigrants, particularly temporary business visitors, tourists, and 
students, is far greater. We believe they ought to be allowed to enter Guam, 
and. if their interests require it. Hawaii and the continental United States as 
well, without being ivquired to secure the documentation required of most oth^^r 
aliens. We c<insid;^r that the oldigations of the United States as adminisrering- 
authority of the trust territory .lustify the relaxation of inunigration bj'i'riers 
to this extent, and that snch rdelaxatiou is I'eqnired in oi'der to encourage the 
deve'opment of the trust territory. 

We therefore that the following section 29:} l)c added at tlie t^id of title 
II of the Immigration and Nationality Act: 

'•Citizens of tlie Trust Territory shall be deemed to be aliens for purposes of 
the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall l)e sub- 
ject to all such laws: I'roridetl. Tiiat the provisions o fthe inunigration laws 
wdiich impose documen.-ii'y reipiirements niion aliens entering the United States as 
nonimmigrants shall not apjily to citizens of the Trust Territory entering the 
United States as nonimmigrants. Kntry of such citizens into the United States 
as nonimmigrants shall be in accordance with re.aulations is.sued by the High 
Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary of State." 

3. Inetuslon of adopted child vithin the dcflnitions of "child" 

Foi- purposes of titles I and II of the Immigration and Nationality Act. the 
term "child" is not defined to include adopted children, although it does include 


stepi-hildren. For purposes of title II, the naturalization provisions, only rliil- 
dren adopted within the United States are included. As a result, it appears that 
the alien-adopted children of United States nationals cannot enter the United 
States for permanent residence except as quot;i innni^rants. We are concerned 
about this matter because such narrow delinitions of the term "child" threaten 
the freedom of movement of Ignited States nationals living- in American Samoa, 
and they could ultimately result in the lireaking up of American Samoan families. 

Because of common cultural ties, close family relationships, and geographic 
proximity, the people of American and Western Sanuja in effect constitute one 
couuuunity. Great numbers of American Samoans have adopted Western 
Samoan children, and should these parents wish to travel to the United States, 
their adopted childi'en will be atile to accompany them only if there are quota 
numbers available. Because of the limited employment opportunities in Ameri- 
can Samoa, many Samoans have traveled to and settled in Hawaii and the conti- 
nental United States. We anticipate that others will follow this course, for the 
present Samoan economy cannot adequately supiioi't the growing Samoan popu- 
lation. We Itelieve that this migration, which is of henelit to American Samoa, 
could lie deterred if the definition of "child" is not expanded to include adopted 
childs-en. United States nationals in American Samoa will be loath to leave the 
territory if part of their families nnist be left Itehind. 

We tlierefore urge that the definition of "child" in section 101 (b) (1) be 
expanded to include adopted children. In order to make such a child eligible 
for natnrali^'ation. it would also be necessary to expand the detinition in section 
101 (c) (1) to comprehend childrnn adopted outside of the United States, as 
defined in section 101 (a) (38). The precise problem with which the people of 
Samoa are concerned could be solved if the definition of the l^nited States, for this 
single purpose, were expanded to include American Samoa. 

.'i. Status of Filipinos admitted into Hawaii under Philippine Independence Act 

Si'ction 8 (a) (1) of the Philippine Independence Act of March 24, 1934 (48 
Stat. 45(5, 462), provided as follows : 

"For the purposes of the Immigration Act of 1917. the Immigration Act of 
1924 (except section 13 (c) ), this section, and all other laws of the United St<ites 
relating to the inunigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens, citizens of the 
Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the Ignited States shall be considereil 
as if they were aliens. For such purposes, the Philippine Islands shall be con- 
sidered as a separate country and shall have for each fiscal year a quota of fifty. 
This paragraph shall not apply to a person comin.g or seeking to come to the 
Territory of Hawaii who does not a]>ply for and secure an inunigration or passport 
visa, but such immigiation shall be tletermined by the Department of the Interior 
on tlie basis of the needs of indtistries in the Territory of Hawaii." 

Under the last sentence of this section, the Secretary of tlie Interior on .Tune 
15, 1934, issued regulations governing the importation of Filipino workers to 
Hawaii. The only importation of consequence tinder the act occtirred in 1946, 
when some 6,000 laborers were admitted into Hawaii, following an executive 
order of the Governor of Hawaii dated Augtist 11, 1945, finding that a critical 
labor shortage existed in the pineapple and sugar industries. These laborers, 
who, with their wives and childi'en totaled 7,361, were admitted pur.suant to the 
1934 regulations, as amended on Octobei- 9, 1945. At the time of their entry in 
the early months of 1946. they were nationals of the United States. 

On July 4, 1946. Philippine Independence Day. all Filipinos who had entered 
Hawaii between May 1. 1934. and July 4. 1946, liecame aliens for all purposes. 
M.any of the group of 7.361 who entered in 1946 later retuined to the Philippines, 
although neither the 194(5 statute, the regulations issued thereunder, nor the laltor 
contracts reqtiired it. But some three to four thousand remain, and they deserve 
t(» have their status clarified. These remaining Filipinos have, for all, 
become permanent residents of the Territory. They have married, become em- 
I)loyed and settled, and many are parents of United States citizens. They have 
been totally absorbed in the Filipino connnnnity in Hawaii, and except for their 
immigration status, they are indistinguishable from the many United States 
citizens of I-'ilipino extraction residing in Hawaii. Although they were "lawfully 
admitted" into Hawaii under the 1934 act, they were not, of course, "lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence." and they aie therefore not now free to travel 
to other parts of tlie United States except as noninimigi-.-uits or nonquota immi- 
grants. Most are disabled from traveling outside tho United States, for as 
aliens, they cannot be readmitted exce!)t under the terms of the immigi-ation laws. 

The regulations under which these Filipinos were originally admitted provided 


that 10 classes of persons shonkl not ho allowed enti-y. Paragraph 7 of the 
regulations, as amended, provided for tlie exclusion of the following persons: 

"(a) Idiots, imbeciles, feehle-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, per- 
sons who liave had one or more attacks of insanity at any time previously. 

"(b) Paupers, professional I)eggars, vagi-ants. 

"(e) Persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous 
contagious disease. 

"(d) Persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing classes who are 
found to be and are certified by the examining physician as being mentally or 
physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may 
affect their ability to earn a living. 

"(e) Persons wlio have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony 
or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. 

"(f) Polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of 

"(g) Anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force 
or violence of the Government of the United States or of all government or of all 
forms of law. or the assassination of public officials. 

"(h) Prostitutes, or women or girls coming to Hawaii for the purpose of 
prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, or persons who procure or 
attempt to bring in prostitutes or women or girls for the purpose of prostitution 
or for any other immoral purpose. 

"(i) Persons engaged in the illicit narcotic or other illicit traffic. 

"(j) Persons not within the age limits, if any, prescribed in the order approving 
the application" (age limits of IS and 45 years were prescribed in the Governor's 
order of 11. 194r)). 

It will be noted that this paragraph of the regulations closely parallels section 
3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, excluding such laborers as would fall within 
most of the classes or aliens who were not admissible under that act. Further- 
more, the regulations required each of the laborers to be medicall.v examined by 
an officer of the United States Public Health Service. Consequently, although 
these persons were admitted without regard to the immigration laws, there 
was in fact substantial compliance with those laws. 

We urge, therefore, that the status of these Filipinos be clarified and that 
they be accorded the status of permanent residents, so that they may become 
naturalized citizens and may travel freely to all parts of the United States. We 
suggest that this status be conferred upon "such citizens of the Philippine 
Islands as entered the United States in accordance with the last sentence of 
section 8 (a) (1) of the Philippine Independence Act, without regard to the 
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act." Should it appear to the 
Commission that a further screening of these persons is desirable before they 
acquire the status of permanent residents, we suggest that they be exempt from 
all provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, except for subsection (a) 
of section 212, excluding subparagraphs (14), (20), and (26). 

5. Entry of nonimmigrants from adjacent islands of the Caribbean 

We should like finally to call to your attention a problem which, we believe 
can be remedied by administrative action and will not require an amendment 
to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under existing regulations, certain 
nonimmigrants from the Caribbean possessions of the United Kingdom, France, 
and the Netherlands, many enter the Virgin Islands of the United States for less 
than 30 days without passports or visas (8 C. F. R. 170.107 (p) ). We presume 
that an a])propriate waiver will be issued pursuant to section 212 (d) (4) of the 
new act, so that such entry into the Virgin Islands by residents of adjacent 
islands ma.v continue. Because of their common nationality, their close family 
ties, and their geographical proximity, residents of the "adjacent islands" de- 
.scribed in section 101 (b) (;")) of the act liave strong reasons for wanting and 
needing to travel freely into the Virgin Islands. 

It is probable, however, that the regulations issued pursuant to section 212 
(d) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act will limit the visits of non- 
immigrants from adjacent islands to 29 days in the Virgin Islands. We have 
been advised that this time limit has lieen applied in the past because the Alien 
Registration Act required aliens remaining in the United States for 30 days or 
more to register under the act. Section 202 of tlie Inunigration and Nationality 
Act contains a similar jn-ovision. P)ecause alien registration has been effectuated 
at tlie time of api)lication for a visa, such persons as residents of the British 
Virgin Islands, admissible without visas, have not automatically complied with 
the registration requirements. As a consequence, the regulations have thus 


far limited residents of neighboring islands to :iV)-da.v visits. In "emergent or 
other extraordinary cases," an extension may be granted (8 C. F. R. 119.4 (<.■)), 
in which event tlie alien registers under the Alien Registration Act, but such 
extensions are granted only in cases of very extreme emergency. Tins time limit 
has been extremely burdensome to many visitors, and particularly to students, 
who, in some instances, may be classitied as temporary visitors, for many have 
been compelled to return home at least every "_'!• days in order to reestablish the 
legality of their presence in tlie Virgin Islands, without documentation. The 
paucity of United States consuls in the Caribbean area has generally prevented 
these people from securing the usual documentaticm of noninnnigrants. 

Because there are lunnerous instances in which visits of over 2!l da.vs are 
necessary and desirable, even though they may not he •"extraordinary" cases. 
we reconnnend that the regulations waiving documentary requirements with 
resiject to persons entering the Virgin Islands from adjacent islands provide for 
visits for periods up to G months. We do not believe that alien registration re- 
quirements prevent tlie extension of these visits beyond I!".) days, and that under 
section 263 (a) of the new act the Attorney (leneral c(mld provide a simi»le 
system for the registration of such nonimmigrant aliens on extended visits. 

The Chairman. The next witness will be Mr. Edward M. O'Con- 


Mr. O'Connor. I am Edward M. O'Connoi-. at j)resent consultant to 
the Psychological 8trateo;y Board and former Conmiissioner of the 
United States Displaced Persons Connnission. 

The Chairman. If I recall correctly, weren't yon awarded the 
Catholic Action award in li>r)U for beino- the outstanding; Catholic 

Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir. I should like to make it clear that I am 
here today to give of my previous 4 years* experience with the United 
States Displaced Persons Connnission, which I felt com{)elled to give 
to your Commission. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Connnission, with your per- 
mission, I would like to submit for your consideration and for the 
record a copy of an article which I wrote and which will appear pub- 
licly in a monthly called Catholic Action in the next few days. The 
title is "The Immigration Debate and Its Central Issue." Secondly. I 
would like to have the op])ortunity within the next 24 hours to sub- 
mit a second article, entitled "'The Brussels Conference,'* which will 
appear in the December issue of the Social Service Review, dealing 
with the question of the Brussels conference, which cuts across ques- 
tions you are dealing with here. 

The Chairman. Fine. AVe will insert your articles in the record 
at this point. 

(The articles referred to follow :) 

The Iximigkatiox Dehate and Its Cextkai. Issie 

By Edward Mark O'Connor 

A red-hot debate about immigration policy is on again. Like all the otber 
debates on this subject, and we have had them since the first session of Congress, 
the sides are sharply divided and the amnuuiition varied. Bnt this time the de- 
bate is taking place at a stage in world ;iffairs the like of whi<'h has never be- 
fore confronted the Nation. 
25356-52 HI 


To understand the vifi;or and magnitude of this debate, we must first under- 
stand the immediate causes for it. In the first place, the entire world is in the 
throes of a crisis, perhaps the most critical ever to confront our civil zation. It 
is essentially an ideological struggle in which the forces of darkness and tyranny 
are pitted against the forces of freedom, free institutions, and human dignity. 
So intense and joined is this struggle that thinking men more and more are be- 
coming convinced that one side or the other must win, and victory for one means 
obliteration for the other. The outcome of this conflict could very well determine 
the course of history and the type of world man must live in for centuries to 

This conflict has created problems which test the very foundation of our 
civilization. These are problems which we and all other freedom-loving people 
must face up to squarely and resolutely. Our failure to do so can bring nothing 
but disaster to evei'ything we hold dear in life. 

There is little question but what the greatest problems growing out of this 
struggle are the human problems. This is so because the greatest strength and 
treasure of our cause is found in the dignity and worth of the individual. Just 
the opposite is true of our adversary. As a consequence, it behooves us to take 
a careful look at the condition of our human resources. 

As we look to Europe we find two very disturbing weaknesses. The first 
is that which is caused by the thousands of persecuted people who have es- 
caped the oppression of communism to find asylum in the free world. They come 
from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, 
Bulgaria, Albania, and Soviet Russia (including Ukranians, Byelorussians, 
Georgians, Armenians, Cossacks, and other non-Russian people). We call them 
escapees — -escapees from communism — with all that it signifies. They find 
a.sylum for the most part in West Germany, West Austria, Italy, Greece, and 
Turkey. Their lot is a desperate one. All they seek is the opportunity to join 
the forces of free men where they can work and live in dignity. 

The second is that which is caused by overpopulation, and its victims are those 
who do not play a useful part in or share the benefits of the civilization of which 
they are a part. They do not share because the economy and natural resources 
of their country do not now and cannot in the foreseeable future use their labor, 
skills, and talents. These tremendous human resources must not be wasted or 
permitted to lie idle. They are the special target of the Red conspirators who 
ruthlessly exploit every weakness in the social structure of the free world. The 
countries handicapoed by overpopulation are West Germany, Italy, Greece, and 
the Netherlands. We must remind ourselves all of these countries must stand 
as bastions of the free world, all are or will soon be members of the North Atlan- 
tic Treaty Organization. They are our full partners in the struggle to preserve 
our way of life. We cannot help but admire them when faced with overpopu- 
lation at home they keep open their doors of asylum to those who are suffering 
the fate of martyrs in the east. 

Our allies cannot solve these two large human problems alone. They need 
our help and good example which can best be done by deeds. The question is : 
How do we give the most effective help? Last March President Truman, in a 
special message to the Congress, called attention to these two problems and made 
it clear that finding a solution to them was of the highest urgency. He first 
of all pointed out that this was a task for the fi-ee world itself and that American 
leadership was necessary, just as it was in getting the problem of displaced 
I)ersons resolved. To that end he proposed that there be admitted into the 
United States a total of 300,000 immigrants over a 3-year period, to be selected 
from among the escapees from communism and the victims of overpopulation. 
The same safeguards as applied in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 as to secu- 
rity, housing, employment, etc., were to be essential parts of this plan. It was 
left to Congress to determine what form this action should take. Congress 
could enact temporary, emergency legislation wherein the immigrants would be 
nonquota, or it could adjust the basic immigration law to provide for the pooling 
of unused quotas authorized under the national-origin formula. 

To carry out the President's reconunendations, model bills were introduced 
by Congressman Celler of New York and Senator Hendrickson of New Jersey. 

Public hearings on the probleiu were held by the Judiciary Committee of the 
House. However, no action was taken by the Congress before adjournment, 
and there the issue rests. 

What is Important to note here is that once again we are held powerless, by 
law, to do our part and thus give positive leadership to the free world in its 
efforts to increase its internal strength. 


The mathematical formula for the national-origin feature of the immigration 
law was written at a time (1922) when our national administration was seeking 
to completely isolate us from the rest of the world. It certainly was not written 
at a time when the very survival of our Nation was at stake, as it is today, or 
in the spirit of self-enlightened leadership which has been forced upon us by 
the threat of aggressive Red tyranny. The strength of a democracy rests in 
large part in its flexibility to meet any situation at any given time. It is ham- 
strung when its policy, domestic or foreign, is governed by an unnatural, mathe- 
matical formula and more so when such a formula was intended to remove 
flexibility and replace it with cold rigidity. 

The national-origin formula is calculated on a percentage of the foreign-born 
persons of certain nationalities living in the United States as of a given year. 
The first such formula restricted immigration to 3 percent of the total foreign- 
born population in the United States as of 1910. This was passed by Congress 
but was pocket-vetoed by President Wilson on February 26, 1921. This same 
formula, however, was enacted into law on May 19, 1921. In 1924 the Sixty-fifth 
Congress took steps to further restrict immigration by narrowing down the 
nationality formula. In the long debates which attended this change, frequent 
emphasis was placed on the necessity to "preserve the basic strain of our popu- 
lation." The old formula which was based upon the total number of foreign- 
born residents in the United States was replaced by one based on the national 
origin of all the people living in the United States as of 1920. Through this 
device "quotas" were established for every coimtry of the world. Thus the quota 
system is now based upon this mathematical formula ; the quota of any national- 
ity shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of 
inhabitants in continental United States in 1920, having that national origin, 
bears to the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920. The 
minimum quota of any nationality was set at 100. 

Now, how did this formula work out? To begin with, Great Britain and North- 
ern Ireland receive an annual quota of 65,721 ; Germany a quota of 25,957 ; 
Ireland (Eire) a quota of 17,.S53. Let us look at the countries suffering from 
over population and see how they fare. Italy, where the problem is gravest, 
receives an annual quota of 5,677 ; Greece, struggling to recover from the great 
devastation caused by the Communists, receives a quota of 310 ; the Netherlands, 
struggling with the results of loss of her colonies and a healthy birth rate, 
receives a quota of 3,153. While Germany has an annual quota of 25,957, 50 
percent of it is already mortgaged because of the special requirements of the 
Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended. 

Now, let us take a look at the quotas allotted to the captive nations of the 
Soviet Union — the quotas to which the escapees from communism must, by 
law, be charged. Estonia's quota is 116 ; Latvia, 236 ; Lithuania, 386 ; Poland, 
6,524; Czechoslovakia, 2,874; Hungary, 869; Rumania, 291; Bulgaria, 100; Al- 
bania, 100 ; Soviet Russia, 2,798. Here again 50 percent of every one of these 
quotas is mortgaged for many years ahead because of the special requirements 
of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended. This means that you must, 
divide by two each of the above quotas to determine how much help we can 
give to the escapees from communism. 

You must be wondering by now to what use the quotas allotted to Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland and that of Ireland have been put. In the 
annual period ending June 30, 1952, a total of 21,663 quota numbers were used 
by Great Britain and North Ireland. In other words', they did not use or 
need 44,058 quota numbers. Ireland in the same period used 4,014, leaving 
13,839 not used. This gives you some idea of the impractical results the 
national-origin formula has produced. 

The new immigration law which comes into effect on December 24, 1952, 
provides that the quota for each nationality shall be one-sixth of 1 i>ercent of 
the total of persons' of like nationality resident in the United States as of 
1920. This formula in no way increases quotas but in some cases further 
reduces them. 

The total number of immigrants theoretically admissible to the United States 
in a year is slightly over 1.54.000. Records' show that over a period of years 
only slightly more than 50 percent of the total quotas authorized each year 
have been used. The main cause of this is that quotas are allotted to some 
countries out of all proportion to their needs, while others are allotted a quota 
which is ridiculous when placed against their needs. 

What is the answer to this problem? What can we do to make our immigra- 
tion quota system work to our advantage in these days of national peril? 


The most (liivct lucthod would he to discard the rigid, impractical national- 
orijuiii formula. In its place Conjiress could estiildis'h a total numher of immi- 
j-rants to he admitted each year without settiuy up a rigid formula for distri- 
I)utioii of the (piotas which would give the same impractical results as the 
national-oriiiiii fornmla. I'rovision could be made for a joint committee of 
the Congress, or an independent conunis'sion of outstanding citizens, or a com- 
bination of both, to determine how the quota numbers should be distributed. 
If a dual basis of domestic needs and international requirements was u.sed to 
arrive at allocations, say, every G months, we would then be on the way to an 
elastic, dynamic inunigration policy. 

It is, perhaps, too much to hoi)e for successful action on such a proposal in 
time to meet the immediate challanges posed l)y the escapees from conununism 
and the victims of overpopulation. There is, however, an intermediate step 
which could salvage part of the initiative needed in our immigration policy. 
That would be to make provision for the reuse of quota numbers, lost in a 
given year, in the next quota year. This is called "pooling of unused quotas." 
Such a provision would probabl.y make available somewhere between TO.OOO 
and To, (MM) quota numl)ers each year. In order for this approach to produce 
the best results, it will be necessary for Congress to decide how these numbers 
>;hould be used. Several alternatives are open. Congress could allot them 
■exclusivel.v to escapees from communism and victims of overpopulation along 
the lines indicated in the model liills introduced by Congres'sman Celler and 
Senator Hendrickson. Another possibility is to grant the authority for redistri- 
bution to a joint committee of Congress, an independent conuuission of out- 
standing citizens, or a combination of ))oth. The most important consideration 
is to put these unusued cpiotas back to work in areas ot the world where our own 
security interests are involved. 

Quite recently ['"enator Lehman of New York pul)licly advocated the pooling 
of unused (piotas to meet the international emergency and suggested the National 
^-ecurit.v Council he delegated the authority to redistribute the unused quotas. 
The National Security Coun<-il, with its high sensitivity to the demands of the 
intern.-itional situation, would certainly know where, how, and when the unus'ed 
quota numbers would do the most good toward increasing the collective security 
of the free world. 

AVhen all the debating is tinished and the dnst has settled in the arena, 
the central issue will be whether or not we have corrected the rigid fornuila 
of the National (Origins Act. There are other questions on deportation, exclu- 
sion, and naturalization of innnigrants which have been argued vigorously in 
recent months. Important as all these questions are to the evolution of a 
positive immigration law, the.v do not hold the center of the arena. The 
center of the arena is' occupied by the national-origin formula, and it will 
reii'ain there to ])lague us until we wake up to the great harm it is doing us in 
a world where we can't have too many friends. 

The Hiu'ssicls Coxfkukxce ^ 

By Kdward M. (VConnoi' 

On Noveni))er '2(i. T.tril. thei'e was convened at Rrussels. Belgium, a conference 
of some 2-") nations of the free world. The I'elgian (iovernment acted as host to 
this conf"rence. which was brought about primarily through the initiative ex- 
ercised by the Government of the United States. Tlie purposes of this Con- 
ference were to discuss the problems growing out of overpopulation in certain 
of the Western European nations, the current effect these problems have upon 
the stal»ility of the free world, the futxu'e dangers these problems were likely 
to create, and. finally, to determine what course of action was likely to 
I'.ring the fullest and most practical remedy to these prol)lems. 

There is a Ion;; history of human events preceding the Brussels Conference 
which might vei'y well be considered the prime motivation for the convening of 
the Conference. Time will not permit me a detailed analysis of all these historic 
events, but a few high lights may lead us to a better understanding of the rea- 
sons behind American leadership in this matter. 

'Address by Kdw;ird M. O'Connor, ( 'oiiiniissioncr. ItisplMci'd Persons Coinniission, at 
f'p National Reset tlmieiit Conference, Hotel Conrad Hilton, Chicairo. 111., .lannarv IS-tO. 


It is a fact of history that the uuhalanoefl relationship between the recinire- 
nients of man and the res<Hirces necessary to survival has caused jua-eat human 
misrations. Man in search of these resources f<u- survival has traveled ov^r 
vast areas of the world. Some of these early mass migrations were {Peaceful 
in character, while others were attende<l l\v l)rutal warfare — even to the extent 
of out entire civilizations. I'ut in all these early mass miifrations there 
stands out the factor of compulsion — (X)mpulsi(m brought about by the un- 
balance<l relationship between the requirements of man and the resources neces- 
sary to survival. 

This same factor of compulsion playetl a dominant role in the populating and 
develoinnent of the New World. It is true that other reasons drove people 
fi-om their native lands to the uncertainties of the New W<u-ld. such as religious 
and political persecution : but, again, the vast majority migrated because the 
civilizaticm of which they were a part did not permit them to enjoy the human 
essentials to which man. as man, is entitled. 

The century in which we live has witnessed two devastating wars, both 
brought about by actual or claimed necessity l»y one branch of the human family 
for a fuller participation in the resources of survival. It is worthless for us 
to argue whether this necessity was actual or claimed, because the fact remains 
that civilization has suffered the consequences of two wars. In each instance 
the leader hrst secured his followers by loud and grandiose promises of a fuller 
share in the resources for survival. 

In the wake of AYorld War II. we witnessed events which brought about a 
further unbalancing between the requirements of man and the resources for 
survival. P^ither these events have taken place in Western Euroi>e or the end 
result of these events has come to rest upon one or .several nations in that area. 

The expulsion by the Soviet I'nion of between 10 and 12 million i>ersons of 
(lernian etlinic origin from the areas overrun by the Red armies during the 
course of the war is (Hie of the saddest chapters in history. This expulsion, 
cou])led with the action of the Soviet I'nion in unilaterally reordering the bor- 
ders of occupied Poland and Germany (at terrible cost to the people of both 
countries), has put a dangeronsly heavy burden upon the democratic leader- 
ship of West Gernuiny. Some indication of this liurden may be taken from the 
fact that West (liermany was i-equiued to imp<u"t a»)proximately .">() percent of its 
food requirements last year, and food certainly rates a higli priority in the scale 
of I'esonrces for survival. 

Italy, with a tradition of high birth rate, is now tending toward a leveling of 
population, but it is estimated that the next (i years will be critical because of the 
extreme population imbahuu'e whieh now exists. tJefore the outbreak of World 
War II. Italy was forced to develop a government-sponsored emigration program 
to relieve overpopulation, has paid and continues to pay a heavy price to retain 
its stature as a free nation. The loss of its former colonies has had a drastic 
effect upon the normal emigi-ation jn'ogram. Ifecause the colonies were their best 
outlet for emigrants. In addition, over .KIO.OOO ethnic Italians were expelled from 
the colonies and the general Mediterranean area and returned to an overcrowded 
Italy. The situation was further aggravated by the ceding of the former Italian 
territory of Venezia ^Tiulia to Yugoslavia, which in turn caused the expulsion or 
flight of some 14(»,(l(l(t ethnic Italians from that territory to Italy. 

Greece has suffered the devastating results of World War II, and, before these 
damages could be repaired, the Kremlin forces in the form of so-called "guerril- 
las" descended upon this land to cause even greater damage. The dislocation of 
population, the wiping-out of entire villages and towns, and the destruction of 
land and physical resources which resulted from these aggressive acts, have 
put a dangerous burden upon this small but free nation. The all-out effort at 
reclaiming land and the rebuilding of the villages and towns still falls far short 
of the basic rerpiirements of the native population. They too miist develop a 
program of emigration in order to relieve the tensions that grow out of over- 

The Netherlands prior to World War II was able to maintain a proper balance 
in population, owing primaiMly to her oi'derly and long-range settlement programs 
in her colonies. The traditional, healthy birth rate of the Netherlands was com- 
jiensated by the easy facility with which her people could migrate to the colonies 
and become rapidly established as permanent settlers without cutting all ties 
with the homeland. With the loss of her major colonies, the long-range settle- 
ment jirograms came to a virtual standstill. On top of this, thousands upom 
thousands of her nationals, together with their families, were repatriated to the 
homeland from the former colonies. Thus, the Netherlands must develop a new 


means of inaiiitaiiiins her long-range settlement i)rograms if the necessary bal- 
ances are to be maintained and a healthy society preserved. 

Still another element has been added which tends to sharpen the problem of 
population balances in Western Europe. The oppressive tactics of the Soviet 
Union, as reflected in all the areas under its control and domination, has caused 
a constant flow of refugees from the east. These refugees have come from every 
one of the countries under the heel of the Kremlin and from the eastern zones of 
Germany and Austria. Today the vast majority come from Eastern Germany 
and Austria, and it is apparent that escape from the satellite states and the 
Soviet Union is becoming increasingly difficult. However, we should be mindful 
that circumstances of the future may reverse this trend — so uncertain are the 
days in which we live. 

The western nations have continued to uphold the traditional principle of 
asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution. It is indeed signifi- 
cant to note that three countries which by virtue of their geographical position 
are required to uphold this principle despite the fact they already are burdened 
by overpopulation— Germany, Italy, and Greece. Austria, Turkey, and Sweden 
are likewise demonstrating their adherence to this principle, again because their 
geographical position makes it necessary. 

ATid finally we may not lose sight of the Red vulture — perched upon her em- 
blem of world conquest— viewing with satisfaction the destructive results which 
come from overpopulation in any area of the world. She is mindful of the fact 
that unemployment and underemployment are the fertile grounds for discontent. 
She delights in the knowledge that so long as this condition prevails it is diflicult, 
if not impossible, to bring about economic, social, and political stability. Her 
treacherous nestlings are busy fomenting every possible discord, suspicion, and 
despair among the people, speeding the day when chaos may permit her victory 
without th'^ need of resorting to armed invasion. 

The Congress of the United States took early recognition of the problems which 
were developing as a result of the forced migrations of people into free Europe, 
One of the most significant and farseeing amendments to the Displaced Persons 
Act of 1948 was section 16. Through this amendment, which received overwhelm- 
ing support in the Congress, clear recognition was given to the need for inter- 
governmental action in meeting the problem. This was followed by an amend- 
ment to the EGA Act which authorized the Administrator to take such steps as 
were likely to bring about a movement of surplus workers and their families 
to areas of the world in need of their services. In the last session of Congress 
there m;vs laid out in the Mutual Security Act a course of action which called 
upon the nations of the free world to make a full evaluation of the population 
factors in Western Europe and, having done so, to develop a program of remedy 
which would be of benefit to the community of free people. 

These are some of the high lights which led to the Brussels Conference. Now, 
for the significant accomplishments of the conference. They are related not in 
the sense of their relative importance, because you best can give that evaluation. 

There was expressed a clear concern over the use of such terminology as 
"suritlus population" or "overpopulation," a feeling that this miglit lead people 
to think this meant those who were misfits, or undesirables, or the unwanted. 
Such a misunderstanding would, of course, be completely inconsistent with the 
facts and likely would pervent any real migration program from developing. 
It was concluded that what this meant was people (the most precious treasure 
of the free world) v.-ho had useful talents and services to give but for whom 
there was no opportunity to contribute their full worth to society. 

There was stress on the term "settlers"' as distinguished from migrants. This 
was considered a more appropriate descriptive term, because these people were 
to be settlers, much like those who came to our shores in past generations, people 
who were prepared and anxious to improve the resources of their new homeland. 

There was strong emphasis on the necessity of planned movements of people 
from Europe to countries of settlement, planning being necessary so as to cause 
the best and most rapid integration of the newcomer to the opportunities of his 
new land. Without such planning, the dangers to the welfare of the settlers, 
as well as to the economy of the receiving country, were apparent. 

There was every evidence that many countries not only needed more people 
but were interested in securing them. The benefits that historically come to 
a country of immigration were warmly recognized. 

There was recognized the practical relationship between the need for economic 
development in some of the receiving countries as a parallel to the ability of 
such countries to receive and properly absorb immigrants. This recognition 
was not so fully expressed as some of us had hoped, but nevertheless it has been 


woven into the fabric of common understanding and will secure more recogni- 
tion as the practical operational phases of the program are entered into. 

There was establislied a basis of financial participation by the member nations, 
which is calculated to bring about the proi)er contributions by those who can pay 
and yet recognizes the equal place in the progi-am for nations which are not in a 
position to make equal contributions. Important also is the plan to have the 
migrant assist in the financing of the program, either in direct payment or through 
favorable loans to be repaid in a reasonable period of time. 

It was established that the new international agency was to engage itself 
solely in the overseas movement of people and that intra-European migration 
would be worked out by the countries concerned on a bilateral basis or some 
other agreed-upon method. 

The relationship of normal immigration to the program of the new agency was 
given clear definition. The cooperative international eft'oi't was to concern itself 
with movements of people which otlierwise would not take place. Thus it is to 
be a program on the plus side of normal immigration. 

The place of the refugee from Communist oppression in the international move- 
ments plan was extended full consideration. The refugee was placed in a sep- 
arate category, so that his cause and rights would not be lost sight of. Refugees 
thus are to be afforded every opportunity to 'migrate from Western Europe to 
new homelands overseas. 

A rather iniique principle was established with respect to the refugee from 
communism and the countries affording him asylum. This principle is known as 
"country of first asylum." Here we have a recognition that asylum is an essential 
of our civilization and that countries v.hose geographical location is such as to 
I'equire them to keep an open door do so with the encouragement of other free 
nations. It naturally follows that the other free nations will play their part in 
seeing to it tliat there is a fair spread of responsibility among all in the reestab- 
lishment of these people in new homelands. 

The importance of preserving the integrity and unity of the family was not a 
subject for debate and readily found its full place in the understandings arrived 
at. The family, as the keystone of our civilization, could not be otherwise in the 
planning of nations which make up that civilization. 

The need for preserving and strengthening the solidarity of the free world was 
expressed in many forms and on numerous occasions. As free nations a respon- 
sibility accrues to the people attached to principles of democratic government. 
A common threat to the civilization of whicli free nations are a part calls for 
common and united action. The connnunity of free nations can remain free only 
if they are strong. They may remain or grow strong only when all their people 
are playing a full and useful part in the economic, social, political, and moral 
structure of their nation. These basics were the real driving force behind the 
accomplishments of the Brussels Conference. 

Finally, and surely not last on the list of attainments, was the creation by 16 
participating governments of an instrunient to give life and meaning to the asree- 
ments arrived at. There was established the Provisional Intergovernmental 
Committee for the Movement of IMigrants from Europe, to he known alphabetically 
as PICMME. It is expected more free nations will come into the provisional 
arrangement at an early date. 

The 16 nations creating the new Provisional Intergovernmental Committee 
were divided into four categories : The first category was made up of countries 
of emigration, that is, countries who are seeking settlement in new homelands 
for some of their nationals and refugees from communism. Those countries were 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Austria, and Greece. The second category covered 
countries of immigration — countries needing additional population and sincerely 
desiring to secure it. Those countries were Canada, Australia, Brazil, Chile, and 
Bolivia. The third category consisted of interested countries, that is, countries 
with neither too many nor too few people but which, because of the part they 
recognized as necessai-y for them to play in the common planning of free nations, 
joined the committee. Tlaose countries were France, Belgium, Switzerland, Tur- 
key, and Luxemburs. The fourth category applied to the United States, perhaps 
as a tribute to the Congress of the United States, which has clearly demonstrated 
its interest in brinsing about a solution to the overpopulation in Western Europe 
and the fact that the United States Government was authorized to contribute up 
to .$10,000,000 to get a new intergovernmental agency organized. The United 
Kingdom, which was not able to become a full member of lack of author- 
ity from Parliament, participated in all the sessions of the Committee because it 
is an assured fact that the United Kingdom will become a member in the very 
near future. 


The plan agreed upon by the ineinher nations for the first year is to cause the 
migration of apin-oxiniately 115,000 people from EuroiJe to new homelands across 
tlie seas. This is, of course, over and above the movement of migrants which will 
take place under normal immifiratirm proj^rams. 

In sTuumary. I would like to put liefore you for your consideration three areas 
of activity which seem to he inseparable if we are to see a better balance between 
the re(]uireiiients of man and the resources for survival. 

1. That all possible measures be taken to step up the economies and productive 
capacities of all the free nations of Western Europe. Great improvement has 
been made in this direction durinti the last 4 years, but there is still a long way 
to go. 

2. That steps l>e taken immediately to bring about a better distribution of 
workers among all the western European nations. Tliis must, of course, be geared 
to the I'equirements of an expanding productive capacity of all these nations. 
Bilateral acticm in this field can be helpful, but it would appear this is a task 
which can best be accomplished througli the North Atlantic Council. 

3. That the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for tlie Movement of 
Migrants from Europe go forward with bold vision and determined leadership. 
Tlie beginnings at Brussels are regarded as mediocre in some quarters, biit there 
should be no question as to the spirit wliich permeated this conference. It was 
such that intergovernmental action was a foregone conclusion but a few days 
after it commenced. This same spirit was intensified as the conference pro- 
gressed. It ended on a note of harmony and solidarity, surel.v a foundation vnpon 
which a great and necessary human enterprise may be built. 

The American initiative in meeting this problem can, if maintained, bring 
everlasting benefits to mankind. When we consider the vast areas of the free 
world which can benefit by adding to its p<ipulation and tlie great benefits which 
will in turn come to tliose who today are not fully sharing in the resoui'ces of the 
civilization in wliich they live, we are immediately challenged by these great 
possibilities for strengthening tlie free world and thus securing a .lust and 
lasting peace. 

Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, to be<rin with, I would like to read a 
short statement and leave the time that remains for such questions as 
you or the members of the Commission may care to direct to me. 

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

Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, it is 
my understanding- that one of the primary purposes of this Commis- 
sion is to inquire into the manner in which our current immigration 
laAv relates to the conduct of our relations with other nations and its 
abilities to meet Avorld problems which have a direct bearing on our 
security and future well-being. 

During the past 4 years it has been my high privelege to be engaged 
in a Government program which was in large measure engaged with 
these important questions. The sum total of this experience leads me 
to these two basic conclusions. 

1. That our immigi'ation law, together with its enlightened admin- 
istration, is a fundamental instrinnent in the conduct of our relations 
Avith other nations and that it must at all times, and particularly in 
times of international crisis, be geared to a dynamic^ purposefid, and 
farsighted policy of world leadership. 

'2. That the controlling feature of our present immigration law, the 
quota system, was comjiosed and enacted at a time when our Nation 
was being driven deeper and deeper into the fatal pitfall of isolation- 
ism. When we understand that the original quota system rather than 
being improved has through the years been made more restrictive and 
rigid only then can Ave understand Avhy oui- ]ii'esent quota system par- 
alyzes American action and leadership in meeting tAvo great problems 
of the free Avorld. 

The tAvo great problems to Avhich reference is made are : 


1. The problem of overpopulation wliicli plagues several nations of 
the free world. 

2. The i)roblem of "escapees from communism'' who are finding 
asylum in West Germany, Italy, and Greece — countries already suf- 
fering the trials of overpoi)ulation — and in Turkey and Austria. 

It is my understanding that the related problems of overpopulation 
in Western Europe and Greece have been well covered in the previous 
hearings. In the time allotted to me my remarks will be directed 
toward the implications that arise in connection with escapees from 

To begin with, the very term "escapees'" pictures people fleeing from 
something which has held them captive. That is precisely the case. 
It also ])ictures people fleeing to some place where they can escape the 
tyranny of their life of captivity. That also is precisely the case. In 
fact they are escapees from the captivity of the Soviet Empire, fleeing 
into the free world where they seek the basic freedoms which are as 
precious as life itself. 

The escapees come from all the areas of the Soviet Empire, and 
those areas where communism has seized total power. At present the 
great majority come from East Germany. It is generally agreed that 
approximately 20,000 East Germans cross the line into the free world 
each month. The rate of escape for non-German refugees ranges from 
800 to 1,000 per month. There is no accurate measure as to what the 
rate of esca])e is likely to be in the future because this depends upon a 
variety of complex and unpredictable factors. 

They find asylum for the most part in West (rermany, Italy, West 
Austria, Greece, and Turkey. So far as West Germany, Italy, and 
Greece are concerned they must be looked upon as countries of first 
asylum. This is necessary because each of these countries is already 
overpopulated and keeping their borders open puts an extraordinary 
burden upon them. Each of these countries is to be commended for 
the stand it has taken in support of the age-old right of asylum for 
those suffering religious and political persecution. But the cold facts 
of the matter are that there is a severe limit to what they can do unless 
we and the other nations of the free world step in and give them a 
helping hand. 

Escapees from communism must be looked u])on as an essential part 
of the cold war. Few thinking men today will hesitate to recognize 
that we are fully engaged in a world-wide contest, the purpose of 
which is to win the allegiance of the minds of men. The outcome of 
this contest could very well tell the difference between peace and war, 
world tyranny or world freedom. A life-long scholar of world affairs 
and an acknowledged expert on Soviet power and objectives had this 
to say on the subject: "The hotter we make the logistics of the cold 
Avar the colder will become the logistics of the hot war." The Rever- 
end Edmund J. Walsh, rector of Georgetown University School of 
Foreign Service, is the source of this timely analysis. In my consid- 
ered judgment the escapees form a natural part of the logistics of the 
cold war. 

Let us look behind the iron curtain and visualize what escape means 
to the enslaved ])eoples and to their ruthless masters. 

To the enslaved peoples it means the following, among other things . 

1. That there is a better world over the horizon and that is the free 
world ; 


2. That the spirit of freedom still burns bright in the hearts of their 
countrymen ; 

3. Tliat no tyjjinny, no matter how ruthless, can keep all the people 
captive all the thne; 

4. That those who escape through to the fiee world will tell the 
terrible story of the tragic events now taking place in the twentieth 
centuiy empire of Muscovy ; 

5. That the individual escapee is and will remain a living bridge 
between their heritage of freedom and the day when it will again 
become a reality for them ; 

6. They are mindful that escape is a taunt to their oppressors, a 
continuing reminder to him that under the surface of slavery runs a 
powerful stream of resistance wdiich one day will have its turn in 
the arena ; 

7. Escape is the food of freedom for the oppressed. 

To the masters of tyranny it means the following, among other 
things : 

1. That the call of freedom is a more powerful force than they are 
able to meet ; 

2. That their program of Sovietization is not meeting with the pop- 
ular will of the people ; 

3. That the escapee has taken with him valuable information which 
is bound to turn the spotlight on the fakery of Soviet utterances and 
claims intended to capture world opinion ; 

4. That the enslaved people are not to be trusted, which means a 
reshuffling of the apparatus of oppression — und this means more 
trouble for the already top-heavy bureaucracy of state. 

5. The escape of a former functionary in or supervisor of any phase 
of state planning or program creates added suspicion. In turn this 
usually results in a reshuffling of personalities directing the plan of 
consolidation with Moscow. 

6. Esca]je is the food of fear for the oppressors. Fear as to who 
might be the next to go, fear for who will be blamed for the escapes, 
fear of the passive resistance it generally represents, fear of the con- 
nection it might have with more active resistance plans. 

Our own enlightened self-interest requires that we keep the doors 
to freedom open for those who dare to escape from the lands behind 
the dark curtain of tyranny. In order to do this we must take the 
leadership in providing the following basics : 

1. A program of temporary reception and care in the countries of 
first reception ; 

2. A program for the rapid integration of escapees into the frame- 
work of the free world. 

Both of these requirements depend in large measure for success 
on the opportunities for emigration which are open for the escapees. 
At present there are very few and unless positive action is taken 
immediately these too might dry up. Our experience on related 
problems over the postwar years indicates that any progi'am of 
planned migration depends upon the degree and quality of leadership 
we, as a Nation, give to it. 

The rigidity and false premises of our present quota system pre- 
vent us from taking positive leadership in meeting the great challenges 
found in the practical potentials presented by escapees from com- 
munism. When we were required to face up to the question of finding 


a solution for the problem of displaced persons of World War II 
we had to establish special, temporary legislation because the quota 
system prevented us from doing so by the ordinary means. But in 
doing this we mortgaged the traditional quotas of the countries from 
which the displaced persons came. The displaced persons came from 
the very countries that today are the originls of the escapees from 
communism. The end result is that the Government is impotent to 
meet this challenge because the all too small quotas set by law are 
heavily mortgaged for many years into the future. 

The real tragedy of this analysis is that our quota system stands 
as a concrete barrier to making our immigration laws a productive 
part of a dynamic, forceful, and farsighted foreign policy which the 
American people expect of their Government. We are forced to con- 
tinue our present position of paralysis on this issue until the quota 
system is brought in line with our domestic requirements and the 
demands of the critical international situation. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Connor. What 
alternative, if any, would you propose as a substitute for the present 
quota system ? 

Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, I have gone into that in detail in 
the first article here submitted. I could quickly run over my pro- 
posals with you. I think the first, and the objective perhaps toward 
which we should all shoot, is the removal of the national-origins for- 
mula, and by that I mean doing away with this highly compart- 
mentalized number system which is the quota system. In its place 
I would suggest that the Congress consider an over-all quota figure, 
that is, the number of admissions that we consider should come into 
the United States during a given year. Now, that is a matter for the 
Congress to decide. 

Having done that, having set the over-all figure, the main objective 
we ought to have in mind is to keep elasticity in the basic law. We 
have got to stay away from those hardened, fixed formulas which 
paralyze this Government from meeting month-to-month changes in 
the international situation, all of which bear upon our present and 
long-range security. How could we do that ? Well, I think we ought 
to arrive at the total number to come in each year based on two things : 
(1) Our domestic requirements ; and (2) the demands of the changing 
international situation, which means the criteria for choosing the top 
over-all number are themselves fluid. 

We get into a problem when we say, "Here we have got the total 
number that we think can come in and that we have every assurance 
to believe can be readily and very profitably developed into our own 
economy, our own culture, our own American way of doing things." 
That is a big question, but I would suggest these considerations on it. 

You can have a joint coimiiittee of the Congi'ess that sits down and 
deliberates it. You might authorize an independent commission of 
oustanding citizen. Or you might have a combination of both. It 
is important that allocations not be made on any annual basis but 
rather on more likely a 6-month basis, even less than that if it can 
possibly be done and be practical about it. The main thing again is to 
keep that flexibility which we need. And then other provisions could 
be made in a statute which would give flexibility to allocation of this 
system. That is the ideal, and I believe that is the one toward which 


we ()ii<)f]it to shoot because it is the one that will do us the most good 
today and in the future. 

Secondly, we could consider pooling the unused quota numbers in 
a given quota year, bring them forward into the next quota year in 
their total. When we do that, we will run into the same problem: 
AA'ho get« them, Avhen, where, and under what kind of conditions^ 
But again I think we could consider the three that I gave you. 

And then there is another one that bears consideration in this con- 
nection. The Congress already is acquainted with the great human 
questions that come out of tlie problems of overpopulation in certain 
countries whose ui)building and strength is an important link in the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as well as the escapees from 
communism. They might care to say, '"Well, we are going to try it. 
For several years we expect there will be these many that will revert 
to the next open quota year, and to see how it works we will do this." 
That is a possibility. I merely put it up for your consideration. 

Then there is another suggestion that has been made by the distin- 
guished Senator from Xew York, Senator Lehman, who I understand 
a very few weeks ago proposed to this C'onnnission something along 
the line of })Ooling of quotas and putting these quotas into a central 
kitty, so to speak, and then turning to the National Security Council 
to determine how^ best they could l3e distributed. In commenting on 
the Senator's very good suggestion, I would go a bit further and I 
Avould say certainly the National Security Council ought to knoAv the 
why, the where, the when, and the how of distributing the pooled 

Those are the best thoughts I have at the moment. I do see this 
as a practical consideration, Mr. Chairman. That is the question of 
confidence in those who would determine the allocation. Now, it 
seems that personal confidence in people today is a greater factor than 
perhaps it has ever been before in the history of our Nation. I do 
believe that the history of all the immigration debates gives clear 
evidence that one of the reasons for fixing this airtight fornnda over 
which there could be no administrative decision, because it was a cold 
])iece of mathematics, was that perhaj)s they did not think they could 
find any ))ers()n, or let us say group of j^ersons, who could be trusted 
enough to utilize those quotas in the clear interest of our country, 
both from the domestic point of view and the critical demands of the 
international situation. That is a bridge we have got to get over, and 
that is whv I suggested that there might be a combination of interests 
in the Conuress and citizens at large: and you might even go forward 
and ex{)and that, as one of the Senators has ])reviously reconnnended — 
1 can't recall just who — but you make a third division of that, and 
that is the executive branch of (xovernment, which is responsible for 
the administration of these laws, which includes ]Mitting some sinrit 
into it and never letting the spirit die. That is the substance of my 

Commissioner Pickett. IVIr. O'Connor, I am not quite clear from 
this statement whether you think the Commission should ])ut the em- 
phasis on tein])()i'ary legislation to make provision for escapees or 
whether von think a i-evision of the ]S[cCarran Act should be the 

Mr. O'Connor. That is a very good question. Dr. Pickett. T would 
])ut it this way. 1 think the thing we ought to shoot for is getting any 


basis that is <ioin<i- to permit us to take direct and dynamic action in 
meetin<r the human |noblems created by escapees from communism 
and as well directin.o- that same strenoth at the problems of overpopula- 
tion. I find it almost impossible to separate these two. Now, how do 
we do it ? 

We can do it, as I indicated. My first suggestion was to do away 
with the national origins mathematical fornuda and to give a na- 
tional number of admittances annually which could be distrilnited 
where it is going to do the most good. Xow, if we are unable to do 
that, then I suggest the alternative is that we ought to have special 
temi)orary legislation or anything that is going to get us in a position 
to ajiproach and help solve this, and above all for America to take 
the leadership with the other nations of the free world in getting at our 
business of licking these things. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, you first deal with the problem 
as a whole. There are these particular situations, and you hope that 
they can be solved by legislation that would be of a permanent charac- 
ter, if you make it fiuid enough '( 

Mr. O'Connor. Correct, because we can't foresee ^^"hat the situation 
is going to be in the world that relates to America's interest 5 years 
from now. I don't think we can. But we ought to have on the statute 
books a law which is going to be fiexible enough so that we can adjust 
ourselves to that, not to have to come back every session of the Con- 
gress and demand this change, that change, and the other change 
because Ave are not in tune with the swift passage of events in the world 
in which we live. I think if we accom|)lisli that, we will have done a 
great job. 

ConnnissioPier CrrLrixsoN. There is a question I would like to ask. 
The problem confronting this Commission is somewhat broader than 
the one that confronted the Displaced Persons Commission, and in 
facing up to America's problems in the world, facing up to the need 
which confronts us, would 3'our suggestions apply to all of mankind^ 

Mr. O'Connor. They would, sir. 
Commissioner (tullixson. The Asiatic as well as the European? 

Mr. O'Connor. They would, sir. 

Connnissioner (tullixson. An over-all quota to be administered on 
that })rinciple? 

Mr. O'Connor. To be administered on the international require- 
ments and the domestic situation. 

Commissioner Gullixson. And the needs, then, of the whole world 
would be in the picture ? 

Mr. O'Connor. I believe so. 

The Chairman. Some of the suggestions that have been made to the 
Connnission during the hearings are along these lines: That there 
should be, as you suggest too. a ceiling each year, and that within that 
ceiling there should be established certain c{ualifications and prefer- 
ences and priorities according to the needs and the interests of the 
United States and according to what situations the United States 
would like to help throughout the world: and that in establishing 
those priorities and those preferences and those qualifications, to the 
extent that they could be satisfied they would be, and then there would 
be some point at which the residue of the number that might be deter- 
mined for any one year would be opened to individuals on the basis of 


their individual worth without regard to race, creed, color, or national 
origin, and no matter Avhat part of the world from which they came. 
What is your opinion of such a proposal ? 

Mr. O'Connor. I think that would be a very forward step. 

What I gave, Mr. Chairman, were the thoughts I have. I hope 
that more and more people begin to think about this. I am sure 
that if people get to talking about this, they are going to find a solu- 
tion, and a happy one too, but so long as it is kept a very quiet sort 
of gentlemen's private club idea, with people not speaking out their 
lionest-to-goodness opinions on it, you couldn't expect very much ad- 
justment on it. I think it is healthy that people today are talking 
very openly about it. I am convinced we will find a solution to it. 

Commissioner Finucane. Mr. O'Connor, on the basis of all your 
experience, particularly in the DP program, do you feel there is any 
difference in the ability of the various races to assimilate in the United 
States ; and, if you do, have you any idea as to what that difference is ? 

Mr. O'Connor, Well, I must say, Mr. Finucane, from my just previ- 
ous 4 years' experience, I can distinguish no difference's in the assimila- 
bility to the American scene of the immigrants who came under our 
act. I will tell you basically why I believe that to be true. If you 
take a broad-ga,ge look at America, you are going to find the basic 
roots of every one of those peoples, by their national origin, by their 
culture, by their tradition, all those things, firmly implanted in the 
American scene. I don't believe that we can even treat degrees among 
them as to their adjustment, because adjustment is a very relative 
thing in America. We don't put people into close-knit, tight little 
things with everybody wearing the same kind of hat, but rather our 
background has been such that we have grown up and grown very 
strong in that unusual process. I would say they all assimilate. 

But there is a factor we ought to consider that cuts across the word. 
I would not favor the old-line type of immigration approach, which I 
characterize to be throwing up a number, letting people come in, and as 
tliey arrive at the port of entry they do just about as they please. 
If they want to stay in the port of entry, that is their business; if 
they want to go elsewliere, that is their business. In between there is 
a happy medium which I think the Government, the Congress, and all 
the people throughout America who worked on the displaced persons 
program found the answer to, and that is in the assurance form. You 
must first give the people a freedom of assurance. If they don't care 
to go to a certain place in America, they ought to say no. That is 
part of free choice. But that is an integral part of planned resettle- 
ment. I think we in America have arrived at that day where we have 
got to have planning and we have got to use the great instruments 
for adjustment, both private and public, that are the very substance 
of America to do tliat job. 

Therefore, I say that integration of any people — and there are no 
exceptions to this — depends upon how well we prepare such an in- 
strument, bringing in all our private forces, working hand in hand 
with government. I think that is the answer to assimilability. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The next witness on our schedule is Mr. Uo-o Carusi. 



Mr. Cartjsi. I am Ugo Carusi, United States Representative of the 
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

The Chairman. You were in the Department of Justice in several 
capacities in your time, which I hope is not over ? 

Mr. Carusi. About 23 years of it. 

The Chairman, You were Assistant Attorney General ? 

Mr. Carusi. Executive assistant to the Attorney General from 1925 
to 1945; Commissioner of Immigration till late 1947; a year as a 
special assistant to the Attorney General, but assigned to the State 
Department ; and then Chairman of the Displaced Persons Commis- 
sion from August 1948 to the end of December 1950; then I loafed 
for 6 months; and then I have been in this United Nations job since 
July 1, 1951. 

Mr. Chairman, I can save myself and you some time by telling you 
to remember what Mr. O'Connor said, but I do want to make some 
observations on behalf of the High Commissioner for Refugees with 
respect to the interest which we have in the American immigration 
laws as the}^ relate to refugees. As you, of course, know, and as has 
just been said, the refugee problem continues and it grows. There 
has been a sort of hiatus in the resettlement of refugees in the last 
few months, particularly since the close of the American activities 
under the Displaced Persons Act. and that in light of present world 
conditions is very unfortunate. We therefore hope that included in 
the immigration policy of the United States and in her laws, there 
will be provision for the reception of more refugees. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this. When you use that word 
"refugees," are you including all the different categories? 

Mr. Carusi. I was about to put a comma there and keep going to 
ex])lain it. 

The Chairman. Some of the witnesses we have heard talked about 
escapees and expellees, and some of them became very indignant if 
the categories weren't named specifically. 

Mr. Carusi. I include them all, and that means that at the end of 
IRO operations there were roughly 400,000 persons who had not been 
resettled and some of whom never can be because of their disqualifica- 
tions, phvsical and otherwise. 

Commissioner O'Grady. 400,000 all over? 

Mr. Carusi. I mean that were under IRO mandate, not all there are. 

Commissioner O'Grady. That doesn't necessarily include all the 
i-ef ugees ? 

JNIr. Carusi. No ; I am talking now of the 400,000 who were formerly 
under the IRO mandate but failed of resettlement and haven't been 
otherwise absorbed. In addition to that, there are, of course, those 
we call the escapees now, who are coming in at variously estimated 
figures per month. I have heard it estimated as high as 1,500. 


Tlie CiiAimiAX. They are coininii: into AVesteni Kurope from Ijehind 
the iron curtain? 

Mr. Carisi. That is correct. Then, of coui'se, there is the great 
body of expellees, numbering 8 or 10 million, most of whom are in 
(irei'many: and then there are the refugees from Europe who find 
themselves elsewhere in the world, many of them in the Far East. 
.Vnd when I say that we hope the United States will resume its activity 
of resettling some of these ])eople, I mean all of those groups. Of 
course, this national-origins system, as has just been pointed out, is 
a stumbling block, and you have already had presented to you a number 
of suggested substitutions for the national-origins scheme. There is 
no need t>oing into the fallacy of the wdiole scheme and its undesira- 
bility. I think most of us are agreed on that. 

The Chaikmax. What do you mean when you say most of us are 
agreed on it ^ The Congress ])assed it by a two-thirds vote over the 
Piesident's veto. 

Mr. Carusi. I mean those who are against it agree as to the reasons 
Avhy we are against it. 

Let me put it this way, without speaking for anybody else. Perhaps 
that is the better thing. I can't for the life of me see why, whether it 
relates to innnigration or whether it relates to any other phase of 
human activity, we should start out fixing formulas based on who is 
better than somebody else. Therefore, I find it very easy to disagree 
with the idea of national origin quotas. But here it is. It is here, and 
it has had the effect, as Mr. 0"(^onnor said, of tying up the very oppor- 
tunities for immigration which are necessary if we are to do anything 
for these escapees or refugees or DP's with whom we are concerned, 
because they do come from the countries having the small quotas, 
which in addition have been so heavily mortgaged off into the next 
century under our recent dis])laced-i)ersons legislation. 

Now, if you want another sugo-estion — and I don't mean by this to 
suggest that it supplants the suggestions vou have already received, 
but an additional one for you to consider — I think over and above some 
ceiling of what we refer to as the usual or normal immigration sub- 
ject to flexible arrangements that have been suggested, over and above 
that, we could have a steady nonquota allocation foi- persons who 
could qualify in that nouquota status by reason of a well-i)rei>ared 
refugpe d'^finition. and have it go on as permanent legislation. A^Hien 
(he refugee problem wanes there would be fewer who would qualify 
under the act, and as long as we have refugees we can have laws whicli 
wo'.dd enable us to brine some here. I think we should not continue 
doing it on a piecemeal basis and keep having new acts as new emer- 
gencies arise, doing it on a sort of fire-department basis, waiting for 
the signal before we run out to do something— but we should rather 
have a steady, fixed governmental policy that if, as, and when there 
are refu'^'ees in the world whose pei'sonal ])light needs attention and 
Mhose effect on international situations needs attention, that we are 
readv and able immediately, by Executive ordoi- or other mean?; de- 
vised, to put it into o])eration, or indeed without Kxecutive order, just 
start bringing them in to the extent the law allows it if they meet the 
definition and meet the standards. 

We have other nonquota provisions by which peo])le can qualify, 
either because they hai)pen to live in this hemisphere or because they 
have other situations, such as family relationship or one or tAvo other 


particular qualifications. So we will have just iuiother nonquota 
category for which there is a definition, namely, a sound, sensible 
definition of "refugee" which meets the exigencies of the situation. If 
they meet this test, they could come in as do the other, regular immi- 
grants, subject to the usual security, physical, and economic standards, 
and processed by the regular goA^ernmental agencies engaged in this 

Another feature of the refugee situation in the United States which 
I hope this committee will consider is the matter of travel documents. 
There have been conventions and agreements and understandings 
among nations that special travel documents be issued to persons who 
are stateless and cannot go to their own Government representatives^ — • 
and certainly if they are bona-fide refugees they would refuse to go 
to those representatives — and cannot get the normal passport or other 
travel document. The United States has not signed those conventions 
and does not issue those documents, although when a. person arrives 
in the United States Avith one it will admit him if he is otherwise admis- 
sible. That certainly was the case under the Disj^laced Persons Act. 

I think the United States ought to issue a document — whether it 
does so in conformity with the convention or not — and if it needs a 
statute to accomplish it, it ought to have such a statute. Certainly 
that is true in the case of an}^ one of these displaced persons who is 
now in this country and has not yet had time to become a citizen. If 
he wants to travel to a foreign country he has to do it by an affidavit 
of identity, which some countries will not recognize and some will. 
The United States will give him a reentry permit, but it hai)pens to 
be in a form that other countries won't use for the attachment of a 
visa, by stamp or otherwise. If the Ignited States would issue such 
a document, my opinion is they can now do it without a statute by 
giving them a reentry permit that looks like a passport and contains 
all the information that a passport should contain. Our experience 
has been that those are usually accepted, and they Avill be if they bear 
the imprimatur of the United States. If there is any question about 
the legality of that, then certainly there ought to be some thought 
given to a statute authorizing probably the Department of Justice to 
issue a travel document u])on which they could stamp "Reentry Per- 
mit," and allow the ]>erfion to leave the United States pi'operly and 
receive a visa that could be stamped by tlie government of X, Y, and Z 
elsewhere. I think that is an extremely impoitant thing. Tliey are 
stateless and cannot budge from here, Avhereas they could move by 
doing the wrong thing of going to a consulate of a country from which 
they have just fled. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do I understand there is a convention now 
on that? What instrumentality of the I'^nited Xations it it? 

Mr. Carust. There are two. There is a convention on refugees, 
which has not been ratified by the United States, although she was 
one of the original signatories to it. Then, in addition to that, there 
was the establishment of what we now call the T ondon document. 
Under each of those, if we ratified or at least if we followed the prac- 
tice, it Avould solve nuich of this. But we haven't done it. I under- 
stand one reason for not ratifying the most recent convention on treat- 
ment of refugees is that the Ignited States claims — and I think accu- 
rately — that she does those things for the protection of refugees any- 

25336 — 52 92 


way and doesirt haA^e to sign an agreement to do it. Tliat may well 
be, but cei'tainly as relates to this travel document, I think there is a 
void here; there is an absence of treatment that I think should be 
looked into. 

There are some other aspects of the present law which bear upon 
refugees, if not completely, at least in part, and that has to do very 
much with people who are already here. 

There is one more thing I should mention in connection with that 
document. It isn't a finished business yet, so I can't be too positive 
about it, but I understand that there is a possibility that the Immigra- 
tion Service may require people who come to the United States for 
permanent residence and come with these documents of which we are 
speaking — affidavits of identity or these international documents in- 
stead of the usual passport of the country of nationalitj' — to have 
some guaranty when they get here that if they have to return, a coun- 
try will receive them, in other words, a return visa. Now, that may 
be all right and easy enough to get for a pei'son who is a native and 
national of France and coming here under those conditions, but for 
a stateless person it is a very difficult problem. To what country does 
lie get a return visa? 

There is nothing in the present law requiring it; there is nothing in 
the new act which imposes it. So that the new act will be the same 
as the old act. Information has come to us that nevertheless the Im- 
migration Service was going to change the present practice and require 
such a return visa. That matter has been presented to the Attorney 
General's office, and a decision is still pending on Avhether that tenta- 
tive decision shall stand. But I think certainly that is something to 
consider, and if administrative practice does impose that requirement, 
then I think some consideration ought to be given again to some statu- 
tory waiver of that requirement so that a person who is stateless and 
can't get a return visa before he comes here — and coming here for per- 
manent residence — shouldn't have to just stay away from want of 
that particular document. 

I may add that it was admitted l)y representatives of the Immigra- 
tion Service — and I wish you Avould ask them rather than take my 
word for it — that the number of cases in which they would find diffi- 
culty for failure to get that return visa is very, very small. They 
were trying very hard to think of a case, as a matter of fact, and we 
have the instance, which we deplore, of fixing a rule which might 
apply to one or two cases to the great detriment of the thousands. 
So I think we ought to look into that. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Is this respective change in connection with regu- 
hitions in the new act? 

Mr. Carusi. Yes ; in connection with the new regulations primarily. 

The Chairman. You are talking about people who want to come 
to the United States? 

Mr. Carusi. Yes; to remain, and they have all their documents, but 
they don't have a document which says, "In case you are ever excluded, 
you may come back here." 

The Chairman. In other words, they are adopting a rule or regu- 
lation to guard against a person being found to be undesirable after 
he has once been admitted ? 

Mr. Carusi. Excludable on entry — in other words, found on immi- 
gration examination that he shouldn't be admitted and, therefore, 


should be returned. Now, actual experience has been that the steam- 
ship companies have found a way of returning them. You know how 
few so-called flying Dutchmen there are wandering around the world. 
That is the answer. It just doesn't happen. But the Immigration 
Service says it could and, therefore, they impose this rule, which 
makes it extremely difficult for all the stateless persons just because 
it could happen that a man could come here and then be excluded and 
not returnable to any particular country. 

The Chairman. You know very well that thousands of people in 
the United States today are under orders of deportation, orders that 
have been signed over the years, and they can't be deported because 
the countries from which they originally came won't take them back. 
We order them deported and nothing happens. 

Mr. Carusi. That is just the point, and that is also true now under 
the present law which says you mustn't deport them to a country in 
which they are liable to be persecuted, and, under the new law, that 
the Attorney General may withhold such deportation. And the peo- 
ple, the refugees, of whom I speak are just those people. Even if they 
got that return visa, they would still have that defense to prevent it. 

The Chairman. You mean the defense that they would be perse- 
cuted if they went back ? 

Mr. Carusi. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then aren't there other categories where they may 
be of more danger in use for subversive purposes over here than they 
would be in their country of origin, more use to those countries ? 

Mr. Carusi. No, I don't think so, because the people that these are 
aiming at are now the new arrivals that are just coming over, and the 
deportation proceedings that would be instituted against a subversive 
or a criminal stand on their own feet and the country would still decide 
whether or not it would take them on a deportation. This is just it. 
There will be so many of them who are coming here for permanent 
residence, with no intention to return, which is what we want of peo- 
ple who come here to live, that they come here meaning to become part 
of us. Yet they have to have a sort of round-trip ticket as far as visa 
is concerned before they can be admitted. It has worked to the great 
detriment of the people who are stateless and can't get that round trip, 
and don't want it, to their countries of origin. 

I think there has been much said about the substantive side of 
innnigration. There is no need of my amjilifying it. But I think 
some thought ought to be given to tlie procedural aspects of this busi- 
ness. I think some consideration ought to be given to whether or not 
our present system of administering immigration laws generally is 
the best one. As it relates to anything exce])t the issuance of visas, 
it is now in the Department of Justice, at the head of which is an 
Attorney General, who is administratively the supreme court of immi- 
gration cases and at the same time chief prosecutor. If we were to 
think of the Attorney General as an individual of high character, 
which they are and have been, and of great impartiality and judg- 
ment, the problem wouldn't be so difficult. But although the statute 
in many, many instances says that the Attorney Generay shall do this 
or he shall decide that, or his discretion shall govern in this situation, 
he rarel}^ hears of the case, as we all know; it is handled down the 
line. And very frequently the Attorney General or some other high 
superior in the Immigration Service, for reasons which seem proper 


to liiin, will issue an order to (lei)()i't so and so or kee[) so and so out, 
and that o()es into tlie tile. 

Tlie snl)ordinates are faced with the problem of beino- objective 
judges of a case on which their superior has indicated a judgment. 
That is by the nature of things. It isn't that the Attorney General is 
trying to act improperly or arbitrarily; it is part of his job to see 
that things are done. But what effect does that have upon the man 
who is deciding these discretionary things way down the line, the 
immigi'ant inspector or the examiner, when his big boss tells him that 
man belongs out? Well, I hope it doesn't affect most of them, but I 
don't think it is really the soundest kind of set-up, no matter how 
proper may be the motives of the man at the top or the man at the 

Then, of course, after having issued those instructions, if appeals 
are pursued far enough, the Attorney General decides the appeal. 
NoAv, I say that in due deference to whoever occupies those positions, 
and I speak in the abstract ; I speak of the system and not of person- 
alitievS. But why run the risk that some day we may have a man in- 
ca])able of drawing those delicate dividing lines? I should think that 
very careful consideration should be given to setting up a procedure 
by which the prosecuting and deciding functions are kept much more 
detached than they are now. As a matter of fact, I think Monsignoi^ 
O'Cirrady touched upon that point in some of the questions he asked 
Colonel Habberton. 

I think a tendency has been to try to put the law in such shape 
that there be less judicial review and less appellate review by inde- 
])endent sources. It is unfortunate, but that has been a viewpoint, 
and I i"an into it very recently in connection with the matter I just 
mentioned and one or two others. In fact, when the suggestion was 
made that a hearing ought to be given in a particular kind of case, 
the answer was that it was expensive, not that it was unfair or 
im]iro])er. It is expensive in the sense that they ]irobably can't get 
sufficient appropriations for a separate and com])lete hearing staff. 
But be that as it may, I think the Government of the United States 
ought once and for all to make up its mind that when it deals v\-ith 
human beings and deals w4th their future lives, it ought to go all 
out to provide just as complete a system of fair hearing as it possibly 
can conceive. After all, fair hearing doesn't give an evil person the 
right to laws to wdiich he is not entitled — certainly it wouldn't — 
nor would it take from a deserving person the rights which he has, 
but the absence of fair hearing can accomplish both of those things. 

I think that what we ought to consider very seriously is an admin- 
istratiA^e ])rocess in immigration much along the lines we find in an 
institution like the tax set-up, where there is the executive agency 
that investigates, administers, and makes decisions, and then there 
is a com])letely independent board like the Tax Court which, on 
appeal, decides the cases on their record, and on their merits com- 
])letely. We have gone pretty far in this immigration thing: I think 
Ave can go that much further, so that AA'hen an executive olHcer orders 
something to be done he doesn't have in the last analysis to decide 
formally Avhether Avhat he did or ordered Avas correct. Someone else 
should decide that. I think it Avould remove the necessity for a revieAv 
by Congress in individual cases. 1 think that AAliat is noAV reviewed 
by Congress should be decided finally in the administrative body. 


'I'hut is true in other bodies of hnv; it ought to be true in Immigra- 
tion. And that is a point to be considered. I believe Congress would 
be less inclined to carry this burden if it were satisfied with the 
nature of the administrative reviews and determinations. 

I think it is unfortunate that this (Commission is going to have 
to make its report before the present inunigration law really gets 
going, because I think there is room for appraising that law, not only 
on its language, but on the manner in which it is administered. 

There have been two other instances recently that I have brought 
to the attention of the proper authorities. I will mention them here 
without being too critical of them. But the points are significant, 
and they do serve to illustrate the importance of having an appraisal 
of this tiling in the light of administration. One of them is, for exam- 
ple, that the innnigration law says that a person now must not be 
de])orted to a place where he fears persecution, and, under the new 
law, that the deportation may be withheld. Now, both of those sec- 
tions say, "when the Attorney General finds * * *.'' 

In the first place, the Attorney General personally doesn't make 
the tinding in each case; it is done down below, which is all right. 
Delegation is not a new thing. But in that particular instance the 
iService is maintaining that no hearing is required, and the man is 
su])posed to make his claim after the deportation hearing, not as a 
])art of it, but afterward he makes his claim and they inquire into 
it. The}^ have not a hearing but an investigation, and they inquire 
into it, and make up their own minds. Now\ each time that that 
lias ha])pened in cases that have come to any notice at all. habeas 
corpus is issued, and the courts have decided against it. and said there 
must be a hearing. Yet the Immigration Service insists there should 
not, and is ]n-osecuting appeals from those decisions. 

Quite a])art from the constitutional requirement of due process, 
1 should think certainly that where a man puts up a claim that he 
is about to be persecuted — in many instances a matter of life and 
•death — the United States Government would want to give him a hear- 
ing, but instead of giving it, it is resisting it. I think some inquiry 
ought to be made into that. 

Then there are one or two other provisions which could relate to 
refugees, which I could mention lu'iefly. and that is the idea of losing 
citizenshi]) for causes other than misconduct. Obviously, if there 
is illegality or fraud in the procurement of citizenship, it should be 
taken from the person who got it that way. But to say that there is a 
■difference between a citizen by birth and a citizen by naturalization 
merely because of Avhere he goes to live or other things that take place 
after he has become a citizen, I think, is a distinction with no real 
moral basis. I can best illustrate that by an absurd exam])le. Under 
the laws that have been enacted, if a man who was born in the United 
States — and there are a lot of them now in that condition because of 
the war-bride situation — has a naturalized wife, and for some reason 
he decides to go to Europe to live, and it happens to be the country 
of her birth and the country where he probably met her when he was 
in the Armv, she has to come back every 2 years to touch second base. 
If she does come back here, then her loyalty is comjilete; it is su- 
preme. If she misses a trip, that ])roves she is not loyal to the Ignited 
States and her citizenship shoukl be taken from her. Whether she 
comes back on those periodical trips doesn't change that woman; she 


thinks as much or as little of the United States whether she makes 
those trips or not. Moreover, the native-citizen husband who decides 
to live overseas remains a citizen ; the dutiful wife who accompanies 
him even unwillinijly could lose her citizenship. I think any test of 
that kind automatically to take away citizenship is not realistic. I 
think that the loss of citizenship, whether a person be naturalized or 
born here, should be predicated on an act that shows lack of attach- 
ment to the United States, either by positive renunciation or by acts 
which are more directly consistent with positive renunciation or 

One last thino-, and that is the dan<2;er in deportation statutes of 
having retroactive features or deportations predicated on presump- 
tions, conclusive and prima facie. I think there again such a drastic 
punishment or event as deportation should be predicated upon proof 
of actual conduct justifying it. Most of the grounds of deportation 
are logical and sensible and should be maintained, but the determina- 
tion of those grounds, it seems to me, should be made upon action taken 
after the man has gotten notice of what the law is and what he 
shouldn't do, and not revert back to a time when what he did was not 
deportable or revert back by means of a presumption ; that just because 
he did something today, he must have meant to do it 3 or 5 or 10 
years ago. I think that, whether it is in immigration or any other law, 
is a dangerous precedent for us to establish as a means of settling what 
should be a principle of American justice. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Do 3^ou think that changes in administra- 
tion such as you mentioned will be sufficient, or that a change in the 
whole fundamental concept of administration of immigration, sub- 
ject to proper security and other standards, is desirable^ 

Mr. Carusi. I think you have to start out by having that kind of 
legislative program. After all, you can't expect the Immigration 
Service to be positive in letting people in when the law has as a basic 
concept the keeping of them out. So you must start out by having a 
legislative program which looks upon immigration as a means of 
gaining strength and valuable contributions, and not as a gratuitous 
tolerance. That is point No. 1. 

Point No. 2 is that when you get such a law, then it ought to be ad- 
ministered in that fashion. After all, I used to work there and I like 
those fellows very much ; most of them are high-minded people. But 
I have found, with respect to this omnibus act that has just been 
passed, several provisions among others that are very fair and very 
fine, and I find the Immigration Service interpreting them restric- 
tively and saying they don't mean what they say. 

Perhaps they are right and I am wrong, but I think this Commis- 
sion, in the course of its studies, ought to consider very carefully not 
only the positive substantial immigration law but ought to look into 
its interpretation and administration just as carefully. 

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

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce for the recora » 
comxmunication from the Honorable Hugh Gibson, Director of the 
Intergovernmental Migration Committee, who, in response to a request 
to testify, indicates that illness prevents him from appearing before 
the Commission, but that he will submit a statement for the record. 

The Chairman. That may be done. 


(The letter and statement from the Honorable Hugh Gibson, Direc- 
tor, Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, follow :) 

Statement Submitted by the Honorable Hugh Gibson, Director, Intergovebn- 
MENTAL Committee for European Migration 

Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the 

Movement of Migrants From Europe, 

Octoder 11, 1952. 
Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, 

ExeGutive Director, President's Commission on Inimigration and Naturali- 
zation, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : I have the pleasure of referring to your letter of Sep- 
tember 26 in vphich you so kindly invite my personal participation in a hearing 
before the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization on Octo- 
ber 27 and 28. 

As the Intergovernmental Migration Committee is novs^ holding its fourth 
session here I find it necessary to remain in Geneva during this period. Added 
to tliat I have just returned from an extended tour of over 2 months which has 
taken me into most South American as well as many other countries. The doc- 
tors have now forbidden me to do any more traveling in the immediate future. I 
feel that I must devote my time, immediately following the close of the fourth 
session, to pressing Migration Committee matters. Therefore I shall have to 
forego appearing before the Commission on the suggested dates. 

However, in compliance with your suggestion, I am having prepared a memo- 
randum which will set forth my views on the referred subject matter and will 
serve to document our opinions and experience. This memorandum will be 
forwarded to you within the near future. 

May I again express my regret at not being in a position to accept j'our kind 
With every good wish, I remain. 
Sincerely yours, 

Hugh Gibson, Director. 
(The memorandum follows:) 

Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, 

Geneva, Switzerland, November 11, 1952. 
Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, Presidetit's Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalisation, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : I am now able to send you herewith a summary of my 
views as director of this organization which I hope will be of use to the Presi- 
dent's Commission. 

It has not been possible for me to give a direct answer to some of the sample 
questions which you enclosed with your letter of September 26 since in my capac- 
ity as the servant of 19 member nations it is not presently possible for me to 
express personal opinions more particularly on the internal policies of a member 
government. This I am sure you will fully understand. 

Please accept my apologies for not being able to get this material to you sooner. 
Unfortunately a number of circumstances arising from the Committee meeting 
have made unduly heavy demands on our time. I hope nevertheless that this 
paper will be useful. 
With kindest regards. 
Yours sincerely, 

Hugh Gibson, Director. 

The Problem of Refugees and Overpopulation in Europe 


1. The task which bas to be performed in order to solve the European overpop- 
ulation problem with which the world is faced today is threefold in character. 
It consists first in easing the pressures of surplus population in certain countries 
of Western Europe; secondly, in providing selected workers and their families 
to assist in developing the resources of various overseas countries; and, thirdly^ 


in insuring that those refuKccs who have tied or are tieeing eoniitries of Ejistern 
Europe for political reasons are given an opportunity to i-ei>uil(l tlieir lives in 
countries where their skills and qualities are needed. 

2. The gravity of his prohleni has long been apparent. On May 13, 19r»0, the 
Foreign Ministers of the Uiuted States. France, and the United Kingdom recog- 
nized in a .joint declaration that the surplus poi)ulation in countrie.s of Western 
Europe was one of the main causes of disturbance and diseipiilibrium in the 


'.\. According to statistics revealed by several international studies undertaken 
i-ecently, the extent of the problem of refugees and surplus population in coun- 
tries of Western Euroi)e was estimated at approximately 5 million persons in 
1!);"!. This situation lias ari.sen as a result of the substantial influx of refugees 
into Western Europe, whicli continues ; the constant excess of births over deaths; 
the sharp decline in niigratoi'y movements from Europe from 1930 onward; and 
the economic disruptions in Western Europe resulting from the Second World 
War. The result is that there are far too many mouths to feed and that there 
are not enough jobs for the population. The bulk of the surplus is in Italy and 
"Western Germany, but the smaller numbers in Austria, Greece, and the Nether- 
lands represent a relatively higher proportion of the total population of thosn 

4. Taking into account the fact that the efforts already made by the western 
European countries themselves and the assistance given liy certain overseas coun- 
tries have resulted in the figure of •"> million being somewliat reduced; takin;^ 
into account also the possibility that the increased industrial capacity of soni(» 
of the western European countries will enable them to ab.sorb some further 
hundreds of thousands of their surplus population, it is estimated that the pre.seni 
total of persons who cannot find prodvictive employment in western Europe and 
have no prospects for the future is approximately 3,.")()(),(>()0. Moreover, the excess 
of births over deaths each year is estimated at more than 1 million persons, of 
whom approximately one-third cannot be absorbed into the economies of their 
countries, and the problem is further aggravated by the continual arrival of 
refugees fr(mi the countries of eastei'ii Europe. 

.'). Spontaneous migration from western Europe between 1047 and ID.Il has 
remained fairly stable at approximately 220,000 migrants per year (excluding 
British, Portuguese, and Spanish migrants) while planned migration (i. e., that 
conducted by the International Refugee Organization, or effected under bilateral 
agreements) has accounted for another 200,00<1. On the assumption that spon- 
taneous migration remains at its present level, that the Intergovernmental Com- 
mittee for European Migration will move 120,000 migrants dnrins lOrtH : ^ and 
that other iilanned migration may account for some 00,000 to SO 000 persons, 
the total mi'Xi'ation from Europe in 10.~)3 will amount to some 400.000 persons, 
which will do little more than cancel out the annual natural increase in the 
surp'lus population and will leave the core of 3,."»00,()00 untouched. 

so^rE por.iTicAT, i:vrpLicATiOjVs 

0. ^^'hi!e the refugee and surplus population problem faced bv individual 
coMutries of western Enrojie varies in its nature, the situation as a whole presents 
certain ccminon features; The conseq'iences it entails for Europe has such or as 
part of the Atlantic coiinnunit.v, and the necessit.v of overseas emiuration as one 
of the solutions required. While for western Germany and Austria the problem 
is mainly one of refugees, for the rest of the countries concerned it is mainly 
one (^f surplus population. For all the countries it is a prol^leu) which causes 
deep concern to the governments bv reason of its damaging effect upon political, 
economic, and social conditions. The situation as a whole is one of the most 
seri(n!S obstacles to the stability of western Europe in general. As lonsr as it 
persists Eurone will unt be able to attain the political objectives of the Charter 
o" the ( 'o^-ncil of Europe or the econonuc objectives of the Conventi<m on Furcpean 
Economic roojM'ratlon, i. e., "the establishment of sound economic ccniditions 
which will enable the contracting jiarties to reach as soon as jiossible and to 
maintain a satisfactory level of employment without outside assistance of an 
evceptional character, and to bring their full contribution to the economic sta- 
bility of the world." 

1 Sw pjirs. t.) 11. 


7. No matter what steps are taken toward relieviiiu tlie situation by the 
European governments concerned, either by the intetiration of refugees and 
surplus popuhition through economic expansion or by intra-European migratory 
movements, they themselves cannot solve the problem. Overseas emigration 
during the next ~> to 10 years of the 8,."')tK).(M)0 persons referred to in paragraph 4, 
above, must be considered essential, over and al»ove the annual emigration 
necessary to take care of the .vearly increase in the surplus population. 

8. While the countries of Western Europe are faced with the necessity of 
effecting the emigration of large numbers of i»ersons in <u'der to promote polit- 
ical, economic, and social stability in that area, it is ecpially true that certain 
overseas countries, such as Australia, Canada, and countries of Latin America, 
need for political, economic, and strategic reasons to increase their population 
and the exploitation of their natiu'al resources. In principle, tlierefore, it 
should be possible to effect the necessary transfer of i)opulation. In fact, 
however, while considerable movement took place in the ."i or ti .vears immedi- 
ately following the Second World War, increasing difficulties are now being 
met. Owing to temporary economic conditions, the governments of certain 
countries are obliged to restrict their intake of immigrants for the time being 
in order to enable them to- absorl) their recent new settlers satisfactorily ; while 
other less developed countries cannot accept an.y appreciable number of migrants 
until they liave been enabled to achieve a certain measure of economic develop- 
ment. An additional difficulty arises from the fact that although the move- 
ment of people between countries used to be completely unrestricted it is now 
sui>.1ect to strict regulation and constitutes an international administrative prob- 
lem of a highly complicated nature. 


9. On the initiative of the Government of the United States of America, whose 
approach to this most serious prolilem was both generous and farsighted. the 
representatives of a number of governments met together in November 1951 
in Brussels. l)y courtesy of the Government of Belgium, to discuss the possible 
establishment of intergovernmental machiner.v to facilitate migratory move- 
ments from Europe to certain overseas countries which would not otherwise 
take place. On December 5, 1951, a resolution was adopted (annex A) whereby 
the Provisional Intergovernmental Conunittee for the Movement of Migrants 
From Eiu'ope was established for the puri)ose of making arrangements for the 
transport of migrants, for whom existing facilities were inade(iuate and who 
could not otherwise be moved, from certain Euroi>ean countries having surplus 
poi'iulation to countries overseas which offered opportunities for orderly immi- 
gration, consistent with the policies of the countries concerned. The resolution 
contained a specific provision that among the migrants with whom the Com- 
mittee would be concerned would be included refugees and new refugees for 
whose migration arangements might be made between the Conunittee and the 
governments of the countries affording a.sylum. 

10. The membership of the Conunittee. 1.1 in the lieginniiig and now comprising 
20 governments (see list at annex R). demonstrates the interest not oidy of gov- 
ernments of emigration and immigration countries but also that of other Euro- 
pean governments which, without being directly concerned in the problem of 
surplus population and refugees, have joined together with the Gi>vernment of 
the t^nited States in a spirit of European and Atlantic solidarity. That this 
desire to attack such a serious and complex iiroblem in a spirit of international 
solidarit.v i>ersists is evidenced by the fact that, at its fourth session concluded 
recently in Geneva, the Committee decided to prolong its existence for another 
year, under the name of "The Intergovernmental Committee for European Migra- 
tion,'" and adopted, subject to completion of the necessary governmental processes 
in each member country, a budget and plan of expenditure to cover its program 
of activities for 19.")8. 

11. It is expected tliat during the first 11 months of operation, ending December 
;-!l. 1952. the Committee will have moved somewhat less than lOO.OOO persons 
from western European countrie^< to overseas countries of immigration. Of that 
riimiber. approximately 37.500 will have gone to the United States of America 
of whom some 2S.0(M) are ethnic (Germans moved under the Displaced Persons- 
Act of 1948 (as amended) and 7.8.50 IRO refugees the majority of whom are 
being moved <m behalf of. and paid for. from funds left by the International 
R'^fugee Organization on liquidation. During 1953 it is estimated that the- 
Connnittee will move 120.000 ])ersons and although during the current year 


movements to the United States repi'esent such a large proportion of the Com- 
mittee's program, in present circumstances it is not possible to foresee the move- 
ment of more than 12,500 persons to that country next year. The mnjority of 
the 12,500 would consist of persons eligible under section ;> (c) of the Displaced 
Persons Act, who would receive indii'ect assistance from the Committee through 
Toluntary agencies, and some wlio would be moved under the escapee program. 

12. It should be noted that neither under the movements being efl'ected during 
1952 nor luider the program envisaged for 1953 is a fair balance achieved In 
regard to the number of migrants leaving each of the countries of emigration. 
Those countries bearing the heaviest Imrden of surplus population, in i>articiilar 
■Greece and Italy, are being relieved of it to the least extent. This is a problem 
which it is not within the power or competence of the Committee to solve; it is 
dependent solely upon the policy decisions of governments of receiving countries 
with regard to the immigrants they are willing to admit. 


13. The experience already gained by the Intergovernmental Committee has 
proved that it is possible to effect, through the use of intergovernmental ma- 
chinery, certain overseas emigration from Europe which would not otherwise 
take place, and thus to contribute to the solution of Europe's problem of surplus 
population and refugees. On the other hand, it has also shown that there are 
at present certain obstacles to migration and the committee has already taken 
step toward removing some of them. At its fourth session it adopted a resolu- 
tion which recognized the need for the improvement of the techniques employed 
in the field of migration and requested the Director to improve and develop the 
technical services of the Committee related to the movement of migrants likely 
to increase the volume of such movements, such improvements and developments 
to be within the framework of the resolution establishing the Committee (annex 
A) and the programs of the Committee, and by seeking the maximum collabora- 
tion of interested governments and competent organizations. It should be noted 
that the Committee does not undertake, nor does it intend to undertake, those 
functions which can be performed by governments or other organizations work- 
ing in the field of migration. 

14. The governments which established the Provisional Intergovernmental 
Committee recognized the existence of a close relationship between economic 
development and immigration (see annex A, p. 1), and the experience of the 
Committee so far has demonstrated that if certain underdeveloped countries 
could be enabled to develop their potential economic resources, migration from 
Europe could be greatly stimulated. In fact the absorption of surplus popula- 
tion from Europe would constitute one of the main elements in such development, 
as is indicated in paragraph 8 above. While economic development is clearly a 
matter for governments, government agencies and certain of the United Nations 
Jigencies, the Committee is anxious to make its appi'opriate contribution within 
its present terms of reference. Consequently, at its fourth session, it requested 
the Director to encourage the preparation of settlement plans of member gov- 
ernments wishing to increase the numbers of migrants to be received on their 
territories, to participate in the drafting of such plans and to further the 
completion of such plans as the governments concerned may be prepared to 
adopt, on the clear understanding that no Committee funds would be used for 
capital investment. 

15. The Committee has worked actively in attempting to effect the move- 
ment of refugees from Europe and to this end has set up a revolvinir fund of 
$2,000,000 and has made agreements with a number of internationally operat- 
ing voluntary agencies wherebv they receive grants from this fund against 
an undertaking to make a matching contribution and to move a specified number 
of refugee migrants. It is anticipated that by the end of 1952, 12.500 out of 
a total of 2fi.000 U. N. rehisees to be resettled imder the auspices of the Com- 
mittee will have been moved under this system. The number of refugees at 
present in Western Europe who should be moved is estimated at about 400.000 
excluding Volksdeutsche, German expellees, etc. The Committee is anxious to 
make its maximum contributioji to the solution of this problem and accordingly 
has set aside a sum of $1,320,000 for grants to voluntary agencies during 1953. 

16. Having received from the International Refuccee Organization funds to be 
used for the purpose, the Committee has also been assisting in the movement 
of refugees of European origin at present resident in China, who, unless they are 
enabled to emigrate, have little hope of survival. This work is carried out in asso- 
ciation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and a numb?r of 


voluntary agencies. By October 31, 1952, 676 refui^ees had been embarked from 
China for countries of resettlement. At its fourth session the Committee au- 
thorized the Director to employ the technical facilities of the organization for 
the movement of refugees of European origin now resident in other areas 
outside Europe, as well as China, on the understanding that Committee funds 
would not be used apart from any special contributions made to the operating 
fund which might be earmarked ior the purpose. The areas in question are 
principally Turkey and countries of the Middle East. The chief obstacle imped- 
ing the movement of these refugees is the lack of immigration visas and the 
problem cannot be solved unless countries of reception can see their way to 
accept much larger numbers of these particularly unfortunate people. The 
total number involved is from 12,000 to 14,000, between 7,000 and 8,000 of whom 
«re in China. 


17. It will be seen that the Intergovernmental Committee is doing everything 
within its power to facilitate the movement of surplus population and refugees 
from western Europe on the one hand and to assist to certain overseas countries 
to acquire the population they need on tbe other hand. However, the contribu- 
tion which it can make to the solution of this most urgent problem is limited 
by the volume of resources put at its disposal, by the immigration policies adopted 
by the reception countries and by the degree to which the economic expansion 
of underdeveloped countries can be effectively carried out. Nevertheless, the 
importance of the Committee should not be measured only by its initial achieve- 
ments, its future program of work or the possible extension of its present activi- 
ties. It represents the only hope of those millions of Europeans at present con- 
demned to unemployment or underemployment, with no prospects for their fu- 
ture. IMoreover, the establishment of the Committee, as a result of American 
initiative, based on l)roadmindedness and imagination, was the first attempt 
to approach on an international basis a problem which has been one of the most 
serious causes of insecurity and conflict in Europe for some years past and has 
driven certain countries, for lack of international understanding, to seek purely 
national solutions and to adopt policies, the international implications of which 
Avere highly dangerous. International cooperation and the solutions to this prob- 
lem thereby n)ade possible are essential for mutual understanding between the 
members of the Atlantic community as well as between the members of the 
European communit.v. In that connection, the refugee problem, while it has 
economic, demographic, and social aspects, is obviously related to the defense 
of freedom and therefore highly political in character. 

18. The connection between the problem of surplus population and refugees 
on the one liand and that of the need for population in underdeveloped countries 
on the other hand has already been pointed out and should not be lost sight of. As 
is already known, much attention is being given to problems of economic develop- 
ment, including the necessity to increase world food production, by the United 
Nations and several of its specialized agencies, as well as by the United States 
Government through the point 4 program. The utilization of surplus population 
from European countries in the development of underdeveloped countries would 
obviously be advantageous to both sides. 


19. While it is undeniable that one of the most effective means of increasing 
migratory movements from Euro]ie would be through the economic development 
of certain overseas countries, which would open up substantial immigration 
possibilities, such economic development is not within the power of the Inter- 
governmental Committee. Moreover, economic development by its very nature 
is a slow process and even plans initiated now would not yield immigration 
possibilities for some considerahe time to come. A prerequisite of any settle- 
ment project is the provision of adequate housing; the clearing of land and the 
contruction of roads and communications take time; and none of these can he 
commenced until detailed studies have been made and plans worked out for the 
financing of such projects. 

20. On the other hand the need for action to stimulate the movement of 
migrants, including refugees, from Europe is urgent. It is therefore essential 
that openings be found immediately in overseas countries already capable of 
receiving migrants. It is upon the liberality of the immigration policy of the 


jrdvcriiiiients of those coiuitries that the extent to which the !irol)lein of surplus 
Ijopuhition aiul refuuees can he relieved must depend for the nionieiit. 

21. Tlie role of tlie United States (Government in this tield has l)een iire<lomi- 
nant for some years past and i-s ^\'ell known throughout the woi-ld. Xotonly 
did it take a leading part in the United Nations Relief and Kehahilitation Ad- 
ministration and the International Refugee Organization, hut it also took the 
initiative in setting up the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the 
Movement of Migrants from Europe. That initiative was an original, imagi- 
native and generous attempt to approach a world prohlem as a political and 
ec-onomic matter while at the same time recognizing it as a major humanitarian 
enterprise. Although not directly connected with the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, the Connnittee is engaged upon (me aspect of the problem which 
that Organization was set up to meet, namely the threat of communist i)ene- 
trati<m into western Europe. 

22. It i.s in regard to the Intergovernmental Conmiittee and the task before 
it that the whole of the free world now looks to the United States for leadership. 
Whatever decisions the United States tiovernment and C'ongress take in this 
regard quite apart from the lienelits they may bring to America itself, will be 
of the greatest imiiortance, not only in their direct effect upon the problem of 
surplus population and refugees in terms of immigration i)Ossiliilities ])Ut also 
in their indirect effect as an example to other countries, whose subsequent ac- 
tions in the matter will be accordingly the more or the less generous. 

Annex A 

Migration Conference 

6 December 1951 

Plenary Session 

Resolution To Establish a Pkovisional Intergovernmental Committee for 
THE Movement op Migrants From Europe 

(Adopted at the 13th Meeting, 5 December 1951) 

The Governments adopting this resolution 


that there exists a problem of surplus population and refugees in ceiiain 
countries of Europe, while certain overseas countries offer opportunities for the 
orderly absorption of additional population ; 

that the problem is of sucli magnitude as to present a serious obstacle to 
economic viability and cooperation in Europe; 

tliat, whereas a general improvement in economic conditions and increased 
production would provide increased possibilities for employment and settlemenf 
in Europe and, by facilitating intra-European migration, would offer a very 
important contribution to the solution of the problem, an increase in European 
emigration to countries overseas nevertheless i-emains another necessary element ; 

that a close relationship exists between economic development and innni- 
gration ; 

that international financing of European emigi-ation should contribute not 
only to solving the problem of po)mlation in Europe, but also stimulate the 
creation of new economic opportiuiities in countries lacking manpower: 

that, while technical assistance may make an important contribution to the 
solution of the economic problems of the underdeveloped countries, the develop- 
ment of all existing or potential possibilities of immigration into these countries 
also constitutes an important factor for the solution of these problems ; 

that the present volume of migration is insufficient to meet the needs of 
emigration countries or to allow full use of the possibilities offered by immigra- 
tion countries ; 

that there is need for the pursuit by the appropriate international agencies 
of all migration activities falling within their respective fields: 

that the provision of facilities for the transport of migrants who could not 
otherwise be moved without such facilities can make an important contribution 
to increased migration ; 


that, although the moveiueut of migrants should as far as possible be effected 
by the normal commercial shiiiping and air transport services, co-ordination 
in this field is necessary in order to enable the movement of the largest possible 
number of migrants by those services, and furthermore to ensure that the 
I. R. O.'s present shipping facilities are applied to the extent necessary to secure 
an additional movement of migrants ; 

that steps should be taken to provide transport facilities for such refugees 
as may desire and have the opportunity to emigrate from overpopulated coun- 
tries ; and 

that, consequently, provisional intergovernmental arrangements between the 
democratic governments which adopt or may hereafter adopt this resolution are 
necessary in order to move persons who are attached to the principles to which 
these governments subscribe and who desire to emigrate to overseas coimtries 
where their services can be utilized in conformity with generally accepted inter- 
national standards of employment and living conditions, with full respect for 
human rights ; and 


(1) to constitute a "Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Move- 
ment of Migrants from Europe" ; 

(2) that the purpose of the Committee will be to make arrangements for the 
transport of migrants, for whom existing facilities are inadequate and who could 
not otherwise be moved, from certain European countries having surplus popula- 
tion to countries overseas which offer opportunities for orderly immigration 
consistent with the policies of the countries concerned : 

(3) that the terms of reference of the Committee will be : 

(a) to provide and arrange for land, sea, and air transportation as 
required : 

(b) to assume responsibility for the charter of such ships operated under 
the auspices of I. R. O. as may be required : 

(c) to coordinate a shipping programme utilizing commercial shipping 
facilities to the maximum extent possible and the chartered ships trans- 
ferred from the I. R. O. to secure those movements for which commercial 
facilities are inadequate; 

(d) to take such actions as may be directly related to these ends, taking 
account of such national and international services as are available; 

(e) to take such other actions as will be necessary and appropriate to dis- 
charge the foregoing functions ; 

(4) that among the migrants with whom the Committee will be concerned are 
included refugees and new refugees for whose migration arrangements may be 
made between the Committee and the governments of the countries affording 
asylum ; 

(.")) that mendiership in the Committee will be open to governments with a 
demonstrated interest in the principle of the free movement of persons and which 
undertake. siThject to approval by the proper governmental authorities, to make 
a financial contribution to the Committee, the amount of which will be agreed 
to by the Committee and by the government concerned ; 

(6) that the Comuiittee will elect its own oflficers. establish its Rules of Pro- 
cedure, establish such subcommittees as it may decide (including an inter- 
governmental subcommittee on the coordination of transport), and exercise 
the powers required to carry out its purpose ; 

(7) that the Committee will agree to a plan of operations, a budget, a plan 
of exjienditure and the terms and conditions under which available funds shall 
be spent, in accordance with the following principles; 

(a) each country of reception will retain control of standards of admission 
and the number of immigrants to be admitted ; 

(b) only those services will be undertaken by the Committee which are 
essential to the movement of migrants who could not otherwise be moved ; 

fc) the Committee will ensure that its administration is conducted in an 
eflScient and economical manner; 

(d) any member government making a contribution to the operating fund 
will be able to stipulate the terms and conditions under which that contri- 
bution can be used ; 
(cS) that the C(mmiittee will appoint a Director responsible to the Committee; 

(9) that the Committee shall vest the Director with the powers necessary to 
carry out the resi>onsibilities entrusted to him by the Commitee ; 

(10) that the Committee will give early consideration to the question of the 
relations to be established with international, nongovernmental, and voluntary 


organizations conducting activities in the field of migration and refugees ; and 
(11) that the Committee will examine the need for its continuing existence 
beyond a twelve-month period. 

Annex B 

Intergovernmental Committee for Extbopean Migration 

MEMBER governments 

Australia Denmark Luxemburg 

Austria France Netherlands 

Belgium German Federal Paraguay 

Brazil Government Sweden 

Canada Greece Switzerland 

Chile Israel United States 

Costa Rica Italy Venezuela 

The Chairman. Is Dr. Painter here? 


Dr. Painter. I am Sidney Painter, professor of history, Johns Hop- 
kins University, and officer and director, American Council of Learned 
Societies, 1219 Sixteenth Street NW., Washington, D. C, which I rep- 
resent here, with Mr. Edward Dumbauld. 

The Chairman. Have you a prepared statement, sir? 

Dr. Painter. Yes. 

Tlie Chairman. The Commission will be glad to hear your state- 

Dr. Painter. I have a brief statement here. Our primary interest 
is showing our interest in the subject rather than making precise 

This statement is being made at the direction of the board of direc- 
tors of the American Council of Learned Societies, which is a national 
council of 24 professional societies in the humanities and the social 
sciences, and a member of the International Union of Academies. 

I am accompanied by Edward Dumbauld, attorney at law of Union- 
town, Pa., a former special assistant to the United States Attorney 
General, secretary of the American Society of International Law. 
Mr. Dumbauld was appointed by the board of directors of the ACLS 
to serve with me as a special committee on passport and visa problems 
affecting scholars in the humanities and the social sciences. 

The American Council on Education has indicated its interest by 
consulting with us about this statement and has had occasion in the- 
past few years to deal with various Government agencies concerned 
with this problem. 

Both these organizations and their constituent societies are vitally 
interested in anything which affects the international interchange 
of scholarly publications and personnel insofar as it concerns the 
development of their respective fields of scholarship. In every field 
of scholarship in the humanities and social sciences the advancement 
of knowledge and the promotion of research activities are dependent 
upon contributions made in many countries. For example, in the 


field of Biblical studies we depend heavily on the scholars in the 
University of Jerusalem, who are close to the source of new materials. 
Besides this routine day-to-day interest in the effective functioning 
of international interchange, the ACLS and its constituent societies 
support the general policy of international intellectual cooperation 
which they share with other groups of our citizens in the development 
of a peaceful and friendly free world. This policy has now received 
legislative formulation as a national policy of our Government by 
several acts of Congress. 

In passing the Fulbright Act the Congress of the United States 
clearly expressed its belief that the exchange of scholars between this- 
country and others served the interests of the United States. Con- 
gress has confirmed its acceptance of this point of view by generous 
appropriations to carry out the Fulbright progi-am both by setting 
up agencies to administer it and by supplying supplementary funds. 

Moreover, Congress in the Educational Exchange Act of January 
27, 1948, made provision for interchange between the United States 
and other countries of students, professors, and leaders in fields of 
specialized knowledge or skill. In that act Congress also provided 
for the establishment of the United States Advisory Commission on 
Educational Exchange to be appointed by the President, with the 
advice and consent of the Senate. This Commission consists of five 
members, not more than three of whom may be of the same political 
party. Distinguished educators, including President Harold W. 
Dodds, of Princeton University, have served on that Commission. 
Thus Congress has made clear that it regards the international ex- 
change of scholars as a valuable contribution to the public interest. 

This policy established by Congress has received strong support 
from all tliose who are interested in the advance of scholarship and the 
promotion of intellectual cooperation both here and abroad. The 
various foundations and institutions of higher education have brought 
foreign scholars to America and facilitated foreign travel and study 
for the scholars of the United States. The personnel of foundations 
and univereities have devoted a large amount of time and energy to 
administering this international exchange of scholars. In short, it 
seems clear that the exchange of scholars is an important part of the 
policy of the United States, and a large amount of both public and 
private funds have been devoted to it. Anything that interferes with 
the effectiveness of this exchange should be a cause of grave concern 
to the country. 

The American Coinicil of Learned Societies is one of the organiza- 
tions that have taken an active part in encouraging the international 
exchange of scholars. The learned societies that compose it have a 
vital interest in the exchange of ideas and knowledge between the schol- 
ars of the United States and those of other lands. They also value the 
effect of this exchange on international amity and understanding. The 
directors of the council have for some time been disturbed by reports 
that the policy of the United States in issuing visas and the adminis- 
tration of this policy have done much to nullify the effectiveness of 
the program. In its spring meeting the board of directors appointed 
a committee to investigate this situation and to recommend action if 
it seemed desirable and feasible. 

The directors of the council are not as yet in a position to present 
statistics or to attempt to assess the causes of the situation, but there 


is ample evidence of its seriousness. Foreign scholars invited to come 
to the United States are subjected to extensive and humiliating inquisi- 
tions and incredibly formidable questionnaires. This alone does much 
to prejudice tliem against the United States. But far more serious are 
the delays involved before the visa is received. In many cases the visa 
has come so late that the opportunity to visit the United States no 
longer exists. 

Tliese annoyances and long delays both hamper the arrangement of 
exchanges and create bad feeling instead of good. And this affects 
far more than the individual scholar concerned. Reports of these 
annoyances and delays spread rapidly, and the reputation of the 
United States is gravely injured. In England at least there is a serious 
question whether the damage done by reports of the humiliations in- 
flicted on scholars planning to visit the United States has not overbal- 
anced the good eifects of the exchanges made. 

The council is fully aware of the difficulties involved in enforcing 
the immigration acts passed by Congress. It has only one suggestion 
to make. Scholars are as a rule well known to their colleagues and 
their opinions and activities are rarely secret. Most of them are at- 
tached to institutions of learning. Might not a statement from a uni- 
versity or research institution be accepted prima facie as adequate 
evidence of a scholar's suitability for admission to this country on a 
nonimmigrant basis? 

Moreover, in view of the fact that visiting scholars are not numerous 
in comparison with the traveling public generally, and are usually 
coming to the United States to attend a particular conference or school 
term, wiiich has fixed and definite dates, it seems that possibly an expe- 
dited procedure for liandling these cases could be established, if the 
consular authorities Avere appropriately instructed by the Department 
of State regarding the importance of promoting the congressional 
policy regarding educational exchange. They should also be informed 
of the possible detrimental effects to international good will which 
might be produced by failure to handle these applications promptly. 
On account of the status of the parties concerned, these consequences 
in such cases would be out of proportion to the number of persons 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Is Dr. Meyerhof! here ? 


Dr. Meyerhop^f. I am Dr. Howard A. Meyerhoff, administrative 
secretary, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1515 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D. C, which I represent 

I have a statement I should like to read. 

The Chairman. We will be pleased to hear it. 

Dr. Meyerhoff. I hold the position of administrative secretary of 
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. By pro- 
fession I am a geologist, though I have devoted my time and attention 
to the administrative affairs of the association for a short ])eriod of 
service as executive secretarv in 1945—16, and as administrative secre- 


tary since January 14, 1949. I am appearing at the invitation of the 
Commission and will endeaA^or to present testimony in behalf of the 
association, which is an organization of approximately 48,000 indi- 
vidual scientists and 237 affiliated and associated scientilic societies. 
In preparing this testimony I have sought the assistance of officers of 
the National Research Council, the American Chemical Society, the 
American Geological Institute, the Aruerican Institute of Biological 
Sciences, the American Institute of Physics, the Federation of Ameri- 
can Societies for Experimental Biology, the American Miitheinatical 
Society, and the American Psychological Association. An effort to 
secure information from the American Astronomical Society was un- 
successful. There are other scientific fields, such as anthropology and 
archeology, that might have been included, but the time available 
was too short to extend inquiries in these or other possible directions.: 
Although these several organizations have supplied much of the back- 
ground material from which this statement was prepared, may I say 
I do not speak officially for any of them. 

It is my understanding that the members of the Commission are 
especially interested in securing testimony relative to the visa prob- 
lem, which affects foreign scientists who wish to visit this country on 
scientific missions, rather than to immigrate with the intention of 
becoming American citizens. The information on immigration as it 
relates to foreign scientists is meager and difficult to assemble, and no 
effort will be made to cover this aspect of the subject, which, however, 
I believe has been dealt with by other witnesses. It should be noted 
that the implications of visitation are so drastically different from 
those of immigration that the two merit not only separate considera- 
tion but distinctive procedural handling. I shall return to this sub- 
ject later. 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science and its 
affiliates have been interested in assuring relative freedom of move- 
ment of scientists and other professional people from one country to 
another, subject to necessary but reasonable security regulations, ever 
since the termination of the war in 1945. The association's interest is 
based on the experience that science is international, discoveries in 
basic science may occur in any country, and the only way in which our 
Nation can remain in the forefront of scientific and technological de- 
velopment is through unhampered intercommunication. The prob- 
lems relative to international travel, except in the countries behind the 
iron curtain, did not become well defined until the passage of the legis- 
lation now in force. Up to the present time there has been no official 
consideration or action with reference to the implications of the new 
legislation that will become effective in late December. The provisions 
of this legislation are currently being studied to determine whether 
they may affect the situation in any significant way, but on this par- 
ticular subject I am not prepared to present any statement. 

The association has taken official cognizance of problems encoun- 
tered in administering existing legislation through its council, which 
passed a resolution at Philadelphia on December 29. 1951. The AAAS 
Council is the policy-making body of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, comprising approximately 250 members, 
some of whom represent the 48,000 individual members of the AAAS, 
l»ut most of whom are official i-epresentatives appointed by the 184 

25356—52 93 


affiliated societies, which are entitled to 1 or 2 representatives, de- 
pending npon tlie size of their I'espective memherships. 

The resohition that was adopted at the Phihidelpliia meeting of the 
council was, naturally, concei'ned with the two-way movement of sci- 
entists, hence it deals with both passports and visas. Inasmuch as it 
sets forth a widespread though by no means unanimous reaction of 
scientists to certain provisions of the law and to its administration, it 
has pertinence in this testimony, and I quote it herewith : 

The council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is 
profoundly disturbed over the present world conditions which so severely Impede 
the free interchange of knowledge even among friendly nations. Danger to the 
future of our Nation is implicit in such restrictions. 

The council recognizes tlie need for measures which will effectively safeguard 
our security, but expresses its troubled concern over the manner in which such 
measures, in particular the McCarran Act, are being ailministered to prohibit 
American citizens from going abroad and citizens of other nations from coming 
here to interchange knowledge of science which does not affect security. 

The council strongly urges that the administrative procedures under the 
McCarran Act be reviewed and modified so as to minimize injustices and to 
increase both our internal strength and our prestige abroad. 

The council further urges revision and improvement of the relevant portions 
of the act, to retain the objectives of necessary security, but with adequate 
provisions to maintain free interchange of knowledge that has no security 

The phraseology of the resolution indicates quite clearly that Amer- 
ican scientists have, from time to time, encountered difficulty in se- 
curing passports for travel abroad and that foreign scientists have 
likewise encountered comparable difficulties in carrying out plans to 
visit this country. There has, of course, been no opportunity for 
additional experiences under the new legislation, but there is no reason 
to believe that the situation will change in any essential way. In- 
evitably the operation of any law becomes evident in its application 
to individual cases, and the only effective way to deal critically with 
a law is through the discussion of specific cases. 

This type of procedure is fraught with dangers insofar as the cases 
presented may or may not possess validity. It will be readily appre- 
ciated by the Commission that scientists and scientific organizations 
are not in a position to investigate, or to test the validity of, individual 
cases; yet it is important to recognize that the invalidity of any in- 
dividual case does not in any way weaken criticism that would have 
applied had the case possessed validity. Fortunately, the ex])eriences 
of many foreign scientists have been quite carefully documented, and 
26 of them have been presented in the October 1952 issue of the Bulle- 
tin of the Atomic Scientists.^ I understand that copies of this issue 
have been placed at the disposal of the members of the Commission, 
but I wish to enter this issue of the ])eriodical in question officially 
into the record that will be studied by the Commission. I call especial 
attention to the cases that are presented on pages 228 to 252, inclusive, 
and I also invite attention to the critique of the visa situation pre- 
pared by Edward A. Shils in the editorial entitled "America's Pa])er 
Curtain,'' which appears on pages 210 to 217 of the same issue. Despite 
the documentation, I wish to make no specific claim for the validity 
of any of the 12 cases presented in detail on pages 223 to 246, though 

1 Bulletin of the Atomic Seientists, vol. VIII, No. 7, Octoher 1952, iniblished bv the 
Kflueational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc., 956 East Fiftv-eiirbth Street, Cliicairo 
.37. 111. 


I might State that the statement prepared by Michael Pohmyi on 
pages 223 to 228, inckisive, together with the opinions submitted by 
John K. Baker and P. W. Bndgman, published on page 229 in the 
October issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, seems to merit 
careful study and analysis. 

I am prepared to add to the 26 cases presented in this special issue 
of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, if the Commission so desires. 
The material that has been placed in my hands or that has come directly 
to the association from individuals involved in visa problems provides 
information on eight additional cases, as well as supplementary docu- 
mentation for some of the cases presented in the Bulletin. It seems of 
greater importance, however, in this brief statement to extend the 
testimony in a diflE'erent direction, and also to make some elfort to 
classify and to sj'stematize it. 

Of very serious concern to the scientists of this country is the fact 
that, within the past 12 months, scientists in at least five different 
fields have definitel}^ decided against holding international meetings in 
the United States, The most candid reaction has come from the 
psychologists, and a statement from the American Psychological 
Association dealing with this matter has been read into the Congres- 
sional Record (vol. 98, No. 88, pp. 5920-5921). Here it was stated 
that, in deciding to hold the 1954 International Congress of Psy- 
chology in Canada, the psychologists agreed not to hold a meeting 
in the United States until and unless the existing legislation is "modi- 
fied in such a way that visiting scientists will not be put through an 
inconvenient and embarrassing procedure in order to gain permission 
to visit this country." 

Comparable action was taken by the International Congress of 
Genetics in voting to hold the ninth congress in Italy in 1953, and the 
tenth congress probabl}^ in Canada in preference to the United States. 
Although the astronomers of the International xVstronomical Union 
were somewhat more reticent in official records regarding the locale 
of their next meeting, they declined an invitation to meet in the United 
States for the same reason. The 1954 International Federation of 
Documentation and the Nineteenth International Physiological Con- 
gress will also be held outside the United States, notwithstanding invi- 
tations to meet here, but other reasons were given for the decisions 
in both these cases : specifically, the unfavorable rate of foreign ex- 
change. Although it is understood that the visa situation was also a 
factor in the decisions reached by these two groups, this cannot be 
supported by documentation. 

With respect to the individual scientists who have been denied, 
entry or who have been delayed in entering the United States, analysis 
reveals that they can be classified into a comparatively small number 
of tj'pes. 

1. In regaitl to foi-eigners who are active members of the Communist 
Party, the McCarran Act of 1950 is specific, and no particuhir issue' 
lias arisen, though the need to deal as rigorously with visitors as with 
innnigrants has been questioned. 

2. Foreign scientists who at any time past had admitted or alleged 
connections Avith the Communist Party have been given the same treat- 
ment as active Communists, yet their cases have possessed varying 
degiees of merit to which adequate consideration has rarely been* 
given. Enforced membership in the Communist Party without Com- 


niiiiiist sympathy, or temporary membership in the party for the pur- 
pose of conibatiiio; Nazi occupation through "underground" activity, 
and vohmtary membership tliat was ultimately renounced when full 
com])i-ehensiou of the implications of connnunism was acquired, are 
tlu'ee type< of background cases encountered in this general category. 
Analagous situjitions have been faced in dealing with German citizens 
who had been forced into nominal membership in the Nazi Party in 
Germany. The new McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 sets up macliinery 
ii\v appeals by individuals in this category, but decisions are still dis- 
cretionary and hence problematic. 

8. Categories 1 and 2 are created by specific provisions of the act, 
but a much larger group of prospective scientific visitors is affected 
by the administration of the act. Foreign scientists wdiose political 
records are above reproach and whom the act was clearly designed not 
to exclude commonly find themselves involved in the operation of 
machinery that has not been satisfactorily geared to the volume or the 
kind of business that must be processed. A few sensitive individuals 
have resented some of the questions that are asked in conformance w^ith 
the requirements of the law. And once again, I go back to Dr. Painter's 
statement about the difficulties that foreigners have with question- 
naires. Many scientists have experienced such long delays in action 
on their applications for visas that the events in which they had 
planned to participate in this country were things of the past before 
permission to enter the United States was granted. A disconcertingly 
large munber of scientists who were planning longer stays — in some 
instances as visiting professors in educational institutions — have been 
delayed oi- even precluded from entry by consular insistence on addi- 
tional evidence regarding the adequacy of financial support. Only 
rarely has the personnel in United States consular offices been aware of 
the dignity and esteem attached to scholastic distinction abroad, and 
the treatment that has been accorded several foreign scientists by our 
consular agents has generated, and is generating, an atmosphere of 
international ill will that has prompted scientists in some of the west- 
ern democi-acies to bi-acket the I"'^nited States with the U. S. S. R. in 
respect to attitude toward foreign visitors. Inaccurate and unjust 
as such a comparison may be, its causal relation to the visa problem is 
ample evidence of defects in the existing machinery of administration 
that demand correction. 

The visa situation should be viewed, and reviewed, against a back- 
ground in which national security is a dominant factor. As the as- 
sociation's resolution of December 20, 1951, clearly demonstrates, the 
scientific profession does not minimize the need to protect our de- 
mocracy against subversive influences and to guard our scientific and 
technological secrets. Scientists, however, are only too acutely 
aware of the fact that tliei-e is no ])rotection against the independent 
discovery of supposed secrets; that scientific progress has interna- 
tional roots that draw upon basic discoveries made in many different 
countries for sustenance; that free intercommunication, which will 
give American scientists quick access to new scientific develo])ments in 
other countries, is not o]dy vital to the national welfare but crucial in 
preserving our national security. Scientists heartily endorse tlie kind 
of caution that excludes the subversive who seeks to obtain and to ex- 
port our technological secrets and to import propagtmda that aims 


at the overthrow of our democracy, but they consider any barrier to 
the free flow of information into this country as an even greater threat 
to national security. There is such a threat — inadvertent, to be sure — 
in certain provisions of the present law and in its administration, 
and it is only this threat that the profession seeks to remove. The 
importance of the international exchange of scientific information 
has been partially set forth in an article under that title, prepared 
by Wallace R. Erode, associate director of the National Bureau of 
Standards, and published in volume 28, No. 50, of Chemical and 
Engineering News (pp. 4332-4338) on December 11, 1950, and a re- 
print of this article is herewith submitted for entry into the record.* 
Although certain of the problems outlined by Dr. Brode have been 
accentuated during the 22 months that have elapsed since the article 
was printed, his remarks still provide essential backgi'ound material 
in dealing with the movement of foreign scientists into this coinitry 
and of American scientists into foreign countries. 

In the preceding remarks, the ini])ression may have been given that 
the mesh that screens foreign scientists seeking to enter the United 
States is too fine, and in general this is true. American scientists, 
especially those working in Government laboratories where highly 
classified research is being carried on, have, however, been perplexed 
by statements from the Department of State to the effect that the pos- 
session of a visa on the part of a foreign scientist is no guaranty that 
he is a good security risk, and that possession of the visa does not 
entitle him to visit laboratories in which classified research is in 
progress. We are thus confronted with the fact that the task of 
screening scientific visitors is being carried on so imperfectly that 
many who are entitled to enter this country are excluded, whereas 
others, who are admittedly poor security risks, obtain entry. It is 
understandable that the Department of State should be unwilling to 
assume responsibility for permitting foreign visitors to have access 
to classified information and operations; but this very fact indicates 
that screening cannot be done in the consular offices and should not 
be attempted, and that more uniform and somewhat more liberal 
policies should be adopted in giving visas to scientists who are plan- 
ning comparatively short stays in the United States. The task of 
screening these visitors for possible access to classified projects and 
information can more etfectively be conducted in this country by 
agencies that are staffed and equipped for such investigation as may 
be appropriate. 

This rather brief and incomplete summary indicates that the exist- 
ing legislation — and presumably the impending legislation — should 
be further reviewed and should be revised on the basis of experience 
which has been acquired since 1950, and which was not available 
when the legislation was drafted and passed by the Congress. From 
the cases that have been studied and classified it may be included 
that : 

^ International Exchange of Scientific Information, reprinted from vol. 28, pp. 4332— 
4837. 4406, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 28, No. 50, December 11, 1950, the 
American Chemical Society. 


1. The pi'ovisioiis of the current law have been responsible for 
several jjrave injustices to individuals, whose exclusion from the 
United States must be viewed as a loss to American science, as well 
as a set-back to American presti^je and international good will; 

2. Tlie administration of the existing legislation is unsatisfactory, 
in part because — 

(a) The facilities for handling the volume of business are inade- 
quate ; 

(h) The personnel upon whom the primary responsibility of ad- 
ministration has fallen only exceptionally has the background and 
training to handle it judiciously; and 

(c) Insofar as current legislation requires investigative procedures, 
this responsibility cannot be assumed or handled expeditiously by 
those to whom it has been delegated. 

3. Although the legislation that will go into effect in December 
provides machinery for appeals from adverse and presumably unfair 
decisions in certain cases, it does not solve the major problems or 
remove the causes for growing international friction and ill will; 

4. Without relaxing vigilance against the infiltration of Commu- 
nists, the law may appropriately and profitably be liberalized and 
some of the problems solved by distinguishing between those who 
propose to immigrate into this country and whose qualifications for 
American citizenship should be critically scrutinized, and those who 
merely plan short visits and whose scientific knowledge is potentially 
of value to American institutions and scientific organizations. 

I have no wish to leave with the Commission the impression that 
scientists have a distorted perspective on the visa question. The 
colleagues who have supplied me with information have mentioned 
as many cases in which foreign scientists have entered this country 
without trouble or delay, as they have cases where unwarranted diffi- 
culty oi' outright refusal was experienced. They are rightly con- 
cerned, however, with the imperfections of the law and its adminis- 
tration, because these imperfections are creating ill will that is being 
reflected in the increasing number of decisions on the part of inter- 
national scientific bodies not to schedule meetings in the United 
States. If this trerid continues, American science faces the threat 
not merely of becoming provincial but also of becoming atrophied 
to the point where the national welfare and national security will 
suffer. Security and welfare are founded on knowledge, only part of 
which originates within the confines of the United States, 

The Chairman. Thank ^^^ou very much. We are very glad to have 
this statement. The document published by the atomic scientists has 
been filed with us. You mentioned Dr. Shils in your testimony. You 
may be interested to know he testified before us in Chicago. 

Is Dr. Waterman here ? 


Dr. Waterman. I am Dr. x\lan T. Waterman, director of the Na- 
tional Science Foundation, 2144 California Street NW., AVashing- 
ton, D. C. 


With your permission, I sliould like to read a prepared statement. 

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

Dr. Waterman. The National Science Foundation is an independ- 
ent agency in the executive branch of the Federal Government. The 
Foundation was created by the National Science Foundation Act of 
1950 and came into existence as a going organization during 1951. 

Your invitation to the Foundation was to testify concerning the 
impact of the immigration laws upon science. For the most part, the 
effect of the immigration laws upon science is not substantially dif- 
ferent from the effect upon other professional and scholarly activities. 
In matters concerning the admission of foreign sciensts as visitors, 
however, experience has demonstrated the existence of a problem of 
special concern to science and one in which the stake of this country 
is large. It is, therefore, to this special problem that I shall speak. 

I should like to place my remarks in perspective by indicating the 
nature of the interest and the competence of the National Science 
Foundation in this field. The creation of the National Science Foun- 
dation by Congress in 1950 was itself recognition of a fact to which 
the national and international events in the first half of this century 
bear witness: The emergence of science and technology as a crucial 
and sometimes decisive factor in the rise and fall of nations and the 
personal destinies of all men. The nations of the free world are now 
engaged in a grim and seemingly endless struggle to maintain the 
precarious balance for peace and security. In this struggle the deci- 
sive edge in military strength or, if our hopes are realized, in the 
peaceful develoj^ment of the economic resources of our world, if we 
can hope that will come, is likelj^ to go to that nation or group of 
nations which most successfully supports and develops its scientific 
and technological strength. 

Since the late 1930's, when the magnitude of this country's stake in 
vigorous scientific research and development began to be apparent, the 
resources of the Government have been marshaled in support of sci- 
ence. Today the Federal Government's annual budget for scientific 
research and development is in the order of $2,000,000,000, to which 
private enterprise and the universities add perhaps 50 percent more. 
Nine Federal agencies, in addition to the Foundation, pursue major 
research programs covering widely the scientific fields known to man. 
The National Science Foundation, however, was devised in the years 
following the end of World War II, "as a much-needed keystone in 
the structure of the national research program," to use the words of 
the President in transmitting the Foundation's first annual report to 
the Congress. One of its principal tasks is to appraise the rapid 
growth of research activity, both public and private, and to recom- 
mend the broad goals toward which this effort should be channeled. 
The Foundation is also directed by the National Science Foundation 
Act to cooperate in international research activities. It is principally 
in these capacities, then, as the adviser to the Government on national 
policy with respect to scientific research, and as a j^rincipal agency 
concerned with international cooperation in scientific research, that 
the Foundation has approached the problem of foreign scientific visi- 
tors under the immigration laws. 


In assessiniT tlu^ ])r()blem of the Federal Government, the Founda- 
tion has drawn upon the experience of other Government agencies 
and, through the wide contacts of the Foundation with the scientific 
community in this country, upon the experience of scientists them- 

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to submit for the record the written 
statements on this subject by the Department of Defense, the Atomic 
Energy Commission, and the Department of Agriculture. Upon the 
basis of information available to the Foundation through these chan- 
nels, it is clear that the provisions of the present immigration laws 
governing the temporary admission of aliens to this country, and the 
administration of these laws, have created a problem. If the solution 
to this problem is long delayed, a seriously detrimental effect on the 
strength of science in this country may be expected. Any such handi- 
cap to our progress in science will in turn unquestionably react ad- 
versely on our welfare and security in the years ahead. A further 
consequence would be a weakening of cooperative relationships with 
friendly countries in an important component of our common defense, 
namely, scientific research and development. 

The problem arises in the restrictions on temporary admission of an 
alien visitor, now stated in section 137 of the 1950 law and retained in 
the law which will become effective in December this year. Since these 
restrictions have been in effect since 1950, we have had an o])portunity 
to observe their consequences for science. Opinion among scientists 
is practically unanimous that they have brought about deterioration 
in the relationships of American, scientists with their opposite num- 
bers in countries friendly to the United States, particularly in the 
United Kingdom and Western Europe. 

Effective scientific research calls for creative ability of an outstand- 
ing order. Such ability is no respecter of national boundaries. At a 
given time in a given field of science the leaders in the field are usually 
found in at least several countries in the world and the researchers in 
the field in practically all. Much of the progress in science is achieved 
through the inspiration and guidance of the few individuals of out- 
standing competence and experience. For progress on the frontiers 
of science it is especially necessary that these leaders have opj)ortuni- 
ties to discuss their ideas and plans with each other and with the large 
group of research workers who are providing the body of research 
which comprises that field of science. Observations and conclusions 
reached by competent scientists in any one country are invaluable to 
the research of scientists in other countries working on the same or 
similar problems. While I am speaking here primarily of basic or 
fundamental research — i. e., research on a frontier of science — the 
importance of this exchange of information is no less for our applied 
research and technology. There is overwhelming evidence on this 
score. Until well into the twentieth century this country advanced its 
technology and standard of living to the highest level the world has 
seen. Yet, it is universally admitted that in so doing we drew heavily 
on the findings and accomplishments in pure science abroad. Without 
ready access to this foreign stockpile of scientific infonnation, this 
progress would have been impossible. There is overwhelming evidence 
on this. This was especially true up to the twentieth century, when 
basically everything we had came from abroad. 


Now that we are among those in the forefront of progress in basic 
scientific research, it is common sense and in the interest of economy 
to insure that loss of critical time and needless duplication do not arise 
through failure of ready communication. Without opportunity for 
exchange of views and information, delay and unnecessary duplication 
will inevitably occur. It is for this reason that from the very begin- 
nings of science scientists have put a very high value on good channels 
of connnunication. The value of direct communication in speed, in 
dollars, and in ultimate accomplishment is great. 

The bulk of international scientific communication is carried out 
continuously through written media. It is common knowledge, how- 
ever, that there are limitations on the capacity of the written word to 
convey complete information which can be usefid to cooperative effoit 
or to the work of an individual which requires an intimate knowledge 
of the work of others. It is hard to imagine this Commission or a 
legislative body attempting to draft legislation by correspondence, or 
a court reaching a just and impartial decision without having seen or 
heard the opposing witnesses in person. As in all human affairs, there 
is no substitute for informal discussion face to face. 

This is exemplified in a more formal manner by the existence of a 
large number of international professional organizations, concerned 
with particular scientific fields or subjects, and comprised of the lead- 
ers in these fields. These organizations periodically bring together 
outstanding scientists for exchange of ideas, mutual criticism, and 
marking out new lines of research along the frontiers of science. Much 
is oAved to them for continued work on such great world-wide prob- 
lems as tidal waves, sea level and its variation, maintenance of inter- 
national standards of measurement, long-range radio transmission, 
epidemic control, health and disease, sanitary engineering, meterology, 
and hundreds of other matters of concern to modern civilization and to 
our national defense. Agencies of this Government have also recog- 
nized the value to this country of direct, personal interchange of scien- 
tific information by convening special ad hoc conferences to focus 
the best minds in science on a problem of particular significance. 

Of at least equal importance are the contributions of individual 
foreign scientists to the progress of science in this country through 
visits to laboratories in this country for periods of research and to 
universities for lectures or seminars. 

Estimates of the number of scientists coming to international meet- 
ings or to laboratories and universities in the United States are difficult 
to make. Compared to the stream of visitors to this country for all 
similar purposes, including pleasure, which in the fiscal year 1951 
comprised more than 300,000 persons, the number of scientific visitors 
(excluding students) is small, perhaps less than 3,000, or 1 percent, 
each year. But the scientists who do come here are important to our 
scientific strength out of all proportion to their number, for they 
consist, generally speaking, of the best scientific minds of the free 
world outside this country. 

I should point out that the exchange of scientific information with 
which we are here concerned does not include classified security infor- 
mation. No one questions the necessity of safeguarding such infor- 
mation. Classified research necessarily proceeds without the full ben- 
efit of communication in this manner. From the standpoint of prog- 


ress alone there is no (^nestion that this is a handicap, but one af>Tee(l 
to be necessary. 

Tlie difficulty with tlie ]u-esent systeni of visitor control has been 
aptly summarized in a recent pei'iodical ^ in tlie following terms: 

"In the past few years a very large number of distinguished Euro- 
pean scientists, almost all of them anti-Communists and deeply de- 
voted to the freedom in which scientific truth is sought and discovered, 
have been frustrated in their efforts to come to the Ignited States to 
share their knowledge with their American colleagues. Their appli- 
cations for visas have in many cases been refused, usually after long 
delay; in other cases the visas have been finally granted, but only 
after delays so long that scientific meetings to which they had been 
invited had taken place, or the teaching appointments for which they 
had been engaged had lapsed through their failure to arrive in time 
to fulfill them.'' 

It has been estimated that under the existing statutes at least 50 
percent of all foreign scientists who apply to enter the United States 
meet difficulties or serious delays. This does not imply that the 
number of actual refusals to foreign scientists of permission to enter 
is very great. The principal damage appears to occur in a small 
number of cases involving seemingly unjustified refusals to outstand- 
ing persons, coupled with the tedious, cumbersome, and uncertain 
process experienced by those who do pass through the screen. The 
Foundation is, of course, in no position to conclude that in any partic- 
ular case the decision has been unwarranted. It is not that so much 
as the red tape. In come cases it is difficult to understand, from the 
public record, why admission has been refused. However, it is not 
so much the final outcome in any one case as it is the total effect of 
the system on our science and upon our scientific relations abroad 
which is harmful. 

The impact of the present situation on the opinion of scientists is 
evidenced in editorials from leading periodicals in this country and 
abroad, as well as in published correspondence. A brief bibliography 
sampling these materials is appended to this statement for the con- 
ve'^ience of the Commission. 

This and other evidence demonstrates widespread opinion that the 
system operates in so cumbersome and hostile a manner that many 
foreign scientists would prefer not to become involved with it. To 
the degree that this opnion spreads and becomes confirmed, United 
States science is cut off progressively from the contributions of British 
and Western European scientists and those of other friendly foreign 
countries. These have, many times in the past, been of great value 
to progress in scientific fields important as the basis of our progress 
and security. 

We must not imagine that America does not need information and 
inspiration, and cooperation, from outstanding scientists in friendly 
foreign countries. We do not have any monopoly on scientific talent 
or the emergence of new discoveries in science. As I have stated, we 
benefited perhaps more than any other world power from scientific 
discoveries made elsewhere. The development of some of the most 
vital weapons in our armament stems from open, unclassified funda- 
mental scientific research abroad. This field of unclassified scientific 

1 BiilleUn of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 8, October 1952, p. 210. 


research is the peacemaker of teclinolo<rical advances and where we 
are really interested in oetting- the best minds together. I don't need 
to summarize some of the difficulties that have been encountered here. 
The previous speakers have given those in some detail. Radar, the 
atomic bomb, jet aircraft, and penicillin were perfected in the United 
States on the basis of discoveries and research in foreign countries 
to which w(; were given ready access. 

The extent to which the United States needs to draw scientific knowl- 
edge from abroad is indicated by an analysis of the nationality of 
scientists awarded the Nobel prize. During the first 20 years of this 
award. 1901-20, a total of 43 awards were made in physical sciences, 
15 to Germany, 26 to other European nations, and only 2 to Americans. 
None of the 17 awards in medicine and physiology went to Americans. 
Of the 60 awards in the physical sciences in the years 1921-49, 44 went 
to European scientists, 2 to Asian scientists, and 14 to Americans. 
Although a considerable number of American scientists have received 
Nobel prizes, the fact remains that to date three out of four of these 
awards in science have gone to scientists outside the United States. 

I am sure that it was not the intention of the Congress, in refining 
and redefining the security provisions of the immigration and natural- 
ization laws, to impede the prog^ress of science or decrease the military 
security of this country by adversely affecting scientific research pro- 
grams. I am just as confident that, once the special problem of science 
is made known, constructive changes can be expected. I also do not 
wish to claim that the difficulties which we have experienced have been 
or are likely to be catastrophic in their effect on the progress of 
science in this country, though this is a possibility. My judgment is, 
however, that the effects of the present policy, if continued for long, 
can be substantial in slowing down the progress of this country on 
many important scientific frontiers. The implications, for interna- 
tional relations generally, of alienating a substantial number of the 
distinguished citizens of friendly foreign countries I leave to those 
more experienced in political affairs than I. I can say, however, that 
the implications for science in this country of alienating the foremost 
scientists and the leaders in scientific thought in friendly countries are 
indeed serious. What has happened, thus, is sufficiently important to 
the research effort of this country to merit the attention of this Com- 
mission and, I hope, eventually of the Congress. 

What should be done? 

Our survey of the problem, though not an exhaustive one, indicates 
that there is room for improvement both in the law and in its ad- 
ministration. W^e are encouraged by the fact, of which we have been 
informally advised, that the Department of State has been actively 
investigating all aspects of the visitor-visa problem. It seems likely 
that a satisfactory solution from the point of view of science will re- 
qiiire not only improvement in administration by the State and Justice 
Departments but also some revisioii of the law. For specific construc- 
tive recommendations in this field the Foundation looks with confi- 
dence to th(! work of this Commission and, nltimately, the Congress. 
We would like, therefore, to suggest some approaches for consider- 

First, let it be said that the Foundation recognizes that rigorous and 
effective security measures are required under present world condi- 
tions to preserve the integrity of our Government and our country. 


We must be protected by adequate safeguards against admittance of 
undesirable or dangerous individuals on either a permanent or a 
temporary basis. The Foundation believes at the same time that our 
people can understand that overemphasis on th.e mechanics of meas- 
ures for security can seriously compromise security Avhen it cuts us 
off from access to information vital to our strength. The question is 
frankly one of proper balance between security by isolation and secu- 
rity by technological achievement. 

An important first step toward this end could be taken by making 
a distinction in the statute between requirements for temporary ad- 
mission of a nonimmigrant alien and requirements for admission of 
an alien who intends to become a permanent resident of the United 
States. Complicated administrative procedures, extensive security 
checks, exhaustive questionnaires, and careful interrogations should 
be acceptable as part of an application for permanent entrance and 
ultimate citizenship in the United States. The same administrative 
procedures and criteria are not easily understood or accepted in the 
case of an application for a visit of a few weeks or months. It is im- 
plicit in this suggestion, of course, that strict measures be employed 
for screening out foreign agents, saboteurs, and secret couriers^ 

Tlie next suggestion is that the criterion requiring exclusion of an 
alien ^ i-^itor might rationally become present, sympathetic association 
with a foreign subversive organization rather than, as now, affiliation, 
in an extremely broad sense of the word, at any time in the past with 
such an organization. It is encouraging that the Congress has already 
taken a step in this direction by providing exceptions for persons who 
in the past were so affiliated but Avho have terminated such affiliation 
for 5 years prior to the date of application for a visa and have been ac- 
tively opposed to the program of the subversive organization. The 
change from past to present association might be coupled with a re- 
quirement that there be developed a definitive listing, similar to the 
Attorney General's list under the Federal employees' loyalty program, 
of subversive organizations whose character as such has been publicly 
identified by an authoritative body or officer after due investigation. 
This would do much, the foundation believes, to assist administrative 
officers in evaluating the nature of organizations with whom foreign 
scientists have been associated in one manner or another during the 
confused and troubled years of the last two decades in Europe. 

The fecundation's third suggestion grows out of recoernition that our 
Government has been accumulating a wealth of experience with secu- 
rity programs in which a balance must be struck between security by 
isolation and security by technological achievement. In order to 
insure that this balance be safeguarded and maintained it is suggested 
that consideration be given to providing for selective audit from time 
to time of applications for temporary admission, by a competent, reli- 
able, and disinterested group with appropriate experience both inside 
and outside of Government. 

There is one further possibility that should be considered, par- 
ticularlv if the other suggestions prove to be impracticable. It is a 
possibility that the foundation advances with some reluctance because 
it appears to set apart from other alien visitors a separate class — one 
having outstanding records of achievement in the professions, such 
as science, scholarship, and technology, and to accord to this class of 
persons special treatment. The suggestion seems worthy of consider- 


atioii beoause it is among this class that the stake of this country in 
granting pi-ompt admission is often demonstrably the greatest. I 
have in mind a separate section of the immigration law which, if estab- 
lished, would create a much-simplified and expeditious system for 
admitting such persons, perhaps defined in terms of those eligible for 
reciprocal exchange under the Smith-Mundt Act — "students, trainees, 
teachers, guest researchers, professors, and leaders in fields of special- 
ized knowledge or skill" — who have applied for admission to this 
country for a purpose directly related to the activities of a Govern- 
ment agency, an accredited institution of higher learning, or a sched- 
uled meeting of an accredited international professional organization. 

While, in giving you my views, I speak for the foundation, as direc- 
tor, I should note that it has not been possible for me, within the 
limits of the time available, to obtain from the 24 members of the 
National Science Board — in effect, the board of directors — a direct 
expression of their opinions. I feel confident, however, that my i)osi- 
tion is shared substantially by all members of the board. 

The foundation is grateful to the Commission for the invitation to 
present its comments and would welcome an opportunity to work 
with you further, if desired. We must never lose sight of the critical 
importance of a far-ranging and vigorous scientific research program 
to the security and great destiny of our country. 

Appendix to Remarks by Alan T. Waterman Before the President's 
Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 

sample editorial, news, and letter comment indicating impact of united 
states visa policy on the views of scientists 

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, volume 8, October 1952: 

Shils, Edward A., America's Paper Curtain (editorial), pages 210-217. 
Eminent American Scientists Give Tlieir Views on American Visa Policy 
(views of Albert Einstein, Hans A. Bethe, Harold C. Urey, James Franck. 
Samuel Goudsmit. Cyril S. Smith. Arthur H. Compton, and William P. 
Murphy), pages 217-220. 
Weisskopf, Victor F., Report on the Visa Situation, pages 221-222. 
Some British Experiences (views of Michael Polanyi, R. E. Pe'erle, M. L. 
Olip'ant, Paul Erdes, V. R. E. Davies, E. A. Guggenheim, and E. A. 
Pringsheim), pages 22.3-232. 
Cunliffe, Marcus, the British Reactions to the M-'Canau Acts, pages 223, 256. 
Aron, Raymond, American Visa Policy, pages 234-23.J. 

Some French Experiences (views of .Jacques Mnnod, Jean L^iay, Lawrence 
Schwartz, Daniel Chalonge, Jacques Hathiniard. J. Wyart, J. Coulomb. 
Charles Bruneau, Eugenie Cotton, Alfred Kastler, Charles S;idron, and 
Georges Friedmann), pages 23()-246. 
Leprince Ringuet. M. Louis. French Physicists and U. S. Visjis, page 247. 
Some Other European Experiences (viev.s of Bruno Ferretti. Italy, F. E. 
Borghis, Switzerland, and M. Minnaert, the Netherlands), pages 247- 
249, 261. 
The Treatment of Good Neighbors (views of Manuel Snndovni Vallarta, 
Mexico, Juan de Oyarzabal, Mex'co, Marcos Moshinsky, .Mexico, and 
Leonardo Guzman, Chile), pages 2.50-252, 258. 
Banning Science (anonymous letter), Washington Post. May 10, 1852. 
Banning Science (editorial), Washington Post, May 5, 19.52. 
Curbs on Freedom Disturb Scientists (news item on connnents of distinguished 

British scientists). New York Times, September 9, 1951. 
Editorial, Boston Traveler, May 23, 1952. 
Friendly, Alfred, Visa Barrier — Scientists Attack Exclusion Policv, Washington 

Post, October 13, 1952. 
Inman, Samuel Guy, Refusal of Visas Queried (letter), New York Times, 
December 19, 1951. 


Scientific Freedom and Security (editorial), Nature, voluuie 170, pages 215-218. 
(This is an expression of opinion in the leading British scientific journal.) 
The Scientists Speak Out (editorial), New York Times, October 13, 1952. 
Wylie, Lawrence, Visa Refusal Cited (letter). New York Times, January 6, 1952. 

Statement No. 1 

The Secretary of Defense, 
Washington, October 25, 1952. 
Dr. Alan T. Waterman, 

Director, National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Dr. Waterman : I have your letter of October S requesting certain 
information for your use in testifying before the President's Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization. I have asked Mr. Whitman, Chairman of the 
Research and Development Board, to answer the questions you have asked, 
since this is a field in which he has primary concern. I am enclosing his memo- 
randum to me. You are at liberty, if you so desire, to place this letter and 
the enclosed memorandum in the record of the hearings before the Commission. 
Sincerely yours, 

(Signed) Robert A. Lovett. 

Research and Development Board, 
Washington, D. C, October 20, 1952. 

memokanditm for the secretary of defense 

Subject: National Science Foundation Letter of October 8. 

The National Science Foundation has inciuired as to the extent, if any, to 
which present laws and regulations relating to the issuance of nonimmigrant 
visas to alien scientists and technicians have created difficulties in the conduct 
of research and development programs. I should preface my remarks by 
stating that it is axiomatic that the freest possible interchange of ideas produces 
the best possible climate for scientific progress, and that scientific progress 
in the United States is vital to our national security. From this standpoint, 
speaking as a scientist. I feel that the extremely restrictive procedures re- 
quired for nonimmigrant visas to alien scientists are unfortunate. However, 
I am unable to point to any specific instance of direct interference with military 
research and development programs resulting from present laws and regula- 
tions in this regard. 

The National Science Foundation requested evidence of opinion among the 
scientific and technical leaders of the United States and abroad critical of the 
present nonimmigrant visa system and its administration. I have noted news- 
paper articles referring to the recent article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 
which is apparently strongly critical of the present system, and feel I can add 
little to the evidence availiible from pnlilic sources. 

The National Science Foundation has asked for the Department of Defense 
view witli I'espect to the need for revision of the present laws and regula- 
tions relating to the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to alien scientists and 
technicians and the administrative or legislative changes considered neces- 
sary or desirable from the point of view of scientific research and develop- 
ment. It is my personal opinion that the restrictive procedures relating to the 
issuance of nonimmigrant visas to scientists will, in the long run, be detrimental 
to the progress of science and hence to the Department of Defense. I do not 
think, however, that the Department has had any direct experience with this 
problem on wliich to base a formal recommendation for the revision of tJtie 
pi-esent laws and regulations relating to the issuance of nonimmigrant vistas to 
alien scientists. 

I have, as Dr. Waterman suggested, addressed myself solely to the (piestion 
of nonimmigrant visas. I should point out that, so far as immigrant visas are 
concerned, the priority provided in section 203 (a) (1) should be extremely 
valuable and the Department of Defense strongly supports the; maintenance of 
this provision. 

Walter G. WniTAfAN, Chairman,. 


Statement No. 2 

United States Atomic Energy Commission, 

Washington, D. C, October 2J,, 1952. 
Hon. Alan T. Waterman, 

Director, National Scienec Foundation, 

Wasltiuf/ton, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Waterman : Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1952, advising 
us that the National Science Foundation has been invited to present testimony 
before the President's Conunission on Immigration and Naturalization on Octo- 
ber 27 or 28 concerninji' the effect of the immigration and naturalization laws on 
science in the United States. 

The answers to your questions in the order they were presented are listed 
below : 

Question 1. To what extent, if any, in the experience of the Conunission, luive 
the present laws and regulations relating to the issuance of ncuiinunigrant visas 
to alien scientists and technicians created ditticulties in the conduct of research 
and development programs? 

Answer 1. The present laws and regulations relating to the issuance of non- 
immigrant visas to alien scientists and technicians have not directly created 
difficulties in the conduct of the Commission's research and development pro- 
grams. However, we are not in a position to evaluate the extent to which these 
laws may indirectly have affected Conunission programs Ity discouraging qualified 
alien scientists from participating in research and development programs in this 
country by other groups. 

The Commission has always encouraged visits by foreign scientists to the 
United States when such visits would make a constructive contril)ution to the 
iitomic-energy program insofar as they were consistent witli security require- 
ments. We are particularly aware that the development of atomic energy is 
based in large part on discoveries which took place in foreign laboratories, and 
we still have need for the many fundamental contributions which foreign science 
can make. Nuclear physics and chemistry, for example, are fields where more 
liasic knowledge is lu'gently needed, and where the traditionally free exchange 
of l)asic scientific information is essential to maxinuun progress. Foreign science 
<'an and does make really significant contributions to tliese fields. It is important, 
therefore, that this source of help not l)e denied the United States. Certainly 
any legislation which denies to the United States the free exchange of basic 
scientific information may impede tlie research aiul development programs of 
the Commission and its contractors. 

Question 2. Does the Commission have evidence of opinion among scientific 
and technical leaders in the United States or abroad which is critical of the 
present nonimmigrant visa system or its administration? 

Answer 2. We do not believe that we have available any evidence of opinion 
:among .such scientists and technical leaders which the National Science Founda- 
tion does not have. As you know, the October 1952 issue of the Bulletin of 
Atomic Scientists was devoted to this problem. 

Question 3. What, is the view of the Commission witli respect to tlie need for 
revision of the present laws and regulations relating to the issuance of non- 
immigrant visas to alien scientists and technicians? 

Answer 3. The AEC feels that the National Science Foundation is in a much 
better position than the Commission to suggest changes in present laws and 
regulations relating to the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to alien scientists and 
technicians. However, we shall be happy to cooperate with you in the formula- 
tion of such proposed changes insofai' as they affect the atonuc-energy program. 

Question 4. What, if any, administrative or legislative changes in the present 
nonimmigrant visa system does the Commis.sion citnsider necessary or desirable 
from the point of view of scientific research and development? 

Answer 4. The Commission feels that the fJovernment's policy on the issuance 
of nonimmigrant visas to alien scientists and technicians should be broad enough 
to permit admission of foreign scientists and technicians to the United States for 
visits of a scientific nature and for participation at unclassified scientific meet- 
ings and conferences, unless there are clear and cogent reasons for believing in 
individual cases that acts of subversion, sabotage, or other actions inimical to 
the best interests of the United States might be committed. Clearly it is the 
definitions of the standards l)y which such determinations are made that are most 
difficult to properly set forth and to administer. 


The Commission has no objection to having this letter placed in the record of 
the hearings before the President's Commission on Immigration and 

Sincerely yonrs, 

M. W. BoYEK, General Mnnafjer. 

Statement No. 3 

Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, October 22, 1952. 
Dr. Alan T. Waterman, 

Director, National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Dr. Waterman : Referring to your letter of October 8, 1952, the Research 
Administrator's Office in this Department has recently been checking bureau 
chiefs concerned in scientific work to learn what experience they have had on 
the effect of immigration laws on American science. 

Expressed as answers to the questions in your letter, our comments would 
be as follows ; 

1. To what extent, if any, in the experience of the Department, have the present 
laws and regulations relating to the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to alien 
scientists and technicians created difficulties in the conduct of research and 
development programs? 

Under a program carried out in cooperation with the State Department, the 
laboratories of the Department of Agriculture receive a great many trainees 
and visitors from foreign countries each year. Such visitors numbered 2,278 
during the fiscal year 1952. About 60 percent of these are sponsored by United 
States Government agencies such as the Mutual Security Agency, the Technical 
Cooperation Administration, and the Department of the Army, or come in under 
Fulbright scholarships or under the act covering the expenditure of loan repay- 
ments from Finland. The other 40 percent are unsponsored by United States 
agencies so far as we are advised, and apparently come at the expense either 
of themselves or the companies or governments they represent. 

There have been cases where trainees and visitors have expressed to members 
of the Department displeasure of the manner in which their aft'aics were treated 
by immigration officers. These problems are of an administrative nature and 
will be discussed below under question 4. No specific instances have come to 
our attention, however, in which scientists of note whom our specialists would 
particularly like to see have been refused admittance to this conntry. 

2. Does the Department have evidence of opinion among scientific and technical 
leaders in the United States or abroad which is critical of the present non- 
immigrant visa system or its administration? 

The Department has no specific information on the opinion among agricultural 
scientists and technical leaders in tlie United States about the present non- 
immigrant visa system. 

3. What is the view of the Department with respect to the need for revision 
of the present laws and regulations relating to the issuance of nonimmigrant visas 
to alien scientists and technicians? 

The Department has no experience that would indicate the need to revise the 
present laws and regulations affecting the entry of nonimmigrant visitors. It 
is the desire of the Department to communicate freely with our colleagues in the 
field of agriculture in other parts of the world and it looks upon the visits of 
American agricultural scientists and technicians to foreign countries as an 
important medium for advancing agricultural education. Conversely, the visits 
of foreign scientists and technicians to this country will do a great deal to pi'o- 
mole the agriculture of the other countries through the exchange of agricultural 
iiiformntion. We see no objections to visits of distinguished scientists in cases 
where there is no record of overt activities or propaganda hostile and dangerous 
to the United States. 

4. What, if any, administrative or legislative changes in the present non- 
immigrant visa system does the Department consider necessary or desirable from 
the point of view of scientific research and developnipntv 

We do not see the need for any legislative changes in the present system except 
that there are some inequities in the administration of the law that reflect on 
our relationships with foreign scientists and technicians. These are: 


1. Personnel entering the United States with the same visa for the same 
purpose and for the same period are frequently authorized ditferent periods 
of stay by immigration officers in this country. 

2. Applications for extension of entry permits requested in accordance 
with regulations governing nonimmigrant visitors are sometimes administered 
in too restrictive a manner to be consistent with the purpose which the 
mutual security and economic development laws set out to achieve. 

3. United States immigration officers in the district offices throughout the 
country need to be well informed of sections of the immigration law which 
pertains to the temporary visits of foreign scientists and technicians. 

There have been cases which we know of where district offices had little 
knowledge of provisions in the immigration laws and considerable embarrass- 
ment was caused to these persons largely because our immigration officers 
were not fully informed. 

4. The head tax levied on persons entering the United States in the cate- 
gories being considered in this report is sometimes administered inconsist- 
ently. Our foreign guests have a difficult time trying to understand why 
the tax is levied on some and not on others when the individuals possess the 
same type of documentation. 

Like other organizations interested in scientific development, this Department 
is also concerned about the instances reported in the press where American 
scientists have been refused passports to go abroad for reasons and on evidence 
that has not been made available to them. This is a related question but ap- 
parently will not be involved in the Commission's hearing on October 27-28. 

We have no objection to your including this reply among the documents yoa 
submit to the Commission for the record. 
Sincerely yours, 

K. T. Hutchinson, Acting Secretary. 

The CiiAiKMAX. Thank you very much. This problem has been 
presented to us in dift'erent parts of the United States, but you have 
a number of suggestions liere that are new. They haven't been made- 
before. Tliese are ditferent akernatives that you suggest. I don't 
know how practical some of them are. One of them in particular deals 
with the making of a selective audit. I don't know how that would 
work in many instances. There are many instances where scientists 
ask to come over and take part in a symposium of some kind, to deliver 
a lecture and return immediately. I have had experience witli requests 
for help in some of tlie New York Academy of Sciences' cases. We 
have had testimony here from it. For instance, the Metropolitan 
Museiun of Art, which has been cooperating with other institutions of 
learning and which lias attempted to bring other people over, has very 
often found that scientists or artists are asked to come over just to 
read a paper or give their views on some topic or other and return. 
They have made application, assumed they would go through as a 
matter of course, and then it has been stated they find that the applica- 
tion has been held up. Befoi'e they can find out what they can do 
about it, the time for them to come and go is over. That, we are in- 
forraed, happened a number of times. It is not clear to me how you 
can audit those. 

Dr. Waterman. AVe had in mind a board that could review them 
selectively from time to time. 

The Chairman. To see what luid been done? 

Di". Waterman. Yes. This would keep the thing from getting out 
of hand. 

The Chairman. It a])pears that they have been audited quite thor- 
oughly in publications being submitted to the Commission. A number 
of newspapers and other publications have given a great deal of pub- 
licity to the cases set forth. 

2535G— 52 94 


Dr. AVATKiorAx. In that case the public \voiil(hrt have access to all 
the facts. In that case the board would have and could have access to 
all the views on that. 

Tile (^iiAiKMAx. Thank you very much. AVe certainly a])preciate 
your coniinji: and we cei'tainly appreciate your oettino; the views and 
expression from the other scientific agencies with which you are 

Is Dr. Fitzoerald here? 


Dr. P'rrzoKRALD. I am D. A. Fitzgerald, Associate Deputy Director 
of the jVIutual Security Agency, Washington, D. C. 

I am here this afternoon to present a statement by Mr. W. Averell 
Hari-iman, Director of the Mutual Security Agency, who unfortu- 
nately is out of town. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will 
read it. 

The Chairmais". We shall be glad to hear it. 

Dr. Fitzgerald (reading statement of Mr. Harriman) . I very much 
regret that I cannot appear personally before the Commission to 
discuss the important question of our immigration policy, for the 
kind of pi'ogram we adopt has a direct bearing on our foreign policy 
and our national security. 

During the last few years the United States has been engaged in 
a tremendous and costly eifort to unite the free world, and to help 
create economic and political stability and military strength among 
the free nations. Our aims have been to establish the conditions of 
peace, to promote the well-being of nations, and to enable the free 
world to deal with Communist aggression and Communist subver- 
sion. These are the great foreign-policy objectives which we have 
set for ourselves. 

It has taken an immense effort by us and the other free nations, 
working together, to change the postwar chaos in Europe and xVsiii 
which Sf)viet communism planned to exploit, into the promising sit- 
uation which exists today. I sa}^ promising situation because, while 
we are on the way to achieving our objectives, the job is not yet finished 
and much still remains to be done. 

Because we are the most powerful Nation in the world, and free 
peoples everywhere look to us for leadership, guidance, and support, 
virtually everything we do — or fail to do — has a direct bearing on 
this world struggle. 

The members of the Connnission are, I am sure, well aw^are of how 
closely we are watched by other nations. Every law, every policy, 
every speech, every editorial — in fact, every action of ours, whether 
Avell or ill advised, has an impact abroad. Wise and sensible action 
on our part strengthens the great alliance of free nations w^hich we 
are helping to build. It is only through such action that we can 
hoj^e to win the support of a large majority of the world's popula- 
tion. Ill-conceived action weakens our friends and strengthens our 


Immigration policy is a matter of domestic concern but, as in so 
many other fields, domestic policy can no longer be separated from 
foreign policy or from international considerations. The kind of 
immigration policy we adopt is a factor in the world struggle between 
democracy and totalitarianism. 

Today our basic immigration policies are inconsistent with our 
democratic ideals, and a positive hindrance in our efforts to give moral 
leadership to the free world. The basis of our policies go back to 
the 1'920's when we were pursuing an isolationist course in world affairs 
and ignoring our international responsibilities. They were adopted 
with a reckless disregard for the political and psychological effect on 
other peoples. The effect of our quota system based on national origin 
was to introduce distinctions related to race, color, and religion, which 
were not only insulting to many of our own citizens but offensive to 
the feelings and sensibilities of other nations. 

Laws conceived under these very different circumstances should 
have no place in our life today. They do not fit the role we are now- 
playing in the world. They do not reflect the new responsibilities 
for world leadership which have been thrust upon us. They do not 
help achieve our great objectives of uniting the free nations and 
building economic, political, and military strength, and far from help- 
ing to solve certain problems which face us in the world, they limit and 
obstruct our efforts. 

Our immigration policy must be made to work for our great ideals 
and objectives — not against them. 

Because our basic innnigration policies were so outdated and inflexi- 
ble, special legislation was enacted in 1948 opening our doors to almost 
400,000 refugees. The Displaced Persons Act represented legislation 
that was in accord with the new position and the new responsibilities 
of the United States in the world. But the displaced persons program 
was only temporary, and the President repeatedh^ asked the Congress 
to enact new basic immigration legislation. Unfortunately, the act 
passed by Congress this year — the McCarran Act — failed to make the 
changes which are so necessary in our immigration policy. I recom- 
mended that he veto it. I am glad to say he needed no urgiug. He 
did veto it. 

Meantime a separate effort was made by Congressman Celler to 
obtain passage of special legislation to allow 300,000 persons to enter 
the United States over the next 3 years from countries suffering from 
overpopulation and to provide resettlement opportunities for some of 
the escapees from Communist countries. I supported the Celler bill 
in a statement before the House Judiciary Subcommittee. Unhappily 
this bill, which was a stopgap measure, never reached the floor of the 

We must now make vigorous new efforts to get the kind of legislation 
v.'hich is consistent with our over-all foreign policy objectives. It 
should be framed to help us solve certain international problems which 
confront us now and will continue to face us in the years immediately 

What are these international problems which our basic immigration 
legislation could help to solve? 

The first of these is Western Europe's surplus population, estimated 
at oi/o to 4 million. Germany, Italy, Holland, and Greece, and to some 
extent Austria and Trieste, are tlie principal areas suffering from over- 


population. In each case the problem arises largely for reasons con- 
nected with the war or postwar situation. It need not be a permanent 
i^roblem if the free nations will cooperate to help solve it. The greater 
part of the problem will not be solved by emigration but by the efforts 
of these nations to adjust and expand their economies. They will be 
successful in this regard only insofar as we and they, working together, 
succeed in creating an expanding European economy within the frame- 
work of an expanding world economy. This has been one of the main 
aims of American foreign policy in recent years. Meantime there 
exists a hard-core problem of surplus population in certain European 
countries for which migration offers the only solution. 

We ought, therefore, for the next few years have an immigration 
policy which enables us to take in a substantial number of people from 
the surplus population countries in Europe. We should do this for 
humanitarian reasons. We should do it to help strengthen their econ- 
omies. We should do it to help create political stability. We should 
do it so that we can, in good conscience, take the lead in asking other 
countries to do even more than they are now doing to help solve this 

Western Europe's surplus populatioji has received considerable 
attention in international circles within the past yeai-, and I believe 
the situation is now ripe for achieving a cooperative solution to this 

Within the framework of Western Europe, the OEEC Manpower 
Committee is currently seeking ways to stimulate the movement of 
people across national boundaries. One of the most encouraging steps 
in this direction was taken recently when the Scliuman-plan countries 
agreed that coal and steel workers could move freely among the six 
member countries. 

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, too. is now considering- 
ways to increase migration outlets within the North Atlantic com- 
munity, for Europe's surplus poj)ulation has a bearing on the prob- 
lem of increasing military strength. 

Under the IMutual Security Act we are helping to finance PICMME, 
an organization which assists in transporting people from Europe. 

In the OEEG, NATO, and in PICMME, our efforts to find a cooper- 
ative solution to the problem of surplus poi)ulation are handicapped, 
because our hands are tied by outmoded immigi-ation ])olicy. We 
would be in an even stronger position to offer leadershi]) in developing 
an international solution to the problem of surplus })o])ulations' if we 
ourselves took steps to liberalize our innnigration {)olicy. 

Our basic immigration law should also be flexible enough to enable 
us to deal with other kinds of special situations. Since the Com- 
munist seizure of various countries in Eastern Euro])e. thousands of 
people — no one knows how many— have tried to escape. All we know 
is that, excluding the 15,000 to 20,000 a mojith fleeing from Eastern 
Oennany, some 20,000 Poles, Czechs, Latvians, and other Eastern 
Euiopeans have managed to get out despite the great dangei- involved 
and the close border control. The position as it now stands is that 
these people are given asylum in the countries bordering on the iron 
curtain and then encounter the greatest difficulty in finding a place for 
themselves in the free world. For unlike the East Germans, they have 
no country of their own to go to. Under the Mutual Security Act 
we are doing what we can to help take care of them and help resettle 


them but resettlement opportunities are limited. The problem of find- 
ing a new home for these people is' not solely our responsibility but, 
as in the case of surplus populations, we must undertake to do our 
part. Under the present immigration law practically none of these 
people can come to the United States. Half the Polish quota has al- 
ready been mortgaged for the next 50 years; the Latvian quota for 
the next 300 yeai-s. And the same is true of most of the other Eastern 
European countries. 

Down to the First World War America was known the world over 
as a haven for political refugees. We must restore that great tra- 
dition. Our immigi-ation policies should be revised to enable us dur- 
ing these next few ye<ars to offer refuge to some of these courageous 
and unfortunate peoples. 

A tliird requirement of any basic immigration legislation, if it is 
to support our foreign-policy objectives, is that it should not offer 
offense to other peoples because of their race, color, religion, or na- 
tional origin. Our present laws are an affront not only to the peo^^les 
of Eastern and Southern Europe but to the peoples of Asia. 

We should not underestimate the importance of this matter for it 
has a direct bearing on the world struggle between democracy and 
totalitarianism. Asia is one of the great theaters of this stmggle, 
for Soviet communism is now making a major bid for the minds of 
the Asian peoples. Our traditional support of the principle of in- 
dependence for colonial peoples has won us friendship and respect 
among the Asian peoples. Our point 4 programs are helping them to 
develop their economies and to fight poverty and disease. We must 
now reexamine our immigration policies to see how they too can play 
their part in strengthening these bonds of mutual friendsliip and 

I have not tried jn this statement to set out all the principles which 
should govern our immigi-ation policy but only those that have an im- 
portant bearimig on our foreign-policy objectives. Those aspects of 
immigration policy dealing with its domestic impact and admini- 
strative procedures I leave to the agencies more directly concerned and 
better qualified to speak. 

Let me then, in conclusion, summarize my views : 

I am not advocating a policy of unlimited immigration to the 
United States. I. am advocating a policy which would substantially 
raise the present severe limitation in numbers during this emergency 
period. I am advocating a policy which would eliminate discrimi- 
nation and one that is flexible enough to enable us to contribute to the 
solution of particular problems which face us in the world today. I 
am advocating a policy which entitles us to ask other nations to make 
a greater effort. In short, I am advocating an immigration policy 
which is in harmony with our current foreign-policy objectives and 
reflects our current position of leadership in the free world. 

The Chairman^. Thank you very much. Dr. Fitzgerald. 

Dr. Fitzgerald. I would like to add one personal remark. I just 
returned from 5 weeks in Europe, during which time I got as far as 
Turkey. Shortly before I left the United States the President had dis- 
approved a recommendation of the Tariff Commission that certain 
tariff duties, particularly on Swiss watches, be raised. I think every 
place that I stopped in Europe the fact that the President had made 
that decision was commented on and commented on very favorably. 


It was considered an indication of a further attitude and a more 
viii'orons attitude on the part of tliis country to take the leadership in 
this particular matter, the economic matters of tariff. 

I feel confident from tliat experience and from conversations I had 
all over Europe that if we are to expect effective contributions from 
countries in this surplus population problem we simply must take 
more aggressive leadership on our own part. We can set an example, 
a good one or a poor one. 

The Chairman. Do you think that in addition to such projects as 
the Mutual Security Program, which you are helping to administer, 
that our country's laws ought to reflect its beliefs and its desires to 
keep in effect the principles for which it wants the other nations to 
stand for and to fight for? 

Dr. Fitzgerald. I definitely do, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, Mr. William H. Draper, United 
States si:)ecial representative in Europe for the Mutual Security Agen- 
cy, has been requested to submit a statement, and I would like to re- 
quest that the record remain open at this point for its incorporation. 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

(There follows the statement submitted by the Hon. William H. 
Draper, United States special representative in Europe, Mutual Se- 
curity Agency : ) 

Statement Submitted by Hon. William H. Draper, United States Special 
Re:presentative in Europe, Mutual Security Agency 

I should like to address m.vself Iniefly to only one aspect of the multi-faceted 
problem ^^•ith which your ('ommission is dealing, namely, the relation of our 
immigration policy to certain of our foreign-policy objectives. 

By the force of circumstances, certainly not by choice or preference, the 
United States tinds itself with other free nations, engaged in a struggle against 
rlie Communist version of totalitarian dictatorship which replaced fascism 
and nazism as the threat to the free world. Because of enlightened self-interest, 
we embarked on a course the principal objective of which is to cooperate with 
free nations everywhere which hold the same fundamental convictions on the 
value of a democratic society and to assist them in protecting and preserving 
the freedom which is essential to our own security. This aim motivated the 
Marshall plan, the aid to Greece and Turkey, and, ultimately, our participation 
in NATO which is a substantial and going concern of the greatest importance 
to the United States and the free world as a whole. The same motivation under- 
lies our technical assistance program, the i^eace treaty with .Japan and the con- 
nected series of bilateral and multilateral agreements with the free nations in 
the Pacific ; our adherence to the Rio pact and other regional agreements with 
the sister nations in the Western Hemisphere; and last, but not least, our un- 
wavering support of U. N. objectives and activities seeking to safeguard the 
political and military security and the economic and social well-being of its 

You may ask what relation our immigration policy has to these basic objec- 
tives of our foreign policy. You may argue that immigration is a matter solely 
of domestic concern. Such argument may have had validity 30 years ago 
when the United States lived in comparative political, ideological, and geographic 
isolation ; but it is surely no longer true in tlie world of today. Whether we like 
it or not, we are part of the world, and we can no longer disassociate ourselves 
from what happens elsewhere ; neitlier can we ignore the fact that, because 
of our position of leadership in the free world — a responsibility not sought 
but thrust upon us — and action or nonaction on our part has an impact on the 
rest of tlie world. 

As I said before, one of our foreign-policy objectives is the preservation 
and strengthening of a community of free nations. 


The free movement of people is one of the hasic characteristics of any free 
community ; the growth, the strength, the power of our United States — a free 
community of 48 States — was to a large extent due to the absence of restriction 
upon the movement of our people. We cannot expect, realistically, to see the 
same freedom applied at once to the larger North Atlantic community which 
we are now building, in cooperation with our partners, to protect our way of 
life. The growth toward that ultimate objective must be gradual and responsive 
to the economic and other developments in all fields of communal activities. 
But, surely, we must recognize that greater freedom of movement should be- 
come characteristic of the North Atlantic ctnnmunity if it is to be more than 
a fiction. We must recognize that we, the United States, are in a position to 
make a substantial contribution toward that goal without endangering domestic 
interests, economic, social, or political. Indeed, the admittance of migrants 
from many lands during our earlier and more liberal policies has done much 
to build up the United States to what our country is today, both materially and 
spiritually. There is no reason to doubt that the infusion of new blood, new 
ideas will redound to our benefit as much in the midtwentieth century as it 
did throughout the nineteenth century. We must recognize that, because of 
our leadership in the free world, forward-looking, courageous and bold action 
on our part will influence other free nations, in the Western Hemisphere, in 
other lands, as well as in Europe, to benefit their allies and friends and them- 
selves by adopting less restrictive policies regarding migration. 

What I am proposing concretely is that we take another close look at our 
immigration policy and adjust it to the conditions of the world of today and 
tomorrow and to our place and role in that world. This does not mean that 
we should remove all barriers and throw our gates open to all and sundry,, 
without control and limits. But it does mean that our policy as expressed in 
legislation on the statute books should be responsive to our needs and capabilities. 
We are capable of admitting, absorbing, and assimilating more newcomers than 
is permitted under present legislation. We need not tie our hands to national- 
origin quotas based on legislation enacted over a quarter of a century ago in 
circumstances which no longer exist and which discriminates undeservedly 
against some of our own partners in NATO. In endeavoring to strengthen the 
economic and military defense of the free world, and particularly of the North 
Atlantic community, we should recognize immigration policy as one of the 
elements in achieving economic and political stability as well as social equilibrium. 

There is a serious overpopulation and resulting unemployment or under- 
employment problem in several countries in Europe which have joined with 
us to defend the free world. This is the case in Italy, in Greece, in the Nether- 
lands, in the German Federal Republic, and to a lesser extent in Austria and 
Trieste. To some extent, and to various degrees, this problem is aggravated 
by the presence and continuous influx of refugees and escapees. I need not 
dwell upon the cumulative effects of unrelieved problems of chronic over- 
population ; the unemployment, the lowering of living standards to a point 
where sections of the population vegetate in grinding poverty and lose hope 
for the future ; the resulting economic stagnation and waste of human resources — 
all these create breeding grounds for communism. These problems cannot be 
solved through immigration alone ; internal economic developments and expanded 
industrial and agricultural activities by the respective governments must create 
new jobs and new opportunities at home. But we can help by liberalizing and 
making more flexible our own immigration policy. Such a liberalized policy 
would be significant to the extent that it benefits the United States and lightens 
the overpopulation burden of our partners, but even more importantly for its 
influence on others to do likewise by our setting the example. 

I recommend, specifically, that — 

(1) Our immigration legislation be reconsidered in the light of our foreign 
policy objectives with a view to the enactment of new legislation which should 

(a) Increased substantially, but within our own economic absorption capacity,, 
the number of immigrants admitted to the United States. 

(ft) Eliminate the discriminatory features of the legislation in force either 
by discarding the quota system on which it is based, or, in the alternative, by 
revamping the quota allocations in such a manner as to preclude discrimination, 
express or implied, based on nationality, race, or religion. 

(2) Since preparation and enactment of up-to-date general immigration 
legislation may require time, special temporary legislation should be passed 
as soon as possible, permitting the United States to contribute its share to- 


Ibe solution of the urgent surplus population, refugee and unemployment problems 
-of friendly and allied countries, by the admission of an additional number of 
immigrants for the next 3 or 4 years from those countries — particularly Italy, 
Greece, the Netherlands, Austi'ia, and the (Jerman Federal liepublic — having 
serious problems of overpopulation. 

The Chairman. Is Miss Council here ? 


Miss Council. I am Mary Lee Council, secretary to the Delegate 
in Congress from Alaska, Mr. E. L. Bartlett. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity of appearing here. I have 
a statement to read for the record. 

The Chairman. Is the statement from the Representative? 

Miss Council. No ; it is my own. He is en route from Alaska to 
Washington. I am from iVlaska, too, and I know he would like to 
have appeared here. I know this statement represents his views and 
those of all Alaskans. 

The Chairman. They are your views and they also represent his 

Miss Council. Yes. 

The Chairman. If he were here he would say the exact same thing? 

Miss Council. Yes, but better. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Miss Council. It is the hope of all Alaskans that the Commission 
will study the effects of section 212 (d) (7) on page 26 of Public 
Law 414, Eighty-second Congress, and will recommend its modifica- 
tion so as to exclude Alaska from its provisions. 

That section provides for screening of aliens traveling from Ha- 
waii, Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands who seek to 
enter the continental United States. It is our understanding that simi- 
lar provisions have been in effect for the areas mentionecl for some 
time, with the exception of Alaska. I cannot speak as to the merits 
of the provision as it relates to these other areas, but the inclusion 
of Alaska in the provision is, to our minds, most abhorrent. 

In order to carry out the provisions of the section mentioned, it will 
he necessary to screen citizens of the United States traveling from the 
Territory to the continental United States. This, in itself, is dis- 
crimination against citizens of the United States living in Alaska. 
Such screening of traveling citizens between the States of New York 
and Pennsylvania, for example, would not be tolerated in this country, 
and it should not be tolerated with respect to Alaskans. 

It is our belief that whatever persons are responsible for including 
Alaskans in the category they now find themselves displayed a sad 
lack of know^ledge in our American system of government and were 
most unthinkingly casual in their application of such a section to 
Alaska. We have no doubt at all that in rewriting this particular 


section for inclusion in the new law that someone sngi^ested that since 
such a similar procedure applied to Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and 
the Virgin Islands it might as well apply to Alaska. Such inclusion 
displays complete ignorance. 

In the first place, only Alaska and Hawaii are incorporated Terri- 
tories of the United States. As such, they are the only remaining in- 
corporated Territories under the American flag which have not yet 
achieved the historic destiny of incorporated Territories, namely^ 
statehood. Such incorporation, extended to Alaska in 1912, provides 
that the Constitution of the United States and all its laws have the 
same force and effect as elsewhere in the United States. In other 
words, Alaska and Hawaii are integral parts of the United States. 
Their citizens are not to be treated under the Constitution any differ- 
entl}^ from the treatment accorded citizens of the United States. 

But under section 212 (d) (7) they will be. 

And it can be said that Alaska stands apart even from Hawaii with 
regard to the inadvisability of including Alaskans in this particular 
section. I believe the reason behind the original procedure as it ap- 
plied to Hawaii was based upon the fact that certain aliens were ad- 
mitted to the Territory of Hawaii for industrial reasons who were 
not entitled to enter the continental United States. However, all 
aliens now in Alaska are there because they were allowed to enter 
the United States under established immigration procedures, and 
they traveled to Alaska as they would have traveled fi'om their places 
of entrance to any State. 

If, indeed, the authors of this particulai* section decided to include 
Alaska because they felt there were aliens in Alaska who had illegally 
entered Alaska, the provisions of this section to which all Alaskans 
object would weaken the security of the Nation rather than strengthen 
it. If enforced and if there were aliens illegally living in Alaska who 
were considered subversives, then certainly this particular section 
would tend to increase rather than decrease the number of question- 
able persons in the Territory. Since Alaska is one of the most stra- 
tegic military areas in the world, the security of the whole country 
would be weakened as such aliens would and could remain within 
the Territory close to military installations. 

Alaskans are loyal and devoted citizens. We all feel that the appli- 
cation of this section to Alaska should be stricken from the law. Th& 
section tends to destroy the unity of Alaska with the United States 
Avhen actually Alaska should be considered as it is — an inseparable 
part of the United States. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, at this point may I insert a com- 
munciation into the record from the Delegate from Alaska, the 
Honorable E. L. Bartlett, and a communication from Mr. Warren C. 
Christianson, Secretary of the Sitka Chamber of Commerce in Alaska, 

The Chairman. Both those communications may be entered into the 
record at this point. 


(The communications follow:) 

Statkmbnt Submitted by the Honorable E. I^. Bartlett, De:i>egate from 
Alaska in the CoNoiiEss of the United States 

Congress of the United States, 

House of Kepresentatives, 
Washington, D. C, Septemher 29, 1952. 
Mr. Philip B. Perliian, 

Chulnnan, President's Commission on Immigration ami Naturalization, 
Executive Offiee, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Perlman : Specific reference is made to section 212 (d) (7) of 
Public Law 414, Eiglity-second Congress, wliicli requires inspection of aliens 
entering the continental United States from Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto 
Bico, or the Virgin Islands. 

This letter is written with respect to the Territory of Alaska. It is the hope 
(jf all Alaskans for whom I speak that this particular section of the law will 
receive stTidy by your ('ommission looking toward the recommendation that 
it be eliminated so far as Alaska is concerned. This section of the law is repug- 
nant to Alaskans as it treats them in a fashion different from residents of the 
continental United States. The concern expressed takes several forms, all of 
which I believe are meritorious and worthy of consideration. 

1. The provision descriminates against the Territory of Alaska, an integral 
part of the United States. 

2. In order to carry out the provisions of the section, it will be necessary 
to screen citizens to find the aliens. 

3. Since Alaska is one of the most strategic military areas of the world, the 
provision does not strengthen the security of the Nation but, in fact, weakens 
it since the pi'ovision would no doubt tend to keep aliens within the Territory 
where there are many secret and vital defense installations. 

4. The provision is humiliating to Alaskans who are loyal and devoted 

5. The administration's policy is to do all possible to encourage the develop- 
ment of Alaska for the economic well-being of the whole Nation. The new pro- 
vision will endanger this policy since it will discourage one phase of that develop- 
ment, tourist travel. 

6. The provision is a serious psychological set-back to Alaskans who have 
been working for many years for statehood which will bring full equality with 
all the States. 

As I stated above, it is our hope that your Commission will give detailed study 
to the provision cited. It is my understanding that the commission plans to 
hold meetings throughout the country on the provisions of Public Law 414 and 
other immigration matters. I cannot urge too strongly that if hearings are 
scheduled that section 212 (d) (7) be considered at public hearings in the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska. The principle inherent in this section is abhorrent not only 
to Alaskans but to all Americans. I Ijelieve it is imperative that Alaskans be 
given the opportunity to meet with your Conmiission thi'ough hearings in the 

Sincerely yours, 

E. L. Bartlett. 

Statement SuBAtiTTEO by Warren C. Christianson, Secretary of the Sitka 
Chamber of Commerce, Sitka, Alaska 

Sitka Chamber of Commerce, 
Sitka, Alaslca, Octoher 11, 1952. 

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 
Executive Office of the President, 

Washington 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Davis : The Sitka Chamber of Commerce has authorized me to file 
a strong protest against the McCarran Act, especially as it pertains to travel 
between the States and Alaska. The idea of having to be checked as we pass 
from one part of the United States to another is not only degrading, but con- 
trary to the whole theory of the concept of the United States. 


As a personal note and not necessarily representing the chamber, may I say 
that the provisions concerning the exclusion of certain racial groups and the 
type of power given the Immigration Department may be best expressed in the 
phrase, "It stinks !" 

We have already sent a protest to the Judiciary Committee. 
Very truly yours, 

Warren C. Chbistianson, 
Secretary, Sitka Chamber of Commerce. 

The Chairman. The Commission will adjourn now to meet at 9 : 30 
a. m. on Tuesday, October 28, 1952. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 50 p. m., the Commission adjourned to reconvene 
Tuesday, October 28, 1952, at 9 : 30 a. m.) 





twenty-semcntii session 

Washington, D. C. 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 9 : 30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the Archives Audi- 
torium, National Archives Building, Washington, D. C., Hon. Philip 
B. Perlman, Chairman, presiding. 

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman, Mr. Earl G. Harrison, Vice 
Chairman, and tlie following Commissioners : Dr. Clarence E. Pickett, 
Rev. Thacldeus F. Gullixson, Mr. Thomas G. Finucane, Msgr. John 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. 

This morning we will hear, as the first witness, Mr. Roland Elliott. 


Mr. Elliott. I am Roland Elliott, director of immigration services, 
department of church world service. National Council of Churches of 

I am also accompanied by a delegation, whom I will identify for the 
record. They are : 

Rev. Walter W. Van Kirk, executive director, department of interna- 
tional good will. National Council of Churches of Christ 

Rev. Earl F. Adams, director, Washington office, National Council 
of Churches of Christ 

Rev. Wynn C. Fairfield, executive director, department of church 
world service, National Council of Churches of Christ 

Very Rev. Francis B. Sayre, Jr., dean, Washington Cathedral 

Rev. Harold H. Henderson, executive secretary, committee on dis- 
placed persons, Presbyterian Church 

Rev. Benjamin Bushong, director, department of mutual aid, Brethren 
Service Commission 

Milan Obradovich, displaced persons committee, Serbian-American 
Orthodox Church 



Rev. Josepli M. Dawson, Baptist World Alliance 

Rev. Fred E. Reissig, executive secretary, Washington Federation of 


Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Van Kirk will be the one to 
present the official statement on behalf of the National Council of 
Churches of Christ. 

I would like to say that in addition to explaining a little the 
organizational character of this far-flung organization, the National 
Council of Churches, and the fact that it represents many different 
ecclesiastical bodies in the United States, with a total membership of 
some 30 or 31 million, we would like to come before you explaining 
that our primary interest in this whole matter is as Americans seek- 
ing to see America continue a liberal and affirmative immigration 
policy. We do not pose in any way as experts in the field of immi- 
gration legislation; but, since we have been instrumental in making 
it possible for some 60.000 displaced persons to come to this country 
under the Displaced Persons Act, we have accumulated certain con- 
victions and certain experience that we gladly offer to the Commission 
in its study. 

Dr. Van Kirk will carry on. 

The Chairman. The Commission will be glad to hear from Dr. 
Van Kirk. 


Dr. Van Ktrk. With 3^our permission, I will read my prepared 

The CiTAiKMAN. We shall be glad to hear it. 

Dr. Van Kirk. I desii'e to speak to three phases of the problem with 
which this Commission is concerned: (1) Amendments to the immi- 
gration and naturalization law of 1952; (2) special emergency legis- 
lation; and (3) the relation of private agencies in the operation of a 
refugee immigration pi'ogram. In support of what I have to say, X 
am filing herewith for the consideration of the Commission a copy 
of a statement on immigration and naturalization }>olicy approved 
by the general board of the National Council of Churches of Christ 
in the United States of America on March 21, 1052. 

In its statement the National Council of Churches urged Congress 
to enact an immigration and naturalization statute that would (a) 
make the quota system more flexible; (h) remove all discriminatory 
practices based upon consideration of color, creed, race, or sex; and 
(r?) establish a system of fair hearings and appeals respecting the- 
issuance of visas and deportation proceedings. 

The immigration and naturalization law of 1052, as approved by 
Congress, is at some ]ioints not compatible with the spirit and intent 
of the principles set forth by the National (^ouncil of Churches, prin- 
ciples which are dictated alike by consideration of Christian justice 
and love of country. 

The National Council of Churches would like to see the quota system 
made more flexible, including the utilization of unfilled quotas. We 
reject the idea of unlimited immigration. The United States simply 
could not absorb the millions of persons who would come to our 


shores were the doors of entry thrown wide open. However, it is 
the view of the National Council of Churches that such restrictions 
as to numbers as may be required should be achieved without dis- 
criminations predicated upon national origin or racial heritage. Eli- 
gibility should be related to personal character, individual worth, and 
commitment to the ideals of freedom and democracy cherished by 
the American people. Once a ceiling on numbers has been fixed, we 
believe serious consideration should be given to establishing a system 
of immigration priorities which would facilitate family reunion, 
provide skills needed in our country, and offer asylum to persecmecl 
victims of totalitarian regimes. Moreover, in this critical hour it 
is desirable that the United States shall strengthen and not weaken 
the bonds of friendship within and among the free peoples of the 
world. This end canont be achieved so long as our immigTation and 
naturalization laws discriminate against the nationals of certain coun- 
tries whose friendship we seek and must have if the free world is to 

In certain respects the McCarran- Walter Act discriminates against 
Asiatics. Persons with Asian ancestry but not of Asiatic birth, who 
seek entry to the United States, are charged not to the country of 
birth but to some country of Asia. This appears to us to be an un- 
warranted restriction that cannot but be resented by Asiatics, the 
more so since they alone are thus dealt with. It is our hope that 
the President's Commission will recommend changes in the McCarran- 
Walter Act designed to correct this situation. 

The National Council of Churches believes that the immigration 
and naturalization law of 1952 does not establish a system of fair 
hearings and appeals respecting the issuance of visas and deportation 
proceedings. While recognizing the necessity of reasonable safe- 
guards against the infiltration of subversive individuals, we believe 
such safeguards can be established without investing immigration 
officials and consular officials with the extraordinary powers accorded 
them under the McCarran-Walter Act. It is our belief that admission 
to and deportation from the United States are matters that should 
be subject to a fair and uniform review procedure. 

Pending the revision of the immigration and naturalization law 
of 1952, the National Council of Churches is prepared to sup]:>ort 
emergency legislation of a limited character. As recommended by 
the National Council of Churches, such legislation should provide 
for the admission to the United States of our fair share of refugees, 
expellees, and escapees from behind the iron curtain and of such 
displaced persons as are awaiting resettlement. 

While the National Council of Churches did not specify how many 
persons should be permitted to enter the United States under special 
emergency legislation, I wish to point out that at a meeting of Prot- 
estant and Orthodox church leaders, held in New York, September 29, 
the belief was expressed that approximately 250,000 refugees who 
have family connections in the United States, or who possess special 
skills, could be absorbed in the Ameiican economy over a 3-year period. 
"\Miether or not the National Council of Churches would itself sup- 
port this figure, I cannot say. My im]n-ession is that it would. 

The National Council of Churches does not believe that migration 
problems related to surplus populations should be dealt with in 
emergency legislation. We believe the time is past to deal with those. 


matters on a piecemeal and emergency basis. Nor does the National 
Council of Church believe that the United States or any other nation, 
acting separately, can solve the many problems related to displaced 
persons, refugees, and surplus populations. The migration and re- 
settlement of these people is a Avorld problem and should be dealt 
with on a world basis. We would welcome a review of this entire 
matter by the United Nations, and, with the moral and material as- 
sistance of our own and other governments, the creation of such inter- 
national machinery as would be competent to deal with this world 
issue in a world manner. 

It is the judgment of the National Council of Churches that the 
administration of a refugee program should be on a humanitarian and 
nonsectarian basis operated by the Government with supplementary 
services provided by voluntary agencies. 

I am filing with the policy statement of the National Council of 
Churches a paper entitled "The Church's Refugees," ^ in which the 
Commission will find an exposition of the functions of government 
in relation to private agencies. 

I also wish to submit for incorporation in the record a statement 
approved by the general board of the National Council of the Churches 
of Christ in the United States. 

The Chaikmax. That will be inserted in the record at this point. 

(The statement is as follows :) 

United States Immigration and Naturalization Policy 

Statement approved by General Board of the National Council of the Churches 
of Christ in the United States, March 21, 1952 

The plight of the world's uprooted peoples creates for the United States, as 
for other liberty-loving nations, a moral as well as an economic and political 
pi'oblem of vast proportions. Among these peoples are those displaced by the 
war and its aftermath ; the refugees made homeless by reason of Nazi, Fascist, 
and Communist tyranny and, more recently, by military hostilities in Korea, 
the Middle East, and elsewhere; the expellees forcibly ejected from the lands of 
their fathers ; and the escapees who every day break through the iron curtain in 
search of freedom. These persons long for the day of their deliverance and for 
the opportunity to reestablish themselves under conditions of peace and promise. 
A problem of equal urgency is involved in the surplus populations that cannot 
now be supported by the economies of their respective countries. The pressure 
exercised by these surplus people is of a kind seriously to threaten the stability 
and well-being of the entire world. 

The National Council of Chuiclies sees in this situation an issue that can be 
resolved only as nations, collectively and separately, adopt policies dictated by 
considerations not only of justice and mercy but also of sound mutual assistance. 

On the international level, we believe the United States for moral reasons, as 
well as in the interest of its own economic and political security, should remain 
steadfast in its purpose to cooperate with other nations in meeting the needs of 
displaced persons, refugees, and surplus populations. Through the United 
Nations, the United States contributed generously of its resources in the work 
of the International Refugee Organization. Likewise, the United States is par- 
ticipating in the activities of the Office of the High Conunissioner for Refugees, 
the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency, and tlie United Nations Relief 
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Our country, 
through the United Nations, and in other ways, assisted in providing a haven in 
Israel for many thousands of .Jewish rel'ugees. More recently the United States 
joined with 16 governments in the creation of the Provisional Intergovernmental 
Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe. The purpose of this 

^ The Church's Refus-ees, A New Look. National Council of the Churches of Christ in 
the United States, 120 East Twentj-third Street, New York, N. Y. 


Committee, in part, is to continue, for a limited period, tlie migration activities 
previously carried on by the International Refugee Organization. 

The National Council of Churches rejoices in the knowledge that the United 
States, as a member of the family of nations, is a party to these humanitarian 
endeavors. We believe our country, either through existing agencies or through 
a single over-all international body under the aegis of the United Nations, 
should continue to press for a solution of the many problems related to displaced 
I)ersons, refugees, and surplus populations. We would vigorously oppose any 
action by Congress which would hinder, in any way, the operations of these 
international agencies or which would diminish the participation of the United 
States in them. 

On the national level it is desirable that Congress adopt such emergency legis- 
lation as may be required fully to complete the displaced-persons program to 
which our country is committed. This legislation should provide for the admis- 
sion to the United States of (rt) those who were processed under the Displaced 
Persons Act but for whom visas were not available on December 31, 1951, (&) 
an additional number of persons of those groups for whom a clearly insufficient 
number of visas were provided in the original legislation, and (c) our fair share, 
under proper safeguards, of those who have escaped from behind the iron cur- 
tain subsequent to January 1, 1949, the cut-off date specified iinder the displaced- 
persons legislation. The additional visas here recommended should be authorized 
within the period ending December 31, 1952, and should be granted without 
regard to sectarian considerations. 

If and when Congress takes action along the lines here indicated, it is our 
position that no further legislation of an emergency character be enacted. The 
time is past for dealing with these matters on a piecemeal and emergency basis. 
Rather, it is imperative that United States policy be now shaped in accordance 
with the long-range requirements of the problem. 

The National Council of Churches has taken note of the fact that legislation 
is pending in Congress looking toward the revision of our immigration and 
naturalization laws. We believe it is of the utmost importance that legislation 
be enacted that will confoi-m with our democratic tradition and with our heritage 
as a defender of human rights. The adoption l:>y Congress of enlightened immi- 
gration and naturalization laws would add immeasurably to the moral stature 
of the United States and would hearten those nations with which we are asso- 
ciated in a common effort to establish the conditions of a just and durable peace. 

We do not propose at this time to pass judgment on the specific details of the 
proposed legislation, many of which are technical and legal in character. We 
believe, however, the views hereinafter set forth are in accord with the con- 
victions of our constituent communions. 

(1) The Congress should make the quota system more flexible. Under exist- 
ing legislation provision is made for the possible admission to the United States, 
each year, of 151,000 immigrants. For one reason or another, the quotas assigned 
to many countries are not now being filled. We believe serious consideration 
should be given to the pooling or adjusting of unused quotas in order to facilitate 
family reiinion, to provide skills needed in our country, and to offer asylum to 
persecuted victims of totalitarian regimes. While any permanent* solution of 
the problems of overpopulation can be affected only by basic economic and social 
adjustments within the countries concerned, it seems clear that migration oppor- 
tunities, however limited, can be a helpful factor in easing the tensions occa- 
sioned by surplus peoples. 

(2) The Congress should complete the process of amending immigration and 
naturalization laws so that, within the quota system, all discriminatory provisions 
based upon considerations of color, race, or sex would be removed. 

(3) The Congress should establish a system of fair hearings and appeals 
respecting the issuance of visas and deportation proceedings. It is right and 
proper that Congi-ess shall approve such precautionary measures as may be re- 
quired to ensure our Nation against the infiltration of individuals hostile to the 
basic principles of the Constitution and institutions of the United States. We 
believe this end can be achieved without the imposition of such restrictive 
measures as would violate the American conception of justice. 

We believe the people of our churches would welcome the establisliment of a 
national commission to study, with due regard for our international objectives, 
the problem of population pressures throughout the world, and the possible 
bearing of these pressures upon our immigration policies. 
25356—52 95 


Dr. Van Kirk. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chaiinuin, and 
I ^YOuld appreciate it if opportunity mi<j:lit be ^iven to my colleajjue, 
Dr. Fairfield, to expand somewhat the point of view reflected in the 
third oeneral section of the National Council's statement as set forth 
in its publication. The Church's Refuo-ees, which I mentioned earlier. 

The Chairman. There are one or two questions that I Avant to ask, 
but maybe they will be covered by these later statements. 

Dr. Van Kirk. Then I think Dr. Fairfield might well come in at 
this point, if that is aoreeable with you, Mr. Chairman, and he may 
request that certain parts of this document. The Church's Refu<2:ees, 
become part of the record. 

The CiiAiR^iAN. We shall be pleased to hear Dr. Fairfield next. 


Dr. Fairfield. Mr. Chairman, the reason that this presentation 
is divided is that in what Dr. Van Kirk has said, he is speaking on 
I'ehalf of the general board of the national council. The general 
board has not had an opportunity to review the statement which I 
shall make, but it does represent a cross-section of approximately 100 
denominational leaders of the Protestant and Orthodox Churches 
who met at the request of our department. Church World Service, 
en December 29 to consider the wliole question of refugees and church 
policy and national ])olicy with relationship to it. The only point in 
that discussion which was not covered in Dr. Van Kirk's statement 
in full is found on pages 19 and 20 of this document which has been 
handed to you. The Church's Refugees, A New Look. The reason 
why this is of importance is that we have attempted to outline a 
definition of functions as between the governmental agencies and the 
private agencies. 

I think it is only fair to say that there are some differences of 
opinion among the voluntary agencies concerning this approach, but 
this does rej^resent the distinction that the Department of Church 
World Service of the National Council would make between the 
functions of Government and the functions of voluntary agenices 
in such a program. Those of you who are familiar with the work 
of the Displaced Persons Commission will remember that while the 
legislation did not make specific provision for the participation of 
voluntar}^ agencies, the actual operation of the program evolved into 
a very large dependence upon voluntary agencies, which was more 
or less haphazard and fortuitous. Therefore, we felt that it was de- 
sirable to spell out under these various heads; in each case the less 
indented section represents what we believe should be a proper Gov- 
ernment function and the more indented section represents what we 
believe might be the complementary work of voluntary agencies. 
This we should like to read into the record. I don't know whether 
you want me to read it in full or not. It is two pages. 

The Chairman. You may read it. 

(There follows section III of The Church's Refugees, A New Look, 
iniblished by the National Council of The Churches of Christ in the 
United States of America, and read by Dr. Wynn C. Fairfield:) 


The Church's Refugees — A New Look 


Tlie iKlniiiiistration of a refugee program should be on a humanitarian and 
nonsectarian basis operated by the Government with complementary services 
provided by voluntary agencies. Illustrative of what might l>e regarded as an 
appropriate relationship between the Gcjvernment and voluntary agencies are 
the following suggestions: 

Directio)t. — By a senior officer directly respcmsible to the Secretary of State 
with such staff assistants in the United States of America and overseas as may 
be necessary. (It would be heli)ful to have also a liaison officer, related to this 
office, to represent the United States of America's interest in migration to other 
countries.) Such assignment of direction of the refugee program would avoid 
many of the duplications ;uid complications of direction by a special commission 
and would make t!ie refugee program an integral part of our regular immigration 

Kepi-esentatives of voluntary agencies and other qualified persons serving on 
an advisoi-y committee to the director could help in developing policies, in 
strengthening public support, and in securing local c-ooi>eration among their 

NiimhcfH. — To be determined by the Congress in the light of the needs amona 
refugees and the opportunities for them in the United States of America. V\'e 
believe that approximately 2.")(».()00 refugees in the next 3 years with family 
connections in the United States of America, or possessing special skills, or with 
no opportunities elsewhere, can be absorbed readily in the American economy 
if there is careful selection and placement. Such a number could readily bo 
provided with visas within the over-all total of 162,000 visas permissive under 
the pre.'sent inuuigration and naturalization law, providing quota and other 
lestrictions were removed (U' revised. 

The voluntary agencies, with their intimate associations with refugees, can 
render special aid in recommending categories, locations, and individual nomi- 
nations of such refugees. 

Orersi'ds aclcctionn. — Administrative responsibility would be carried by the 
regular consular officers, augmented as necessary by additiimal staff. 

Voluntary agencies overseas would counsel with potential or prospective 
innnigrants, assist in their processing, and render s'uch religious and welfare 
services as would be helpful in the program in each country concerned. They 
also would enlist the cooperation of counterpart voluntary agencies. Their 
knowledge of the families and individuals involved would enable their repre- 
sentatives to serve as "friends of the coui-t" in the determination by the consular 
service of the eligibility for United States immigration. 

Transportation. — All arrangements for transportation would be made by the 
rjovernment ; costs of ocean and inland transportation would be provided to 
the individuals involved. 

Voluntary agencies would render complementary religious and welfare services 
in camps, centers', en route, and in pier reception. 

liereptio)! at port of entry. — All arrangements would be under the direction of 
the Government. 

Voluntary agencies would render complementary services in welcoming and 
counseling with the new arrivals, in facilitating contact with churches and 

Placement and distrihution. — Plans for placement would be developed through 
ai)propriate regional, State, county, or city offices of a Federal agency or 
through State or local government agencies cooperating with the Federal 
refugee agency director or liis regional representative, on the basis of a careful 
analysis of permanent placement opportunities, cooperation of friends, rela- 
tives, etc. 

Churches and commuHity agencies would be responsible for assistance, througli 
local advisory councils, on problems of community relations, agency coopera- 
tion, ediTcation, and other needed services. 

Placement agreement s. — Instead of assurances, the refugee agency officers 
would execute home job agreements, signed by the refugee and the employer, 
tlnis giving stability of placement not poss'ilde through assurances and good- 
faith oaths. The overseas agreement by the refugee would be a general one 
to accept employment offered. 


Voluntary agencies, and especially the churches, can render indispensable 
aid at this level in securing placement opportunities and in rendering a con- 
tinuing service to the newcomers'. 

Bonds and public-charge liability assurances should not be required. In 
special cases where relatives, friends, or churches desire to guarantee a specific 
dependent family member, a bond might be requested. 

Humamitarian factors. — The Government agency will need to be especially 
authorized to maintain family units in its selections and in every reasonable 
way to maintain an emphasis upon the humanitarian factors in selections, so 
that families, including their dependent members and widows with children 
may be included. The aim of the program is not the exploitation of a labor 
pool but the res'ettlement of families where there are opportunities to become 
useful members of the community. 

Volunteer agencies will need to stand ready to give special assistance in 
placing families with dependents and some family units which are not fully 

***** * • 

Dr. Fairfield. Mr. Chairman, this is, as we said, an illustration of 
the type of distinction which we feel should wisely be made in the 
operation of any act which is provided for. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate very much your gener- 
osity in allowing us to make such an extended and explicit statement. 
If there are any questions the Commission would like to direct to us, 
we would be very happy to give our best answers to them. All of 
those in our delegation do not wish to make speeches, or at least are 
willing to restrain themselves. However, it may easily be that some 
question the Commission has to put to us could be better answered by 
one of our colleagues rather than by those who have so far spoken. 

The ChairMx\n. This paper from which Dr. Fairfield read seems 
to be devoted to the treatment of a refugee program, and I would like 
the record to show exactly what you mean by that. In that term 
"refugees" do you mean to include expellees and escapees, or just how 
do you define these different categories ? 

Dr. Fairfield. Mr. Chairman, what we have in mind is those who 
might be described as uprooted, the homeless people and the rootless 
people who are now in temporary situations and whom, so far as it 
can be seen, it is impossible to integrate into the economy. I am just 
back from a hurried trip into Berlin and along the eastern border of 
the western zone, Trieste, Athens, and Istanbul, and in each one of 
those places we found people who had left, mostly for political rea- 
sons, who were unable to support themselves there, who were becom- 
ing a group of dissatisfied, hopeless, and to a certain extent desperate 
people, in camps and living in the community at large, with no hope 
of movement; and it is particularly to that group that we address 
ourselves at the present time. It would include in certain cases ex- 
pellees, neorefugees who came in after the deadline of the Displaced 
Persons Act, and others who, while not actually expelled, had to leave 
for reasons of the change of regime in their own home territory. We 
are not at the present time including in this what might be called the 
surplus population of people born in the area, but we would include 
the Volksdeutsche and we would include the Italians forced to return 
from Eritrea or Libya or seeking to return because of circumstances. 
Does that answer your question, Mr. Chairman? It is a rather broad 

The Chairman". Then do I understand you would include amongst 
those whom you believe ought to be within any immigration program, 
what are known as refugees, what are known as expellees, what are 


known as escapees, and all the different categories of those who have, 
as you say, been uprooted, and are not living normal lives, and in 
many instances are not even in the communities in which they were 
raised and where they are accustomed to live? 

Dr. Fairchild. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And would you also include those referred to as 
being in what is called the pipeline, who were never finally acted upon 
and finally processed in the displaced-persons program '? 

Dr. Fairfield. Those we would regard as a priority. 

Mr. Chairman, it ought also to be made clear — and I think Dr. Van 
Kirk did underline it — that we are not ignorant of or unconcerned 
about the problem of the overpopulated countries, but we feel that 
that is a problem of such vast dimensions that has to be dealt with 
by economic processes as well as by migration, that it ought to be 
dealt with perhaps in a less emergency manner than the situation of 
these refugees who are deteriorating morally and spiritually, month 
by month, in this process. 

The Chairman. It may be a chronic problem; is that your 
viewpoint ? 

Dr. Fairfield. And it may have to be reached by such factors as 
TCA and ECA, and that type of thing to increase production in the 
country concerned. It may also involve migration to other countries. 
If w'e can take the lead in accepting our fair share in this country, 
we know that it will have a favorable effect upon countries like Canada 
and New Zealand and Australia, who went along as long as we had 
a program, but who have pretty nearly dried up as a receiving source 
when we stopped. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, I think our position is, further, that 
the migration for the overpopulation is one factor that needs to be 
taken into account, but only one factor in a country like Italy, for 
example; and that to solve the problem at its source involves (a) a 
much broader approach to a social-economic problem, and (b) the 
cooperation of the government in the country concerned and respon- 
sible for the overpopulation problem and its solution. 

Commissioner Pickett. It seems to me that the emphasis growing 
out of both your statements centers very largely around the refugee, 
taking the term "refugee" in its larger interpretation, and I am sure 
that none of us underrates the importance of that, nor do we under- 
rate the time span. That is, it is likely to be a manifestation of society 
for as long as any of us here live. Nevertheless, this Commission has 
its main job of recommending a permanent immigration policy. Now, 
all of Dr. Fairfield's presentation is about the handling of refugees 
w^ho come in. Would you apply the same principle to the incoming 
immigrant, whether he is a refugee or whether he comes because of 
population pressure or anything else? 

Dr. Fairfield. Mr. Chairman, in principle, the National Council 
feels that similar services should be rendered to all immigrants. I 
think that would be a fair statement, from the various statements 
that have been made. At the same time, the reason Ave emphasize the 
refugees at the present time is that we are pressing for a refugee pro- 
gram of immediate urgency, and there has been no such participation 
of voluntary agencies in long-range immigi'ation processes as there 
has been in the emergency legislation under the DP Act. That is the 
reason we emphasize it at the p^^^sent time. 


Coniniissioner Pickett. Now, I <2:ather yon would set \\\) within the 
State Department a senior officer directly responsible to the Secretary 
of State, or something of that sort. I wasn't quite clear whether you 
envisage that as a temporary measure due to the ])eculiar nature of 
innnigration of refugees, or whether you envisage that as the way now 
that we ought to do for all people coming in, the kind of machinery 
we ought to set up permanently ? 

Dr. Vax Kirk. I don't thiidv I care to add to what Dr. Fairfield said 
in that respect. 

Dr. Fairfield. I think Mr. Elliott might connnent on that point. 

Mr. Elliott. I think that the question that Dr. Pickett has raised is 
a very important one, because in our statement we have attempted to 
keep a balance with respect to our concern about the long-range basic 
immigration policy of the United States; that is our section No. 1. 
With regard to the inmiediate urgency of the refugee j)roblem as such, 
we wish simply to say that this is not finished. It is a matter of great 
humanitarian concern; it is a matter of })rimary concern in relation to 
our total foreign relations as a country and what we ai'e attempting to 
do in the leadership of the free people of the world. We also are say- 
ing that, so far as the continuance of a sectarian pattern of administra- 
tion of emergency legislation or emergency measures of any kind is 
concerned, either within the total immigration revised phm or as spe- 
cial legislation, it should, in our judgment, be based upon this kind of 
relationship between governmental agency responsibility and the com- 
plementary services which are appropriate for at least our church 
agencies to provide. At the same time, some of those services, Mr. 
Chairman, as we learn, with regard to what total permanent good 
immigration is, from our short-term emergency experience with dis- 
placed persons and refugees, it may very easily be that we are opening 
up new avenues of service for the voluntary agencies with regard to 
all of the immigrants who come into the United States in the future. 

The Chairman. You make suggestions in this ])aper that Avould 
contem})late a change in the existing administrative set-up. You sug- 
gest a senior officer in the State Department directly responsible to the 
Secretary of State and who would be the liaison man with the volun- 
tary agencies. Now, my question is. Would he supplant the Commis- 
sioner of Immigration? Is that a suggestion for the transfer of the 
administration of the laws and the enforcement of them from the 
existing department where they -now^ are to the State Department? 

Mr. Elliott. We mean to raise that question, Mr. Chairman. 

The CiiAiRMAx. What is your reconnnendation on it ? 

Mr. Elliott. The one that is suggested. 

The Chairman. The only one you make doesn't complete the pic- 
ture, because there are all these other administrative jjroblems that 
exist that are noAv elsewhere; and I don't, like Dr. Pickett, know 
whether you mean to liaA^e a supplementary set-up or whether this is 
in substitution for the existing method of administi'ation through an 
Innnigration Connnissioner and through the Dei^artment of Justice. 

And that raises a number of other related problems. You speak of 
voluntary agencies. Well, what voluntary agencies^ There are re- 
ligious agencies, there are welfare agencies, there are other agencies 
that wouldn't fall in either one of those categories but are interested 
ma3^be in administrative and other problems. Are they voluntary 
agencies ? How are thev to be defined and how are thev to be limited? 


I just wondered whether that had been thought through. I think Dr. 
Pickett has the same question. Just what do you visualize would be 
the result of the suggestion you have made? Are you recommending 
the transfer of all the administration to a senior officer in the State 
Department, or what do you think? 

Mr. Elliott. At that point, I think that historically the responsi- 
bility for inunigration has been moved from one department of Gov- 
ernment to another, and it would not scare us. 

The Chaik3iax. It doesn't scare us either. I am just interested in 
finding out what you are recommending. 

Mr. Elliott. I think the fundamental to what we are recommend- 
ing, Mr. Chairman, is that we believe that our total innuigration 
j)olicy — ^but particularly our policy with reference to the oppressed 
politically and economically at the present time — should l)ecome 
primarily an affirmative and positive expression of good will and 
welcome on the part of the American Government, and that therefore 
certain fundamental changes need to be effected in the location of the 
responsibility for the total immigration program if we are to supplant 
the present multiplicity of restrictive features and agencies related to 
the whole inunigration program. So that our suggestion is that 
within the State Department we might very well center the responsi- 
bility for the expression of such a positive, affirmative immigration 
program which would relate to such a program those functions having 
to do with security and health and other screenings, but which would 
not permit us to be in the present situation wdiere the total impact of 
our total immigration structure or structures impresses the people who 
want to come to this country so negatively, as is the case at the present 

Now, with regard to the specific recommendation of whether we 
locate that in one department or another, that would be open for con- 
sideration on our part. I think the reason why we have suggested 
locating it within the State Department, particularly with reference 
to those sections of immigration that have to do with the political 
refugees, is apparent when one thinks of one of the functions of such 
an immigration program in terms of paralleling and strengthening 
and undergirding for the future the foreign policy of the United States 
and relating it to the regular and positive functions of our State 

The Ghairmax. We had statements made to us yesterday here by the 
Acting C'onnnissioner of Immigration as to the number of persons 
who go in and out of the country every year. It runs into many mil- 
lions because they come in at all borders and they come in in great 
volume and go out in great volume. There are a whole lot of prob- 
lems connected with that, so much so that the immigration depart- 
ment is a large department with employees in every part of the United 
States. They have all kinds of problems. Xow, do you visualize 
that all of their problems should be handed to the State I)e])artment, 
or are you just suggesting that so long as we have these refugee and 
expellee and other categories that have to do with a humanitarian 
effort to solve those problems elsewhere in the world, that it be in the 
State Department ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; it is rather the latter. 

Tlie Chairmax. Is that what you had in mind, that so long as 
there is a special program for a special humanitarian purpose, which 
has an impact on our foreign policy, that part of it in some way 


Mr. Elliott (interposing) . It is the only point really that we are 
stressing at the moment. 

The Chairman. And you are not suggesting that the ordinary, 
routine handling of immigration problems, both with respect to 

Mr. Elliott (interposing). Thank you for helping clarify it. 

The Chairman. I wanted to find out, too, from Dr. Van Kirk, 
about that part of his statement that relates to 250,000 per annum ; I 
wanted to have the record show whether that is in addition. 

Dr. Van Kirk. That is over a 3-year period ; 250,000. 

The Chairman. In the Celler bill it is 300,000 for a 3-year period, 
and I think there have been various figures suggested in that neigh- 
borhood, all within a 3-year period. Is that intended to be an amount 
in excess of the provision in existing law, or is that intended to be 
the total amount for the next 3-year period ? 

Dr. Van Kirk. We would say that this would be a figure in addition 
to such numbers as might be entering the country under existing 

The Chairman. If you don't label it an emergency, anyhow it is 
a number, 250,000 or thereabouts, to be devoted to a humanitarian 
program of some kind ? 

Dr. Van Kirk. That is right. 

The Chairman. And have no relationship to the regular quota 
immigration ? 

Dr. Van Kirk. We would much rather that these human problems 
and related issues should be dealt with in permanent legislation. We 
are getting a bit weary of this emergency kind of psychology, and 
we look forward to the day when the American people will have an 
immigration and naturalization statute that will provide for the ad- 
mission of persons in these categories that must now be dealt with, 
as we view it, under special and emergency legislation. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Ill other words, if it were possible to attain these 
objectives that you speak of by permanent legislation 

Dr. Van Kirk (interposing) . That would be what we desire. 

The Chairman. As we have traveled around the country, sugges- 
tions have been made to us that the problem might be reached through 
permanent legislation with a flexible or a fluid authority, either to 
Congress or a congressional or administrative board or commission of 
some kind, within a ceiling always, to deal with these situations as 
they happen to arise, and where it was believed either by the Congress 
or by an administrative board that they should be dealt with quickly 
and without regard to the regular admissions. There have been sug- 
gestions along that line in various cities. 


Dr. Adams. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the official statement 
of the board of the National Council of Churches, which was not read 
but put in the record, does spell that out as one of our convictions of 
the National Council of Churches, namely, that the quota system 
sliould be made more flexible. 

The Chairman. But in the same breath you, in effect, advocate the 
abolition of the quota system as such and then also talk about making 
it more flexible. 


Dr. Van Kirk (interposing) , Yes; but we don't advocate the aboli- 
tion of the quota system, do we ? 

The Chairman, But tluit is what it is now based on, and if you 
eliminate the basis, would you not have to devise some other kind of 
system ? 

Dr. Van Kirk. Well, to the degree that you make the quota system 
more flexible, you have in practice altered the present pattern of oper- 
ations, but you still have a quota by contrast with unlimited numbers. 
That is what I mean. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Dr. Van Kirk, aren't we using the words in two 
different ways? If by "quota" you mean a ceiling; in other words, 
we are distinguishing between a ceiling or a quota on the one side and 
the national origins system as a means of distributing — — 

Dr. Van Kirk (interposing). I am talking about a ceiling. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Ill other words, is the council now saying that you 
want a ceiling of some kind so that you won't have unrestricted immi- 
gration, but within that ceiling are you suggesting the abolition of 
the national origins system ? 

Dr. Van Kirk. I am looking for that particular reference in our 
statement tliat we read this morning. 

Dr. Fairfield. Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that we are 
looking for the abolition of any national-origins quota based upon 
race; that if for political reasons there is a distinction to be made 
between countries, that is in a little different category, but it is the 
racial discrimination as applies to Asiatics. We had the classic case 
of the Kalmuks, who were finally ruled by the Attorney General as 
being Russian and European, having lived in Russia longer than the 
Pilgrim fathers and their descendants have lived in the United States. 
We have that case where it was the present national origin that was 
recognized rather than the racial origin. But in the present legis- 
lation, the Asiatic racial origin is the thing that is discriminated 
against, and we feel that the discrimination against races is a matter of 
morality, whereas the discrimination against countries and nations is 
a matter of political adjustment. 

]Mr. RosENFiELD. Dr. Van Kirk's statement says, and I quote : 

However, it is the view of tlie National Council of Churches that such restric- 
tions as to numbers as may be required shall be achieved without discriminations 
predicated upon national origin or racial heritage. 

Now, the question that I am calling your attention to, either Dr. 
Van Kirk or Dr. Fairfield, is this : Is the Commission to understand 
that statement to mean that within any quota ceiling, such as Dr. Van 
Kirk has mentioned, you would propose the abolition of selection 
within that ceiling based either on race or national origin ? 

Dr. Van Kirk. We have stated certain categories of priorities under 
a ceiling. That is the only point which w^e would press as far as the 
admission of the peoples is concerned. That is said rather directly in 
the statement to which you have just referred. 

Dr. Adams. JMr. Chairman, may I call attention to another quote 
from the official action of our board which I think will help to clarify 
this discussion. Our statement was : 

Within the quota system, all discriminatory provisions based upon considera- 
tions of color, race, or sex would be removed. 

I would like to underscore the word "discriminatory." 


]Mi'. Elliott. I think that the heavily iiiulerseored word with lis is 
tlie type of flexibility that will respond to the kind of chanoino; situa- 
tion in the world which we have so far experienced in relation to the 
people who most uroently need to come to this country. And per- 
sonally I think that your suo-gestion of the kind of administrative 
board that would — within certain numerical limits and within certain 
definitions of principle and policy — administer such a program with 
a view to flexibility, is perhaps the most practical way of dealing with 
the kind of fluid and shifting sort of problem that we are dealing with. 

The Chairman. I want to make it clear it isn't my suggestion ; it is 
suggestions that have been made to the Commission, in various places 
where we have had hearings, that there be some board. Nobody is 
fixed on the idea as to whether it should be, for instance, a congres- 
sional committee always working or an administrative board, or may- 
be both working together, year after year. And of course the Com- 
mission hasn't passed on any of these suggestions yet. So we are not 
making suggestions ; we are listening to them. 

Dr. Van Kirk. INIr. Chairman, I want to underscore what has been 
said earlier. We do not pose as experts on the question of immigration 
and naturalization. But we do feel very strongly that the law placed 
upon the statute books in the last session of Congress is an affront to 
the conscience of the American people. We are going to work for the 
amendment of that legislation, and if we can't get it in the next Con- 
gress we will work for it until we do get it. And it is for the purpose 
of conveying to you this aroused sense of conscience on the part of the 
Protestant and Orthodox churches of the country, ^^rimarily for that 
reason, that we are here in your presence this morning. 

The Chairman. I thank you for coming here, and of course what 
you have said is of great interest and importance to the Commission. 

I understood you to say in your opening statement, Mr. Elliott, that 
the organizations you represent here themselves represent some 31 
million people throughout the United States? 

Dr. Van Kirk. That is the total membership of the churches of the 
communions related to the National Council of Churches, but none 
of us wants to convey the impression we speak for these 31 million 

The Chairman. I understand that. You have been very careful 
to say what has been approved and what has not been approved. 


Dr. Dawson. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the statement just 
made, not as a separate ])resentation but in close coordination with it, 
in representing the A^arious Baptist bodies here today. I may say that 
most of the major Baptist bodies are constituent members of the Na- 
tional Council of Churches. But there has been some request made of 
me since I came into the room to say a word about the attitude of 
Southern Baptists, with a membership of more than 7I/2 million mem- 
bers not included in the National Council of Churches. 

I would like to say that my office as executive director of the Baptist 
joint connnittee on public affairs ])ermits me to know the attitudes of 
the various Bajitist groups in this country. We have some 15 or 20 
of these groups, aggregating a total membership of 17 million mem- 


bers, but we are rated as separate denominations, and the Southern 
Baptist Convention is a separate denomination under that category. 
But the Baptist World Alliance, with headquarters here in Washing- 
ton, representing the Baptists throughout the world, has been devoting 
its attention very earnestly to assisting DP groups. It has helped more 
than 5,000 units, more than 1-3,000 persons, and in that program the 
Southern Baptists have been very active. I would say — ancl I think 
these gentlemen will corroborate it this morning — that they are in 
general accord with all the representations that have been made here 
today by Dr. Van Kirk. Dr. Fairfield, ^Ir. Elliott, and others. There 
need not be any thouglit that this large group is in anywise out of step 
with these representations that have been made this morning. 

I do have a brief memorandum here from the Baptist World Al- 
liance, which includes this group, as to their attitudes, which I think 
are in. genei'al agreement with what you have said but which may be 
of interest . If I may, I will read this brief statement. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Dr. Dawson. 1. Emergency legislation : There were only 54,744 
visas allocated under the so-called Volksdeutsche program in January 

1951 (the amended Displaced Persons Act) and there were 500,000 
who desired to come at that time. Therefore, the visas ran out in April 

1952 and many were caught in the pipeline of processing since their 
processing had not reached the point of completion to allow them to 
obtain visas. 

There Avere also regular displaced persons who Avere caught in the 
pipeline before the expiration of the Displaced Persons Act on Decem- 
ber 31, 1951. 

Of our cases between 1,500 and 2,000 Avere caught in the so-called 
pipeline and hence the emergent need for legislation to cover. 

I think the feeling of the alliance and all those associated Avith it is 
that there ought to be some special legislation that would relieve this 
acute situation presented here. 

2. Long-range program : Europe is filled Avith refugees and they 
continue to SAvarm into Western Europe daily by the thousands from 
behind the iron curtain. Their only hope is the United States and the 
free world. The present law (McCarran Act) is bound by the quota 
system and prcA^ents immigration of the refugees Avho are fleeing the 
iron curtain. The quota system under the law is used up in many 
nationalities and in fact is mortgaged for years to come by most of 
the nationality groups. 

AVe need a neAv laAv Avhich Avould make possible the coming of 100,000 
a year and the United States affords the only opportunity. 

The Chairman. Thank you A^ery much. 

Commissioner Gullixson. Inasmuch as the presentation at the very 
outset and at its conclusion has been concerned primarily with the 
European problem, may Ave ask whether it is a fair inference from 
your declarations that in long-range legislation disparity and dis- 
crimination against Asiatics is also a primary concern, so that Europe 
and Asia are placed on an equal scale in permanent legislation? 

Dr. Van Kirk. I Avould say that to do that would be consistent Avith 
the declaration of the National Council of Churches. 

Commissioner Gullixson. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that at our 
hearings in Chicago and St. Louis and Los Angeles, distinguished 
educators spoke very seriously about the reactions against Public Law 
414 in Asia today, as of September 1952. 


Dr. Van Kirk. I would expect that to be true. 

Commissioner Gullixson. In that connection, I am interested in 
learning what, if anything, the great missionary agencies of the 
churches represented here have found in October 1952 in public opinion 
in relation to America. 

Dr. Van Kirk. I would like to remind the Commission that perhaps 
for the past quarter of a century the churches of this country — I speak 
now of those related to the then Federal Council of Churches — were 
in the forefront of organizations requesting the elimination of all 
racial discriminations in our immigration and naturalization laws, 
and the Federal Council of Churches appeared before appropriate 
committees of Congress year after year to call for the repeal of the 
so-called Exclusion Act, and we rejoice that in some respects at least 
that discriminatory legislation has been removed from our statute 
books. But we deplore the placing of still further restrictions upon 
these Asiatics. And I would like to have you feel that the statement 
which we have made this morning is echoed by the missionary organ- 
izations of the churches related to the national council, since they 
comprise one of the divisions of the national council, and what is being 
said here this morning is being said also on behalf of these great mis- 
sionary organizations w^ho are very keenly aware of the discrimina- 
tions yet remaining and desire their early removal. 


Dr. Reissig. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just two things very 
briefly. I represent perhaps the grass roots, being executive secretary 
of a local council of churches and in very close contact with local 
councils of churches throughout the country. I want to say, first of 
all, that at the grass roots there is very great concern on the j^art of 
local councils of churches about this Walter-McCarran Act. I want 
to make the statement that it is not just at the top level. 

The Chairman. When you say "concern," just what do you mean 
by that ? 

Dr. Reissig. They are concerned that it be changed with its dis- 
criminatory factors. 

The second thing is that I happen to be on the faculty of the inter- 
national center, and our Government is spending millions and millions 
of dollars in bringing people from all parts of the world to the United 
States. They come to Washington first for their orientation courses, 
and I have an opportunity week by week to meet this group. It seems 
to me — and I am particularly interested in this act because of that — 
that the discriminatory factors in this act, which I think we agree 
are there, seem to militate against this tremendous program which we 
are undertaking here in America, bringing thousands and thousands 
of people from all over the world. Just the other week there were 17 
nationalities in this group which we addressed. So we feel very 
keenly that we are trying to create good will. That is what the Gov- 
ernment is trying to do, and we who give our time freely week by week 
to this orientation program feel that we don't want one phase of our 
American life to militate against the other program. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, we don't want to encroach either upon 
the time of the Commission or our sister or brother agencies that are 


waiting in line, but we do want to be clear. Are there any points on 
which you have further questions ? 

The Chairman. I wanted to find out whether any other member ot 
the Commission had any question. 

Commissioner PiCKE'n\ In view of the proposals you have made, I 
would remind you, as the chairman has mentioned on occasion durnig 
tlie course of the hearings, that the Congress passed this legislation, 
the President vetoed it, and the Congress passed it over his veto, and 
that was theoretically the expression of the people who represent the 
people of this country. Have you any observations to make on that, 
as a practical matter. 

Dr. Fairfield. Mr. Chairman, may I pick up Dr. Pickett's words to 
say that that is the reason that we are stressing the need for emergency 
legislation to deal. with this particular problem of refugees. We are 
convinced, as Dr. Van Kirk said so forcefully, that the whole imnii- 
gration policy should be changed. We recognize the difficulties in 
doing that and the time involved. We know that it took 3 years to get 
the present Walter-McCarran Act actually passed, and I happen to 
know the State Department was working on certain aspects of it for 
] years before that. But we feel it is the need of emergency legisla- 
tion and that the other, as Monsignor O'Grady will remember I 
stressed at the Catholic Charities Conference in Cleveland, requires 
both education and frankly a change of heart on the part of the 
American people. AVe believe that that is going to take time, and that 
is the reason why at the present time we are not proposing a whole- 
sale revision of the act but stressing the thing that must be done now 
for the boys and the girls and the other people who are frustrated and 
creating a growing pool of unrest and danger on the European line. 

The Chairmax. But might it not take just as long to obtain what 
you term "emergency legislation" as to effect changes you have indi- 
cated you desire in the permanent legislation? 

Dr. Fairfield. That is perfectly true. At the same time, there 
were indications in congressional committees last spring that if the 
legislation had dealt only with emergency situations on a limited 
scale, the action on that point might have been favorable. It didn't 
get through, it is quite true. 

Dr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I am glad Dr. Fairfield has spoken as 
he has, and it is quite proper that he should emphasize this matter 
of emergency problems. However, representing the total program 
of the national council as over against his major concern in the emer- 
gency services, I would like to reiterate our genuine concern for the 
long-range program of the total immigration policy of the Nation 
and to express our gratitude that you as a commission are at work. 
Wliile we do not pose as experts, we believe there should be the restudy 
which you are making. 

Commissioner O'Grady. I have been most interested in the testi- 
mony that your group has presented this morning, and I wish to ex- 
press my profound admiration of the splendid work you have been 
doing in this field. It is very helpful to hear your point of view 

Mr. RosEXFiELD. Mr. Chairman, I wonder Avhether Dr. Henderson 
can tell us if the Presbyterian Church of the United States has issued 
any resolutions or statements relative to this which he might be in a 
position to give to the Commission ? 



Dr. Henderson. The Presbyterian Cluucli has concui'red in the 
resohitions that you heard this morninjji;; also, in answer to another 
su^'^"estion, administratively they have changed over from their rather 
narrow DP resettlement program to a program that looks forward to 
caring for all immigrants coming into all communities just so far as 
the local communities can do that. That is, there is a broadening of 
view" in the program of the church itself, and they are concurring in 
the national council's program. Their views have been expressed 
through the national council on this whole thing. 

Since you called upon me, I would like to underscore one thing 
that is very, very critical at this time, and it might be easier to accom- 
plish than some of the other things we have been proposing. One 
of the most critical things that is hurting and irritating and frus- 
trating the refugees who would like to come is the mortgaging system 
that went through that cuts hope for sometimes 100 or 150 years to 
some people who should be coming in, and a cancellation of mortgages 
in an emergency action w^ould do a great deal in lifting the spirits of 
some of the refugees and in raising the tone and also in helping us out. 

As for the matter of flexibility, it seems to me it might go into the 
record that one of the first things, a very small thing and a very 
immediate relief, might be in cancellation of mortgages, which 1 
counted up amounts to almost 200,000 visas at the moment, while 
during the last 20 years, out of a possible ceiling of 150,000 a year, we 
have only taken in about an average of 50,000 quota immigrants. And 
while we are only taking one-third of our quota, we still mortgaged 
ahead 200,000 on the countries that are coming from behind the iron 
curtain and are the refugees in need. But that is just a small thing 
that I throw now into the thinking. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, if the time permits, in connection 
with the question and observation of Dr. Gullixson, it is possible Dr. 
Bushong might enlighten the Commission because his group has been 
dealing with a group of DP's that are of a cliiferent cultural back- 
grouncl, and that might be helpful to the Commission's thinking. 

]\Ir. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, we have a statement prepared b}^ the 
Brethren Service Commission. I am sure it is very brief and to the 
point. I suggest, if you do have time, that Dr. Bushong be asked 
to testify. 


Dr. Bushong. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, we 
feel very humble about this whole program and do not pretend to be 
experts. We have prepared a statement giving some of our views. 
AVith your permission I shall read it. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Dr. Bushong. This statement is being submitted to the committee 
to share the views or beliefs of the members of the Church of the 
Brethren, who, in the early days of our Nation, were immigrants, 


coming to Germantowii, Pa., in two migration movements in 1719 and 

The Brethren came in search of a phice to worship, with liberty 
of conscience, free from the domination of a state chnrch or govern- 
ment as developed in Europe during that jjeriod. 

It was a time of heart-searching for these early migrants, and, in 
many respects, similar conditions prevail today. 

We believe that discrimination because of the racial, religioiLS, or 
social background of those persons applying for admission to be con- 
trary to our American way of life. 

We believe that the criminal, imbecile, indolent, and so forth, should 
not be admitted to our country by design of any persons or groups, 
governmental or nongovernmental. 

We must give more attention to the reception and education of new 
arrivals, thereby assisting them in becoming assimilated into our 
American wa}^ of life. 

We believe that special consideration should be given relatives of 
persons recently admitted under the Displaced Persons Act ; how their 
admission and resettlement may be facilitated, thereby reuniting 
families and relatives. 

We believe that there is only one sound basis to consider in this 
problem, namely, our neighbor in need, knowing that the various de- 
vices and plans of special interest groups are not a satisfactory 

We believe that the Government should take the initiative in this 
program, attempting to find a just solution to this problem ; we shall 
give assistance in ministry to the needs of the new immigrants. 

We are grateful to all agencies, international, governmental, non- 
governmental, for the cooperation and assistance given during the 
recent program under the Displaced Persons Act. 

During this program our agency was able to assist approximately 
1,000 persons in their arrival and resettlement, advancing funds on a 
loan basis where needed, and arranging the many details involved in 
the actual housing and job-finding problems. 

The Brethren have experienced a deepening of spiritual life in 
many communities by their cooperation in the resettlement program, 
and will continue their share of responsibility for this program in 
cooperation with interested agencies or persons, contributing of their 
resources in personnel, service, and money as may be required in the 
building of a better world. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Dr. Bushong. 

Does Mr. Obradovich wish to say something to us ? 


Mr. Obradovich. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. First, we 
support the Serbian Church and the Serbian national defense and the 
Serbians in America, or, if you want to, call it Yugoslav. We support 
what the Church World Service is speaking about. Secondly, I would 
like to stress that at no place do I see that Yugoslavia is behind the 
iron curtain. I want this Commission to know that Yugoslavia is 
behind the iron curtain as much as any country in the world is behind 
the iron curtain. 


Third, we have brought in 10,500 human beings inside of ly^ 
years. Out of those 10,500 human beings, there isn't one single per- 
son on the relief roll of any organization today in the United States 
of America. In these 10,500, I want you to know, there are many 
handicapped cases, because it would be impossible to bring that many 
people and not have some handicapped. Not one of those is a burden 
except to our own organization and to our own care. The Serbs from 
Yugoslavia would appreciate very much all the consideration that this 
Commission will give to the Church World Service since we are part 
of the Church World Service ourselves. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Obradovich. 


Reverend SAYiiE. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands the statements 
officially given and testimony by officials of our Episcopal Church 
before various congressional hearings on immigration bills. I think 
there is no need lor me to read any of these statements because in 
summary and in substance they completely go along Avith the state- 
ment given here by Dr. Van Kirk and the testimony given you this 
morning by the National Council of Churches. I dcm't think our 
church vrould differ in any way from what has been said, and I need 
not take up any special time for the Episcopal Church. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner O'Grady. We have had presented to us by local fed- 
erations of churches some testimony about the favorable experience 
on the local level in the resettlement of displaced persons and in 
regard to additional opportunities that might be available for such 
people. Is there any comment you might wish to make on behalf of 
Church World Service with respect to that ? 

Mr. Elliott. There are two points, Mr. Chairman. The first is 
that we are afraid to do too much to stir that potential until such 
time as we are sure that we can provide people to fill the needs that 
so easily are registered with us. The second point is that our judg- 
ment, based upon the testimony of our local people like Dr. Reissig, 
our denominational people like Dean Sayre and others, convinces 
us that the potential from the standpoint of actual conmumity resettle- 
ment in this country is amply covered in terms of the numbers about 
which we are talking. But I think the other agencies would agree 
with us that it is exceedingly embarrassing if we let it be known 
that we might possibly sometime be able to get housemaids or workers, 
farmers, and so on, and then find that we are unable to explain why 
they can't come. 

The Chairman. Tliank you very much, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. You have been most generous to us, and thank you. 

The Chairman. Is Dr. Van Deusen here ? 



Dr. Van Dettsen. I am Dr. Robert E. Van Deuseii, Washington 
Secretary of the National Lntheran Council. With me is Michael F. 
Markel, a Washington attorney who is the legal counsel for Lutheran 
Resettlement Service. After I give my statement, I would like to 
give Mr. Markel an opportunitj^ to make remarks along the same 
line, if that is permissible. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you. 

Dr. Van Deusen. I think a few words of explanation might be in 
order before I read my statement. The National Lutheran Council, 
which I represent, is a cooperative church agency serving eight dif- 
ferent Lutheran bodies, with a total membership of about 4 million. 
Of those eight bodies, three are members of the National Council of 
Churches; the other five bodies are not members of the National Coun- 
cil of Churches. That explains why we give our counsel separately. 
It also explains to some extent why our resettlement program for 
displaced persons was carried on separately from that of Church 
World Service. Lutheran Resettlement Service is a branch of the 
Lutheran National Council set up specifically for the purpose of re- 
settling displaced persons. It is a temporary agency, although there 
is under consideration at this time in the National Lutheran Council 
of the possibility of setting up as a successor to that a permanent im- 
migration department. That has not yet been decided but is under 

With your permission, I will now read my statement. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Dr. Van Deusen. The major testimony on behalf of the National 
Luthern Council was given at the Commission's hearings in New 
York City on September 30, by Dr. Paul C. Empie, executive director 
of the council, and Miss Cordelia Cox, resettlement executive of the 
Lutheran Resettlement Service. Dr. Empie spoke of the need for 
emergency legislation for the entry of refugees into the United States, 
under a program financed by the Government, with voluntary agencies 
providing supplementary services. 

Miss Cox discussed the need for liberalizing our permanent immi- 
gration policies. Drawing on her experience in the resettlement of 
displaced persons, she voiced the conviction that carefully chosen 
immigrants contribute to the cultural and economic wealth of our 
country ; that there is need for many more immigrants than are being 
admitted under the present quota system; that we have a responsi- 
bility as a free nation to provide for our fair share of the homeless 
people of the world ; and that our immigration laws should give reason- 
able consideration to each applicant for admission and protect those 
who are admitted from unwarranted deportation. She proposed 
eight principles which ought to underlie LTnited States immigration 
policy and practice. 



I wish at tills time to reaffirm the positions take by Dr. Empie and 
Miss Cox, ami to add the followiiio; observations : 

1. Tlie Judiciary Committees of the t\Yo Houses of Cong'ress per- 
formed a vahiable serA'ice in codifyinjr the immio-ration and nationalit}" 
hvws. However, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 went 
further than any previous hi ay in listing grounds for exclusion, depor- 
tation, and denaturalization. This area of difference between the 
previous law and the new law should be subjected to careful scrutiny 
to determine whether the additional restrictions go beyond the require- 
ments of national security. 

2. To the extent to which the new law sets unfair or unduly severe 
standards, the law should be amended. Remedial le.Q-islation should 
be introduced at the first session of the Eighty-third Congress, so that 
any obvious injustice may be challenged before the operation of the 
new law becomes firmly entrenched. If administration of the law 
reveals still other inequities, further amendments should be introduced 
at later sessions of Congress. 

3. In revising the law, the provisions for a]:)peal from negative 
decisions should be strengthened, and such provisions should be added 
Avhere they are lacking, as a safeguard against arbitrary administra- 
tion of the laAv. In cases dealing Avith naturalization, denaturalization, 
or deportation, it should be specified that decisions are subject to 
judicial reAnew under the Administrative Procedures Act. To make 
this elfectiA^e. definite criteria of reviewable fact should be substituted 
AvhereA^er possible for the subjectiA-e opinion of an administrative 
officer as the basis for the original decision. 

4. In cases related to admission or exclusion, a A^isa reA^iew board 
should be set up similar in function to the recently constituted Pass- 
port Appeals Board. While applicants for admission haA^e no legal 
rights on which an appeal could be based, there should be machinery 
by which interested American citizens or organizations could obtain 
an impartial revieAv of consular decisions which are belieA^ed to be 
arbitrary and unwarranted. 

5. The Immigration and Nationality Act made the quota system 
a permanent feature of our immigration laAv. The presuppositions 
of this system and its adequacy in A'ieAA" of changing world conditions 
are open to serious question. The proportion Avhich particular ethnic 
groups bore to our total population in 1920 is not a reasonable criterion 
for immigration in 1953. Classification of applicants for admission 
by place of birth rather than by nationality has given rise to obvious 
inconsistencies in the administration of the laAv. 

6. The entire quota system should be reexamined and eA^aluated 
in the light of today's needs. Consideration should be giA^en to en- 
larging our total number of annual admissions based on our ability 
to absorb immigrants, and revising our standaixls for selection of 
immigrants. Such a study should be characterized by imaginatiA^e 
exploration of possible patterns, and by the balancing of such factors 
as our need of people Avith s])ecial skills, the need of oppressed people 
for haven, and the preserA^ation of family units. 

7. Inasmuch as revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
cannot realistically be expected during the first session of the Eighty- 
third Congress, consideration should be giA^en to emergency legisla- 
tion to meet the most urgent phases of the refugee problem in Europe. 
This should include provision for those displaced persons whose proc- 


cssing had not been completed at tlie end of the program, and admis- 
sion of substantial numbers of ethnic, religious, and political refugees. 
Immigration of refugees into the United States should be integrated 
with international programs of resettlement and should represent a 
reasonable proportion of world responsibility for the refugee problem. 

That completes my prepared statement, and we would be glad to 
discuss or answer questions either before or after Mr. Markel has an 
opportunity to present his oral statement. 

The Chairman. Suppose we hear IVIr. Markel. Then we can ask 
questions of both of you together. 


Mr. Markel. I am Michael F. Markel, an attorney, Munsey Build- 
ing, Washington. D. C, and legal counsel for the Resettlement Service 
of the National Lutheran Council. 

Well, gentlemen, I feel a little presumptuous almost to appear 
before this Board to voice my personal views on some of the very 
fundamental and important social and political questions inherent 
in the subject matter before this Board, ])ut I have been in the front- 
line trenches in connection with this resettlement program and I 
thought I might make a couple of observations from that standpoint. 

As far as the over-all picture is concerned, I have two interests in 
this subject matter. One, of course, is the fact that I have been legal 
adviser to the Resettlement Service of the National Lutheran Council ; 
also, the Lutheran World Federation, an international organization, 
has called on me from time to time with respect to legal matters 
requiring explanation here in the United States. 

My other interest stems from the fact that I myself am a displaced 
person. I had the good fortune of finding myself displaced in the 
United States as a consequence of World War I, and it is the greatest 
blessing that has come to me. I am a naturalized citizen, so naturally 
I think that I have some basis for expressing specific views with respect 
to the status and treatment of naturalized citizens. 

From the over-all standpoint, anyone familiar with the problem 
existing in Europe today cannot possibly voice any objection to the 
granting of further relief by our partici])ation as the leading nation, 
as the wealthiest nation, assuming our fair share in alleviating that 
condition, not only in Europe but also in Asia. I was impressed by 
Reverend Gullixson's question on that phase of it, because I think the 
problem of the people in the Orient is too frequently overlooked, 
and many of them are in far worse positions than are some of the 
European displaced persons. 

I will, however, on the general subject merely underscore and 
emphasize Avhat Miss Cordelia Cox has said before this Board. We 
have worked together on it intimately, and I subscribe to every state- 
ment she made and feel that she has put that so much more adequately 
than I could. 

On the basis of those general observations, I would like to proceed 
and make some observations on the McCarran Act. I wish this meet- 
ing had either been 6 months earlier or a month later, because this is 
a rather delicate time to be using that term. Nevertheless, I have 
some views about that because I did liappen to interest myself rather 


actively in connection witli the amendment of the Displaced Persons 
Act, the administration of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the 
final passintr of the McCarran Act. There were those of us who were 
actively seeking to delay passing of the McCarran Act, if need be, 
in order to correct what we considered some real injustices inherent 
in that act, including of course the most controversial issue thereof, 
the present quota system. We talked to a number of Members of 
Congress about that. In that connection, I would like to make one 
point that I don't believe has been made, and I think this Board should 
bear that in mind, and that is this. It seems that so many years of 
hard work had gone into the codification of the McCarran Act that 
many Members of Congress just felt that something had to be passed. 
Now, we argued at that time that codification, of course, was highly 
desirable, but while we were at it there should be undertaken at that 
same time a fundamental revision of the immigration policy so as to 
bring that up to date rather than to merely perpetuate existing policy 
of 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Certainly no one would have proposed a 
like treatment of most any other social legislation that is being en- 
acted today. Social legislation of this character should be brought 
abreast with the social and political status in which we find ourselves 

From my standpoint, that was basically what we tried to argue when 
we sought these last-minute revisions of the McCarran Act. Members 
of Congress were sympathetic with some of our criticisms, but some- 
thing had to be passed. 

Now, I agree that we must be realistic about these things. After 
all, this act was passed over the President's veto, and the majority of 
the party in power voted for the act. 

The Chaikman. Do you think Congress did that just because it 
thought something had to be passed after the President vetoed it ? 

Mr, Markel. Well, not so much of that, but it is my considered 
judgment that there are many Members in Congress today — and this 
is the point I wanted to make — and were then, who fully expected 
proposed amendments to come through at the earliest opportunity ta 
correct some of these things that we at that time were criticizing. 

The Chairman. Then why didn't they correct them when they had 
the bill in front of them? 

Mr. Markel. That is what we wanted to know, and that is what 
we kept shouting till the very last day. But they didn't do it. 

Commissioner O'Grady, What amendments did you suggest? 

Mr. Markel. I can't recall the details. For instance, we suggested 
revision of the quota system that was set up. 

The Chairman. Are you opposed to the quota system ? 

Mr, Markel. Yes, I am. 

The Chairman, What would you substitute for it? 

Mr. Markel. Well, I would substitute for that a ceiling. 

The Chairjman. Suppose you had a ceiling; how would you dis- 
tribute the number within the ceiling? 

Mr. Markel. I would distribute the ceiling on the basis of current 
social needs and political requirements. 

The Chairman. Who is going to determine that? 

Mr. Markel. Well, now you are getting me into the field of politics. 

The Chairman. You ai"e a lawyer. If we have a law, how are you 
o-oino; to do it? 


Mr. Markel. I consider the suggestion heard here tliis morning, 
the setting up of a board, an excellent one. 

Tlie CiiAiKMAN. To distribute the number within the ceiling? 

Mr, Markel. Within the ceiling. Personally I am only saying 
there should be a ceiling because I think that in absence of a ceiling 
there is just no opportunity for getting a law passed. 

The Chairman. Where are you going to distribute it? 

Mr. Markel. That I will have to leave to the experts in the field 

The Chairman. You are not an expert in the field ? 

Mr. Markel. No ; I am not an expert in that field. I have my per- 
sonal views on the basis of these experiences and being a displaced 
person myself, a naturalized citizen, and I think it ought to be ad- 
ministered on the basis of need rather than national or racial back- 

The Chairman. You mean need here and need abroad? 

Mr. Markel. Yes ; they should be coordinated. 

Dr. Van Deusen. I think that in implementing that analysis of 
need you would almost have to come to national allocations of numbers 
by countries, but they wouldn't necessarily need to be the same year 
to year, and they wouldn't need to be on the basis of the 1920 census. 

The Chairman. And they would not be based on race, color, or 
creed '? 

Dr. Van Deusen. Yes, and could be more flexible. 

Mr. Maricel. I had intended to go into one more specific thing, if I 
might continue. That was on the act itself. The point I want to 
underscore is that many INIembers in Congress who voted for the Mc- 
Carran Act over the President's veto will be prepared to vote favor- 
able on these suggestions that will be made to this Board, and that 
should be borne in mind. 

Commissioner Harrison. Dr. Van Deusen, would your idea of ad- 
mission of substantial numbers be somewhat in line with the testimony 
presented before you appeared, 250,000 ? 

Dr. Van Deusen. I believe so. No action on it has been taken by 
our group, but I think it would go along with the preponderant esti- 
mate of need. 

The Chairman. But that 250,000, as I understood it, was just for 
emergency. It was in addition to the regular quota. There are some 
154,000 now. 

Dr. Van Deusen. If it went through, it would mean a substantial 
rethinking of our own responsibility in cooperating with that. But 
we would be willing to go along with whatever the Congress was 
willing to do, as voluntary agencies. 

Mr. Markel. The other point I wanted to address myself to was 
this matter of what I consider constituting naturalized citizens as 
second-class citizens. Now, I have stated to the Board that I am in 
that category, so perhaps my judgment in that respect is biased for 
personal reasons, and I want you to discount it with that in mind if 
you feel so. But I think that that is one of the real inhumane things 
about the McCarran Act. There should come a time when a person 
feels that he is an integral and inseparable part of a society. The most 
cruel thing is to have a sword hanging over his head for a lifetime. 
In my case, for example, under this act I could be deported. 

The Chairman. What for? 


-Mr. AIakkkl. Well, drivino- on the \\ay down, if I luul ^iveu A-ent to 
u\y inner impulses, I mi<2:lit well have committed a felon^^ and I think 
the punishment of deporting nie, under my circumstances, which 
would have meant literally to be sent to Siberia, would have been too 

The Chairman. No matter what you did? 

Mr. JNIarkel. No matter what I did. 

Now, it is easy enough to say, ''Well, if these peo]ile come over here, 
they ought to obserA^e our law.'" It must be remembered that they are 
human beings like the rest of us, and I like to put it this way. The con- 
siderations of cojnmon fundamental humanity and decency with re- 
spect to human beings, whether they be Jiaturalized or not, are the 
same. There is a common ground there, and I have suggested this 
thinking. If someone Avere to suggest a revision of our penal sj^stem 
so that Ave Avould set up some sort of American Siberia, as it Avere, for 
our felons — after they Avere released from the penal institution they 
Avould be sent olf someAA'here Avhere they Avould be free to earn their 
living as best they could for the rest of their lives — I think that our 
people Avould rise in indignation and such proposed legislation Avould 
not have a chance. In principle there is no distinction betAveen sug- 
gesting a reAHsion of our penal system so as to create a sort of American 
Siberia for persons born here and to do Avhat is in effect the same thing 
to naturalized persons, because after a certain pei'iod of time, to deport 
someone is in effect exiling him. 

I ha\^e one more point on this matter of revieAv of administrative 
action. That is a terribly important thing, and I Avanted to giA^e just 
one example. Now, this is being critical of AAdiat happened in the past, 
and I don't Avant to raise any past issues. But Avhile aa^ objected to 
the Internal Security Act of 1950, our problems Avere increased and 
aggravated considerably because of the implementation by interpreta- 
tive regulation of that act, which Avas clearly inconsistent Avith the 
meaning of that act, and Ave got noAvhei'e Avith the administratiA^e 
agency involved. We finally had to go to (\)ngress and get relief from 
Congress, and I think there ought to be a Avay Avhere an issue such as 
that can be settled. Noav, it probably avouIcI be impractical to have 
every individual take an appeal to the courts, but there ought to be a 
Avay where a responsible social organization outside of Government 
can take an issue such as that to the courts to liaA'e a statute construed 
Avhere it should be construed. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Is Reverend Bautz here? 


Reverend Bautz. I am Hev. Donald F. Bautz, executive director, 
Lutheran Inner Mission Society, and chairuum, Washington Area 
Lutheran Resettlement Service Connnittee. 

With your permission. I should like to read a statement. 

The Chairman. You ma}^ proceed. Reverend. 

Reverend Bautz. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 
I should like to limit my remarks to the experience Ave haA'e had as 
one of the A^oluntary organizations among the many religious groups 


of all faiths wliicli have assisted in the sponsoring and resettlement of 
displaced persons and ethnic Germans dnring the past number of 

Our society has brought to the Washington area 208 DP"s and ethnic 
Germans and assisted in the resettlement of more than 400 of these 
brethren in the faith who have found their way to the National Capital 
area during these j-ears. 

The experience we have had with the adjustment of these people to 
the American way of life has been indeed gratifying. Men of high 
caliber who formerly held positions of importance in their native 
lands, were content to begin all over again in the humblest of po- 

I am thinking of an outstanding international lawyer from Latvia, 
whose first job in Washington was as a stock clerk in a local depart- 
ment store. Today, however, he holds a key position with the Library 
of Congress, where his special skills are being put to use for the best 
interest of the United States. 

There have been judges, doctors, and other professional people who 
had to content themselves with accepting work other than that for 
which they had been trained or educated. However, over the period 
of years of adjustment they have been able to once again perform a 
service to the people of our country by using their talents to the bet- 
terment of mankind. 

This experience in the field of resettlement has not been without 
certain problems and difficulties. However, wdien we look at the pic- 
ture as a whole, we can truthfully say that the greatest joy has come 
in the fact that there has been little difficulty on the part of most 
of these new neighbors to find their place in their new land of op- 

Perha])s the fact that I was able to bring my own cousin to the 
United States as an ethnic German last fall brings me closer to the 
problems faced by these new immigrants. 

He was a young lad born in Yugoslavia some 20 years ago. We 
had hoped to bring the entire family to America. However, cUie to an 
accident which occurred to the father of the family, he, his wife and 
daughter decided to stay in Germany for the time being. 

A few months after arriving here my cousin was classified I-A by 
his local draft board. However, he did not wait to be drafted, but as 
soon as he secured his first papers, enlisted in the Air Force. This 
month he graduated with honors from the Scott Air Force Base 
School and is now visiting his family in Germany. Because of the 
present immigration laws he will not be able to bring his family to 
this country if he wished. Although he is willing to give up his life 
for his new found land he must be content to allow his family to re- 
main in overcrowded Germany while his sister had to go to Finland 
to secure work. 

Personally I feel that we will not be able to solve one of the great- 
est problems of our times, that of the millions of refugees, unless the 
L^nited States takes a more forward step in changing our immigration 
laws so as to allow a freer flow of these refugees to our shores. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I request that the record re- 
main open at this point for the insertion of a prepared statement which 


is beinf^ submitted in behalf of the American Friends Service Com- 
mittee ? 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

(Tlie prepared statement submitted by the American Friends Serv- 
ice Committee follows:) 

Statement Submitted by Lewis M. Hoskins, in Behalf of the American 
Fkiends Service Committee 

This statement is submitted on behalf of the American Friends Service Com- 
mittee, founded in 1917 as an instrument through which tlie Religious Society 
of Friends (Quakers), seeks to carry into social action its belief in the divine 
element in every human being and in the i>ower of love to reconcile differences. 
Throusch the years the committee has carried on a variety of relief and rehabilita- 
tion services and other programs whose underlying purpose is to demonstrate 
peaceful methods of resolving situations of tension and conflict. Such a pur- 
pose has brought it inevitably into services for refugees, into programs of re- 
construction after two AVorld Wars, and into efforts to help strengthen inter- 
national agencies and programs for the protection of individuals and the solu- 
tion of world problems. We feel that our years of intensive experience in 
services to vrar victims and refugees, both those in other countries, those who 
have immigrated to this country, as well as our general activities in the area 
of international relations, qualify us to speak on the subject of immigration 
legislation. We are not at the present time, however, a migration agency and 
do not undertake to testify as technical experts in this field. Rather, we wish 
to set forth certain general principles which, on the basis of our convictions and 
of our experience, we believe should be expressed in United States immigration 


In the first place, we are disturbed by the basically negative philosophy 
toward immigration inherent in much of our immigration law, which has now 
been fortified and expanded in the immigration and naturalization law of 19.j2. 
This law places greater restrictions than ever before on immigration into this 
country and the securing of United States citizenship, and offers greater hazards 
to the retention of that citizenship; once secured. This negative philosophy 
seems to be based, in the main, on two concepts both of which are in our opinion 
fundamentally unsound. One is a general fear and dislike of the foreigner, 
as such, and the other is a fear of him as an economic tiireat. For a "nation of 
nations" such as the United States to fear the foreigner seems in itself to be a 
contradiction in terms. This country is made up of a combination of practically 
every national and racial strain in the world. That the cross fertilization of 
American thought and action by the ideas and skills lirought by immigrants has 
revitalized and strengthened our American culture from the earliest days is a 
truism that hardly needs repeating. The fear of the foreigner as a threat to 
our jobs or economic security may on the other hand have a strong superficial 
appeal when it is not examined critically. However, it is based on the mistake 
of looking at the immigrant merely as an additional worker, and not as an 
additional consumer and contributor to the community in myriad ways. Local 
communities, when a new family moves to town, recognize that family as a 
new household of potential consumers, and even send "welcome wagons" to call 
on them and seek their patronage of local businesses. Towns and cities vie 
with other to increase population, and hold public celebrations when the popu- 
lation figure reaches certain milestones. On the other hand, cities or States 
which are underpopulated or have lost population look upon this as a misfor- 
tune and seek ways and means to attract new residents. It is a strange anomaly 
that this active desire for population increase on the local level should so often 
turn to fear when the idea of population increase on the national level, through 
immigration, is contemplated. And yet, on the basis of expert predictions to 
the effect that under present circumstances, our population v.'ill become station- 
ary within a few decades, it is only to immigration that we can look for the 
expanding population that an expanding economy demands. Aside from the 
importance of newcomers as consumers, immigrants have always contributed 
enormously to the development of our economy through bringing new skills, new 
processes and entire new industries, not to mention their scientific and cultural 
contributions. It thus appears that our first need in the field of immigration 


legislation is to change onr negative attitude of fear, suspicion and restrictive- 
ness to a positive attitude of welcome toward immigrants, recognizing this while 
this country has much to ofifer them it also has much to gain from them in 


A specific application of the fear of the foreigner, directed particularly toward 
the natives of certain countries, is embodied in the so-called national origins 
formula on which quota allowances for immigration from European countries 
have been based since the twenties, and on which immigration from Asia, made 
possible through recent legislation, is also based. The concept behind all of 
this legislation is that members of certain races or peoples are inherently less 
desirable human beings than are those belonging to other races or peoples, and 
that they are also less readily assimilable. The first of these concepts runs 
counter to everything that we as Quakers believe about the presence of the 
divine in every individual and the equality of every man before God. It like- 
wise is incompatible with all the findings of modern science as to the possibility 
of such a thing as a "pure" race or of racial transmission of individual virtues 
or vices. It also runs counter to the basic concept of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence that "all men are created equal" and other concepts of human equality 
on which our democracy was founded. One would expect it to be opposed by all 
who claim to support our democratic way of life, especially since we have so 
recently fought the bitterest war in history largely for the purpose of eradicating 
just such racial theories from control over the lives of individuals. Unfortu- 
nately, however, those who wish to preserve the quota system now defend it as 
though it were a part of the faith and heritage of our founding fathers and as 
such inviolable. They ignore the recentness of the introduction of this system 
into our immigration policy and the fact that it was admittedly adopted in order 
to discriminate against immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. We 
have indicated our complete rejection of the first concept upon which this system 
was founded, and we also reject, on the basis of actual experience, the concept 
that these people from eastern and southern Europe are not readily assimilable 
into American life. The American Friends Service Committee, through Friends 
meetings which have acted as sponsors, has taken a modest part in the resettle- 
ment of displaced persons under the Displaced Persons Act. The following are 
random excerpts from reports received from meetings regarding the families 
they have sponsored. 

"Members of the Friends Church had only words of joy and praise for the J. S. 
family, which arrived on October 25, 1950. A house has been furnished for them 
and he is working at the Carmel Screw Works. They are deeply grateful people 
and are really meaning a tremendous lot to both the Friends group and the wider 

"In answer to your inquiry about our DP family we can say they are fine. They 
are loved and respected by the community and are faithful to their work. They 
have a home and work here as long as they want it." 

"A. and M. O., Yugoslav born, 25 and 30 years old, arrived January 22, 1951. 
A. is a double amputee, but an amazingly well-adjusted individual. They both 
began promptly to finish small parts in a plastics factory, and within a month 
had moved to their own apartment. Their combined wages enable them to send 
a monthly CARE package to both of their families in Europe, and to pay back 
part of the loan we made them on their arrival. Arrangements have been made 
to provide A. with much-needed prostheses, which we hope will make it easier 
for him to get around by the time he is prepared to take a full-time draftsman's 

"V. and K. D. and their two children landed in America May 2, 1951. Within 
a week they had an apartment in Beth Ayres and V. was working 6 days a week 
at Tinari's Floral Gardens. In his own country he was legal adviser to the Lat- 
vian Government, but his hobby of gardening was his stepping stone over here. 
He uses Latin with liis Italian-born employer when his meager English is in- 
adequate. He seems to be a fine man and is working hard to master his third 
language at the age of 62. Mrs. D. also works at the greenhouse 3 days a week, 
and does cleaning 2 more. Both her employers have been generous and friendly, 
and we were pleased that she turned down a job in a city department store 
which is probably more to her taste, because of a sense of loyalty to her first 
friends in America. 

"The 17-year-okl son works in a garage, and will have enough money saved by 
fall to enter Wilmington College and work his way to a degree, if he qualifies for 
admission. The 15-year-old daughter attended the last month of Abington 


Friends Scliodl, ;iii(l iii>\v h:is a KP job at caiiii) for 10 weeks this siuiiniei'. Her 
parents should he able by tall to help her to finish school." 

"Tlie family of .lanis A. is happily settled on my small farm near Anderson. 
Janis has a $(iO per week job and works ni.uhts at a factory in town. Days he 
w( rks on the farm. Last week he was joined by Juris (". from liatvia. whr)ni I 
also 'signed' for 2 years ago. Juris also has a factoi'y jol) and lives with the 
A. family and helps on the farm. I cannot care for further DI"s. Tliese I have 
are tops, and are already highly satisfactory and respected in the community. 
They will make fine Americans." 

"The K. family have been in Baltimore almost 7 months. Father and son 
have kept the same jobs they started -with in a woodwork mill. Mr. K. has 
had several promotions. In March, after living in tire meeting house for over 
2 nionth.s. they rented a furnished apartment at $67 per month. Mrs. K has 
attended an English class and can understand our language quite well. She 
improves in speaking it day by day. The two men are planning to attend night 
school. They are very fine people, anxious to be independent. They are very 
generous and most appreciative of all that lias l)een done for them." 

"Our 'family' seems to be quite happy at tlie present. The father is still witli 
the C. C. Motor Co. where he began last October soon after their arrival here. 
He is pleased with his job, and tlie people there are well pleased with him and 
his work. He is a mechanic. He bouglit an old car for a small sum, made it 
over into a fine looking one, and expects to sell it for a good price. Now I hear 
that he has liought another one for .$60 and is going to fix it up and keep it. We 
think that he is (luite enterprising." 

"A better-than-average workman in the beginning, ^like has steadily im- 
proved as he came to know what was required of him, while Martha has made 
her way into the hearts of many friends. Little 8-niontli-old Stephen contrib- 
utes much to their apparent happiness. Intelligent, conscientious, and adapta- 
ble, they have made excellent progress and, at the end of a year and •") months, 
fit into the life of the community very well, and we feel will make worthy and 
useful citizens of the country they are already planning to adopt." 

These quotations, representing only a small percentage of the overwhelmingly 
favorable reports received, refer almost entirely to immigrants from the very 
countries discriminated against b.v the quota .system. To us they are living 
l)roof that sucli discrimination is entirely undeserved. 

In indicating our objections to the quota system on the basis of principle, we 
have not mentioned tlie hardships it has caused in countless individual cases, but 
tragic stories of family separation due to quota infiexiliility are legion. This is 
being brought to our attention particularly now in connection with families of dis- 
placed persons who have come to tlie t^nited States under our sponsorship but 
who must now' wait, in some cases many years, for reunion with other family 
members still in Eurojie who were not lucky enough to get here under the Dis- 
placed I'er.sons Act and must await their turn on the regular quota. Such heart- 
breaking separations have been the lot of immigrants to this country ever since 
the enactment of the quota system. Their toll in economic and emotional strain 
is incalculable. 

At the door of our quota system must also be laid thousands of lives lost in 
concenti-ation camp for lack of immigration opportunities that would have been 
readily available had it not been for quota restrictions. Even though we be- 
latedly made provision thi'ough the Displaced Persons Act for refugees to be 
admitted by borrowing against future quotas, the history of recent years has 
demonstrated how inadequate is dependence on emergenc.v legislation to remove 
the obstruction tlie quota presents to programs of rescue when terror and per- 
secution suddenly create thousands of refugees. Shortly before the war, efforts 
to secure emergency legislation even to bring in a few thousand children outside 
the quitfa met with failure and throughout the years of war and Nazi terror 
immigration was closed except to those refugees who could secure quota num- 
bers. It was nearly 2 years after the war before emergency legislation was 
initiated to remedy this situation, and more than a year of effort was required 
before the first bill was passed. When urgent need for revision was demonstrated 
it took another 2 years to secure the necessary amendments. Meanwhile the 
refugees whom the bill was designed to rescue remained in crowded DP camps 
sinking deeper into a despair and idleness which ran the of reducing their 
chances of final successful adjustment. This is hardly in keeping with our 
jiroud histor.v as a haven for the oppressed and obviously a new approach is re- 
quired in order to bring our practice more into line witli our announced policy 
of sharing and spreading the blessings of democracy. This applies not only in 


relation to tlie "emergency" problem of refugees — which we are beginning' to 
realize is not a temporary emergency, but a phenomenon of our times with which 
w^e are going to have to cope for years to come — but also in relation to providing 
our share of resettlement opportunities for persons in countries whose over- 
population is a threat to world peace and stability. We believe tliat the United 
States, with its vast natural and productive resources, can well absorb additional 
immigrants and that it has a special obligation to accept a fair share of these 
people. Such action would also have far reaching effect in encouraging other 
countries to accept their proportionate share. 

From rhe foregoing it is clear that we feel that a sound and equitable immi- 
gration law can never be built upon the discredited "national origins" concept, 
and that the quota system should be abandoned. For it should be substituted 
as simple a formula as possible to give equal opportunity to applicants from all 
countries dependent on tlieir personal qiialifications and not on tlieir fitting into 
a certain group or category of people. We recognize the validity of preferences 
for relatives of citizens or legal residents but feel tlaat caution should be used 
in setting up priorities for immigrants with specific occupational skills. It is 
important to preserve for newcomers and native l)orn workers alike the right to 
freedom of choice in employment, and to permit a wide diversity in types of 
immigrants admitted. While it may be admitted that there is need of a formula 
for some sort of quantitative, as well as qualitative, control over immigration 
we are not convinced tliat the present ceiling of approximately 150,000 quota 
immigrants a year represents the limit of our absorptive capacity. It may be 
that this should represent a basic number with flexibility provided so that the 
numbers can be increased as circumstances require. Such a system would make 
possible immediate and generous response to future emergency situations with- 
out the necessity for emergency legislation to meet each new need as it arises. 

The abandonment of the quota system would do away not only with the 
inequities that have long been suffered by natives of certain European countries, 
but also with the last vestiges of the infamous oriental-exclusion provisions which 
have built up so much ill-will toward this country in tlie East. We emphasize 
this because the improvement in the direction of eliminating racial exclusion 
which has been enacted into the new Immigration Act still leaves persons of 
Asiatic or half Asiatic ancestry chargeable to their countries of ancestry rather 
than of birth, a relic of racial discrimination that should certainly be elim- 
inated. The same applies to the provisions of the act denying the use of the 
British quota, for instance by persons in British dependencies in the West Indies, 
obviously intended as a I)low to Negro immigration from those countries. Al- 
thougli there is undoubtedly more fear as to the assimilaliilify of orientals even 
tlian of eastern and soutliern Europeans we can again point to our own experience 
to indicate that this fear is without foundation, given good will on the part of 
American communities to help in the assimilation process. During the war the 
American Friends Service Committee was active in the resettlement througliout 
the United States of .Tapanese and Japanese-Americans who had been ruthlessly 
uprooted from the west coast and thrust into Internment camps. We were from 
the beginning impressed by the loyalty, understanding and lack of bitterness of 
these people who had suffered such grave injustice at the hands of our Govern- 
ment and of many of their American neighbors. Also, as resettlement opportun- 
ities were found for them and neighborhoods prepared to receive them we found 
them fitting into new communities with remarkable facility. Employers who 
tried out one Japanese-American were more than likely to ask very soon for more. 
We ourselves still liave many of our own staff and they have proved to be uni- 
formly above the average in ability, devotion, and personal adjustment. 


In regard to provisions carried over into the new act from the Internal Secur- 
ity Act referring to the exclusion or deportation of aliens or the denial of citizen- 
ship on the basis of past or present membership in certain parties or organ- 
izations considered totalitarian or subversive, we might state that we consider 
it unsound and unwise to incorporate into our basic immigration law restrictions 
directed at a present crisis situation. At the same time, we believe that the 
security provisions previously in effect gave adequate protection from the admis- 
sion of persons who constitute a real threat to our security. Basically, we believe 
that democracy will not be saved by attempts at "thought control" or by exclu- 
sion or expulsion of those who espouse different ideologies. Democracy is a 
dynamic and expanding philosophy wliose preservation depends, rathei'. on its 
being continuously strengtliened from within and practiced to the utmost. If 


so practiced it has nothing to fear from any competing philosophy. We feel that 
it is particularly unfortunate to bar students or visitors on account of their 
past or present l^eliefs since contact with democracy in action would be the- 
most potent force to modify those beliefs and send back new ideas with them to 
their respective countries. 

"second class citizenship" 

We are deeply concerned by the provisions of the cui-rent act wliicli make 
distinctions between native-born citizens and naturalizpd citizens, to tlie dis- 
advantage of the latter. We can see no justifiable basis for such distinctions and 
believe that they should be eliminated. We are likewise concerned by the depor- 
tation pi'ovisions which are punitive in character and retroactive in application. 
It is our conviction that would-be immigrants to this country should, from the 
time of their initial application, be handled according to American standards of 
justice and fair play, that persons once admitted for permanent immigration 
should thereafter be accorded the protection and benefits accorded to United- 
States citizens, (with the exception, of course, of the right to vote, prior to 
naturalization), and that fraud in securing admission should be the sole basis 
for deportation. Even in such cases, due consideration should be given to extenu- 
ating circumstances. 


Another source of concern in the act is its tendency to concentrate power in 
the hands of» administrative olficials and its failure to provde adequately for 
review procedures. We believe that previously existing forms of protective 
review should be preserved, including application of the Administrative Pro- 
cedures Act. In addition we recommend that the present Administrative Board 
of Immigration Appeals should be made a statutory body and that a similar 
review board should be set up to review consular decisions which are not now- 
subject to any review procedures. 


We are very much gratified that the new act has made provisions for an 
alternative naturalization oath for persons with conscientious olijeotions to the 
bearing of arms. Our one furtlier sugiiestion in this cimnertion would be that 
the exemption thus provided should be extended to persons whose ol)jection is 
on the grounds of conscience, as well as to those whose stand is based on 
"religious training and belief." Although the latter takes care of conscientious 
objectors within the Religious Society of Friends, the experience of the American 
Friends Service Committee in administering programs for conscientious objec- 
tors, non-Friends as well as Friends, has shown us that there are many people 
who are deeply conscientious in their convictions on pacifism but who do not 
express those convictions in religious terms. 


We do not wish to terminate this statement without further comment about 
the international effects of our immigration legislation. xVs the most powerful 
and wealthy of the western nations, as well as one offering leadership in the 
preservation of democracy, it is only natural that our actions in this field have 
wide repercussions in all other potential immigration countries, and also Id 
the countries now feeling the pressures of would-be emigrants. The passage of 
our Displaced Persons Act raised hopes and morale among refugees throughout 
the world and stimulated resettlement opportunities in other countries. Con- 
versely, the recent termination of that act, followed closely by restrictive general 
immigration legislation, has spread despair among refugees and members of 
surplus populations, has discouraged other countries which might offer a haven, 
and has created unfavorable reaction toward the United States in many parts 
of the world. A recent report from one of our staff members in France has this 
to say : 

"Needless to say, the i)assing of the IMcCarran Act was viewed in France with 
great dismay by people concerned with the refugee question. Several French 
newspapers had column headlines : "United States Closes its Doors to Refugees," 
and similar statements. 

"In a country which has little choice in the matter of the refugees it receives, 
there is of course bound to be strong feeling against a measure which tightens 
restrictions (already considered pretty sti-ong) applying to innnigration. 


"The fact that the United States was settled comparatively recently by iiumi- 
grants and now boasts of having a higher standard of living than any other 
country in the world naturally makes the new restrictions on immigrants seem 
even harsher than they otherwise would. I should be surprised if the passing 
of this act has not contributed to a certain extent to the feeling against the 
United States Government which I have noticed has increased over here during 
the past few months." 

At the present time immigration opportunities are at the lowest point in years, 
to the great consternation of all concerned with the migration problem, including 
that of refugees and surplus populations. It is liard to think of anything that 
would give greater impetus to national and international efforts toward the 
solution of this entire problem than would prompt and vigorous action on the 
part of the United States in liberalizing its immigration legislation. Such action, 
we believe, would be in our own long-term best interests both internally and 
because it would contril)ute to the increased well-being and stability of a world 
in a state of dangerous tension. 


We have made no pretense in this statement of providing an exhaustive 
analysis of our present immigration law, but we believe that we have coverea 
the main matters of principle which should underlie our immigration policy. 
We hope most sincerely that top priority will be given in the next session of 
Congress to the enactment of a bill that will replace the present Immigration 
and Nationality Act with a new act preserving its positive features and at the 
same time embodying the principles outlined above. 

The Chairman. The next witness on our schedule is Monsignor 


Monsignor Swanstrom. I am Msgr. Edward E. Swanstrom, execu- 
tive director of War Relief Services, National Catholic "Welfare Con- 
ference, 550 Fifth Avenue, New York. 

I am accompanied by two assistants, Eev. Aloysius Wycislo and 
Mr. James J. Norris, whom I brought with me thinking that you 
might have some questions they, who are experts in this field, could 

I should like to read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Monsignor Swanstrom. First of all, I wish to express my appre- 
ciation for being given this opportunity of appearing before you. 
I feel that you are studying one of the most important issues facing 
our coimtry, and that it has a tremendous bearing on our efforts to 
help create a world at peace. I am sure that the hours of testimony 
that you have heard, and the statements you have received as you went 
about the comitry all attest to the deep interest of many thousands 
of our citizens in the immigration and naturalization issue. 

As executive director of War Eelief Services, NCWC, I am charged 
with the administration of the broad relief and resettlement program 
of the American Catholic bishops. During the past few years we 
have been privileged to have a part in the resettlement of 155,748 
displaced persons in the United States under the Federal Displaced 
Persons Act as amended. 

It is now generally agreed that the majority of the 393,542 persons 
admitted under the act have been fairly well settled within the coun- 


try, even though many of them may have shifted to different localities 
from the ones in winch they were ori^jinally placed. I doubt very 
sincerely that any of the early fears that those i)eoi)le would displace 
American citizens from their homes or their jobs were justified. More 
than anything else, our experience under that legislation demonstrated 
that people freely welcomed and generously assisted by both public 
and private agencies cannot only readily adjust to our American 
economy but can add new strength and new vitality to American 

I have just returned from a world-wide survey of our own opera- 
tions in Europe, the ]\Iiddle East, India, Pakistan, and the Far East. 
1 have come back convinced more than ever before of the need and 
desirability of a flexible and democratic immigration policy on the 
part of the United States. We need an immigration program that is 
sufficiently elastic to enable whatever administration may be in office 
to face up squarely to a domestic and foreign policy which is in keep- 
ing with the position of world leadershiji which the United States 
enjoys today. It is foolhardy to lose sight of the fact that our immi- 
gration policy has a foreign as well as domestic impact. Our immigra- 
tion policy has as great an effect on our neighbors as the technical 
and economic assistance we are extending abroad. Our immigration 
policy has an economic, psychological, and political character of an 
extent that would be difficult to measure. 

In light of these considerations, I think it is most fortunate that the 
creation of your Commission has given us an oppoi'tunity to reassess 
our entire immigration and naturalization structure and ])olicy. We 
have today an American policy on immigration which is completely 
outmoded, out of harmony with our ideals and actions, and completely 
at variance with the foreign policy wdiicli we are pursuing in accord- 
ance with such ideals. Many feel that our new immigration law, as 
enacted by the Eighty-second Congress, is even more restrictive than 
those it set out to recodify. The national origins quota system, 
around wdiich our immigration policy and law is built, is prejudicial 
and discriminatory and should be abolished. In its stead we might 
well establish, as has been pointed out here before, an annual admis- 
sion figure in ratio to our ])opulation ; for example, one new innnigrant 
to every 500 people in our country. These opportunities for admis- 
sion to the United States might then be given to ])eople in accordance 
with American interest and need, and the qualifications, needs, and 
family relationships of those who would benefit or be benefited by 
a ]ilace within our American economy. 

Qualified experts can easily woi'k out the ratio of different groups 
of people to be admitted under such a liberal policy. The most im- 
portant thing is that we should have a positive rather than a negative 
policy of immigration ; a policy that would tend to Avelcome people 
to our shores i-ather than one that seems to be designed to make it as 
difficult as possible for them to come to our country. 

Everyone knows that it is a sorry world in which we are living. 
Upon my return from a trip around the globe I added np the total 
of the groups of dislocated ]ieoples among whom I had visited. It 
amounted to well over 88 million. Naturally the vast majority of 
these millions will have to be integrated into the economies in which 
they presently find themselves. However, whole thousands of them 
will inevitabl}^ haA'e to be resettled in other lands. To cite but an ex- 


ample or two — AVestern Germany, despite all its valiant efforts, will 
never be able to assimilate adequately the 7,()0(),U()0 so-called expellees 
and the newly arrived 1,800,000 refugees from the Soviet zone. Even 
as we sit here they are comino- across the border. A congressional 
committee study made a few years ago verified the study made by the 
Bonn Government ^linistry for Expellees that at least l,000,o6o of 
these people would have to be drained off by emigration. Italy cannot 
possibly absorb the thousands of returnees from her colonies any more 
than she can al)Sorb the 250,000 new hands entering her labor market 
each year. In both of these countries and in other countries of West- 
ern Europe there are still thousands of old United Nations refugees 
and iron curtain country refugees and escapees who cannot possibly 
be absorbed. As I indicated above, these are but a few examples. 

Now I do not mean to imply that America should absorb all of 
these unwanted thousands, but certainly our country can give an 
opportunity for resettlement to a certain portion of them. Under 
llie policy I have suggested we might make provision for oOO,000 of 
them over the period of the next o years. This would be in harmony 
with some of the most enlightened suggestions made by the leaders 
of our Government, would not be discriminatory in any respect to 
others who desire to come to our shores, and would be completely 
in harmony with our often-expressed desire and our promise to help 
these people in every way possible. By thus acting, we would be 
giving a further example to the other countries of the free world 
who can readily absorb many of these people as inunigrants and 
who seem prone to follow America's lead and example. 

In Europe this fall I was told time and time again of the demoraliz- 
ing effect of the ])assage of our new immigration law at the last session 
of Congress. Thousands of refugees and escapees feel that the door 
to America is closed to them forever. Many of course might never 
have been able to come here, but by the passage of this law they saw- 
hope itself disappear. 

By the same token, a revision of our immigration policy along 
truly Christian, democratic, freedom-giving lines would give hope 
and courage to the people and nations with whose help we are strug- 
gling to bring about world peace. I cannot minimize what the United 
States has already helped to accomplish. AVe can look with just 
pride upon the accomplish.ments of the ECA, ]MSA, our point 4 pro- 
gram, PICMME [Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the 
IMovement of Migrants from Europe], with the support we have given 
it, as well as our support of earlier agencies such as UNHRA and the 
IRO. As you travel around the world you feel the good effects of all 
those things. But our efforts cannot rest there. 

The task that we face in bringing about a more equitable distribution 
of the world's peoples and goods is a gigantic one. Its vastness must 
not deter us, however, because its solution, and only its solution, 
courageously sought and as courageously pursued and obtained, can 
put us on the path to the peace the world has been seeking. ]Many 
pious words have been written and spoken since the close of World 
War II about this issue. All too little has been accomplished in 
the realm of its solution. 

This year both political parties and their candidates have uttered 
their convictions that a solution must be found. It is my hope that 
this Commission and the report which it shall render will resolutely 


set forth the fact that our country must assume its share of providing 
home and job opportunities to the homeless and displaced abroad. 
It has always been our part to offer a haven and sanctuary to the 
oppressed. Our country has grown great and remains strong through 
its early willingness to provide a homeland and opportunity for suc- 
cessful living to hundreds of thousands from other shores. A return 
to that way of thinking and manner of acting within the limits of 
our ability to properly absorb and provide for new immigrants is 
required in this half of the twentieth century if we are to endure 
as a free nation in a free world. I would put it that strongly. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Monsignor. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. jMousiguor, I wonder if you would care to indicate 
to the Commission the experience of War Relief Services in the ques- 
tion of the relative absorbability of groups of different nationalities. 
That is one of the problems with which the Commission has been 
concerned, and your organization has had a great deal of experience 
in that. We might profit by your views on it. 

Monsignor Swanstrom. We did find that some nationalities of 
whom there w^ere, what you might call, islands in the United States, 
concentrations of their nationality in certain large cities, did have a 
tendency to find it difficult to find their w\ay into those communities 
largely because of their desire to be among people who speak their own 
language and have somewhat the same customs. I always thought we 
did too little on the other side to help people understand English and 
a little more about our American customs so that would not neces- 
sarily happen. Some nationalities wdio weren't concentrated in par- 
ticular places had no difficulty, of course. I can think particularly of 
Estonians or Latvians. One doesn't think of them settling that way. 
They had no difficulty. We did have that where we had large nation- 
ality groups, because of their relatives and friends as well as them- 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Did you find, however, once they did find them- 
selves distributed in whichever way they felt best that they had diffi- 
culty adjusting to the American scene? 

Monsignor Swanstrom. None whatsoever. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Did you find a difference among differing groups 
as to the ease of their adjustment ? 

Monsignor Swanstrom. I don't think so. Father Wycislo might 
have some statement to make on that. 

Reverend Wycislo. I think somewhat along the same line. I think 
the children help a great deal. They get into the schools and tell their 
people about it. It is an education to get into some of the communities 
and see how quickly the children get into the schools and how^ quickly 
thev pick up the American w^ay of life. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Thank you. 

Commissioner O'Grady. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might bring 
up this question. We have also been trying to learn what the effect of 
our immigration policy is on the conduct of our foreign policy and our 
relations with the peoples of other countries. 

I wonder, Monsignor Swanstrom, if you or Mr. Norris could furnish 
the Commission with specific evidence of that as you have seen it. 

Monsignor Swanstrom. Two things stand out in my mind. Any 
[)lace you go among these dislocated groups, if you mention the pos- 
sibility of their coming to the United States through an immigration 


program, it fills them with a hope and a courage to face what they 
are up against. I notice too, as I tried to point out in my paper, when 
it was announced — and you can bet your bottom dollar it was an- 
nounced in every refugee camp as well as the various refugee groups — 
that we had restricted our immigration policy, there was a let-down 
in the spirit of these people, and they became very demoralized about 
it. I am told, and on good authority, by the leaders of the social 
workers — we have about 200 social workers working among the hard 
core of DP's — that they are completely demoralized because all im- 
migration opportunities are cut off. 

Mr. NoRRis. To amplify on what Monsignor Swanstrom has said on 
the relation of American policy and the policy of other countries 
in immigration, as Monsignor Swanstrom pointed out, the position 
of leadership has been taken by the United States, or forced uj^on the 
United States. Today we provide economic and military aid. We are 
supporting the intergovernmental community for immigration. We 
are supporting the Government escapee program for refugees'. 

Now, on the other hand, we are refusing opportunities for migrants 
to come to the United States. Shortly after our new policy was an- 
nounced the Australians announced an immigration cut by 50 percent 
in 1953 and the Canadians announced a drastic cut. South America 
greatly reduced its immigration. I think the leadership America has 
taken in immigration is bound to reflect in other areas. It is diffi- 
cult for us, trj'ing to promote migration to other areas as w^ell as to 
the United States, to stand up and tell them to take migrants when 
the United States refuses to open its doors in a generous way. 

Commissioner O'Grady. Have you heard any specific statements 
from people in foreign countries as to how they feel about the immi- 
gration policy of the United States ? 

Monsignor Swanstrom. It is hard to recall them offhand specifi- 
cally. You hear them frequently turning it against us, saying that 
America is preaching one thing and acting the other way. 

The Protestant leaders have emphasized doing something immedi- 
ately. I feel just as strongly as they do on that. I don't think it is 
something we can put off for 3 or 4 years. The time is now, and we 
have to begin to do it by doing away with quotas and setting a ceil- 
ing, giving somebody the ability to use those quotas within the given 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Monsignor. 

Our next witness will be Judge Levinthal. 


Judge Levinthal. I am Louis E. Levinthal, and I represent the 
Hebrew Sheltering and Immigi-ant Aid Society, the United Service 
for New Americans, and the National Council of Jewish Women. 

I am accompanied by William Males, administrative assistant of the 
Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society, Miss Ann S. Petluck, 

25356—52 97 


assistant executive director of United Service for New Americans, 
and Abraham Rockmore, counsel for the Hebrew Sheltering and Im- 
migrant Aid Society. 

With your permission, I should like to read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Judge Levintiial. As I mentioned, I am here representing the 
Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society, the United Service 
for New Americans, which overseas operates through the Joint Dis- 
tribution Committee, and the National Council of Jewish Women, 
These American organizations are the leading Jewish agencies in the 
field of migi-ation, resettlement, and naturalization. They have a vast 
and rich body of experience in the day-to-day w^ork in the field of 
migration and naturalization. 

The proposals jointly made by these organizations, I believe, stem 
from a thorough working knowledge of the problems, and a deep 
understanding of the democratic heart of America which motivates 
their activities for the mutual benefit of the newcomer and of our 

We feel that the United States needs and can absorb more immi- 
grants; that immigration is beneficial to the United States as well as 
to the alien. We submit that our existing innnigraiton laws have a 
strong restrictive flavor and philosophy which reflects a distrust of the 
stranger that is alien to our culture and our democratic traditions of 
welcome and haven. We believe that a fair and humane immigration 
policy can and should be established. After long consideration, it is 
the firm belief of tlie organizations I represent that such a fair and 
humane immigration policy should embody, as a minimum, the follow- 
ing basic principles : 

1. Each prospective immigrant should be judged on his own merits 
and not according to his place of birth or his racial background. 
Simply stated, this means the elimination of the national-origin 

A substantial increase in the present limits on the numbers permitted 
entry under existing laws, on a planned resettlement basis, is not only 
desirable but essential to our continued development as a Nation, 

2. The standards of admission to the United States should be revised 
to proctect the interests of the United States and at the same time to 
give fair and humane reatment to the prospective immigrant, giving 
full recogniion to the principle of reformation which is basic to all 
religious, legal, and moral standards. 

3. Because the immigration processes are of concern and benefit 
both to the United States and to the immigrant, it is essential that 
reasonable and adequate review practices be established. 

4. There should be one governmental agency to control both the 
issuance of visas and the admission of aliens. 

5. Once a person has been admitted for permanent residence to this 
country, lie should not be deported unless his entry was based on fraud. 

6. Distinction between naturalized and native citizens should be 
abolished, except where fraud in obtaining citizenship is proved. 

I know that some of these projiosals might seem unreal, but I think 
on mature judgment you will think they are basically just and I think 
practically w'ise for the welfare of the United States. 

There has been voluminous testimony before this Commission con- 
cerning the fallacious and vicious nature of the national-orgin sys- 


tern, which is based on an outmoded racist theory. I feel strongly that 
this system contradicts the basic principles of American democracy — 
that an individual sliould be judged only by his individual worth 
and merits, and not where he happened to be born, a fact over which 
he had no control. I believe this system is a malignant growth and 
must be rooted out. 

Many people who agree in principle that the national-origin quota 
system should be eliminated have asked, "What is the alternative?" 

We should like to offer an alternative which we consider simple, 
effective, and workable. We believe that our capacity to absorb new 
immigrants is much greater than any present or contemplated levels 
of immigration. We respectfully submit that a proper ''floor' would 
be in the neighborhood of about 300,000, which is approxinuitely two- 
tenths of 1 percent of our population, or a ratio of 1 new person ta 
every 500 residents of the United States. 

The settmg of anj- maximum ceiling figure should be undertaken 
by Congress in such a manner as to permit flexibility according to 
A^ariations in our ability to absorb larger numbers. In other words, 
we suggest that Congress sliould fix a minimum floor and a maximum 

We suggest the appointment of a itipartisan commission by the Presi- 
dent, witli the a]iproval of Congress, representing economic, welfare,, 
and (lovermnent interests. Such a commission would have a continu- 
ing responsibility to study the situation and to set the number of quota 
immigrants admissible on a periodic "as needed'' basis, using a sliding^ 
scale between the minimum "floor" and the maximum "ceiling" set 
by Congress. Domestic and world-wide factors would be taken into 
account by this Commission in establishing such quotas. 

Once the total quota has been set for a given year, the problem of 
allocation arises. Again we feel that only a simple mechanism is 
neede<l. At the present time, the prospective immigrant registers his 
desire to immigrate to the Ignited States Avith an American official 
abroad. Xow it is the consul. This practice should, of course, be 

We believe that the present nonquota category should be retained, 
and in addition thei'e should be preferences based on the following^ 
categories : 

1. Family reunions of fireside relatives. 

2. Family reunion up to the third degree of consanguinity. As you 
know, such a priority was established under the DP Act. 

3. Persons of distinguished skill and merit, such as eminent scien- 
tists, recognized artists, etc. 

4. A certain percentage within the preference category should be 
allocated by the Commission on the basis of the foreign-policy needs 
of the United States, and special emergency requirements throughout 
the world. 

5. After the afore-mentioned preferences have been satisfied, all 
qualified potential immigrants remaining sliould receive their visas 
in accordance with the date of their registration with an American 
official abroad on a world-wide basis of first come, first served. This 
would incorporate present practices, but would eliminate the assign- 
ment of persons to any specific quota. 

We believe that this system is simple, effective, and worable, nor 
is it very different from the practice of visa issuance now in effect. 


But it would eliminate the discriminatory national origins quota 

The benefits of any law, no matter how perfect, can be lost if the 
administration of that law is not effective. At the present time, the 
responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws is di- 
vided between the State Department and the Justice Department. 
Other agencies of the Government, such as the Public Health Service 
and the intelligence agencies, also become involved. There has been 
a lack of uniform interpretation of the immigration laws and regula- 
tions between these departments, each department deciding for itself 
wliat action to take. The American consul may issue a visa to an 
alien and on the same facts and circumstances the Immigration Service 
may exclude this very same alien. As a matter of fact, among the 
American consuls themselves there are different interpretations on 
the same or similar facts and circumstances. I know that when I 
was in Germany in 1947 and 1948 as advisor to General Clay, I came 
across a number of instances where the consul in Frankfurt and the 
consul in Munich disagreed on the very same facts and circumstances. 
The American consuls are vested with absolute discretion to grant or 
withhold a visa depending upon their individual attitude toward an 
applicant. They are, in fact, omnipotent. Even in cases where the 
Board of Immigration Appeals makes a ruling, such a ruling is not 
necessarily binding upon the Visa Division. 

We therefore recommend the establishment of one independent 
Government agency which would issue visas and also be responsible 
for the admission of aliens. 

The Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch 
of the Government recommended that the visa-issuing functions of 
the Department of State be transferred to the Department of Justice. 
While we agree with the Hoover Commission recommendation that 
the visa-issuing functions and admission of aliens should be under 
one Government agency, we feel that such an agency should be neither 
the State Department nor the Justice Department, but, as previously 
stated, an independent agency. 

The State Department's basic function is the handling of foreign 
affairs throughout the world. Tlie American consuls are required to 
perform many other duties, and visa issuance is only a small part of 
their responsibility. The Justice Department is mainly concerned 
with law enforcement in the United States and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service is only a small part of its over-all function. 

A new independent Government agency concerned solely with the 
issuance of visas and the admission of aliens would be advantageous 
in many ways. For one thing, there would be uniformity of interpre- 
tation of the laws and regulations. Better and more expeditious 
service in visa issuance would result, since Government officials issuing 
visas would be concerned solely with that function, and not with many 
duties unrelated to visa issuance. 

Our next recommendation is that there be established reasonable 
and adequate review practices. At the present time, there is no formal 
provision for appeal from the decision of a consul in refusing to grant 
a visa. Wliile it is true that the alien's American sponsor may request 
the Visa Division to make an informal review, the Visa Division can 
only request the consul for his version of the denial. The consul 
presently has the absolute and final right to reject or grant a visa. 


It may be contended that the prospective immigrant has no rights 
nnder onr laws and therefore no provision can be made for an appeal 
by him. But, as I heard one of the prior witnesses suggest, it may 
be true that the immigrant has no such right nnder our laws, and 
we contend that immigration is important not just to him but also to 
his American sponsor. Therefore the denial of a visa may be a depri- 
vation not only to the prospective immigrant but to Americans as 
well. We suggest that a review procedure could be based on the right 
of appeal by the American sponsor. This review procedure could 
be made a very simple process. A review board could be established 
within the agency administering the issuance of visas. We do not 
desire to institute an appeal procedure w^hich would be dilatory. 
However, we believe that as in any other administrative agency, rea- 
sonable and adequate administrative appeal procedures can be set 
up within the visa-issuing agency to make certain that the law is 
being properly administered, and that no injustice is done. There 
should also be recourse to the courts in the same way that there is 
recourse to the courts where other administrative bodies have allegedly 
abused their discretion. 

And now I come to the proposal which may on first blush appear 
to be excessively radical. I submit it is sound and just, morally right, 
and practically feasible. 

Under our immigration laws, deportation has been used as a form 
of punishment, despite what our Supreme Court has said repeatedly 
about our deportation not being punishment. This concept of de- 
portation stems from the medieval idea of exile and banishment. 
Deportation of an alien not only punishes the alien involved, but also 
punishes members of his family who are entirely innocent. We believe 
that an alien who committed a wrong should be punished for his trans- 
gression on the same basis as a citizen. We do not believe, however, 
there should be the added penalty of banishment. Once a person is 
admitted into the United States for permanent residence, he should 
have the privilege of remaining in this country, unless his entry was 
based on fraud. 

Our present laws are unfortunately based on a concept that aliens 
are admitted here on probation, and that they should be held to a 
higher standard of conduct than the native-born. Once we have ac- 
cepted an alien in this country, it is our duty to help him become a 
useful and law-abiding member of the community. If he fails to do 
so, then let the punishment fit his crime, as it would that of any other 
member of the community. Deportation is not a method of correction, 
nor can it solve any of the basic problems which may stem from social 
conditions which should be corrected. 

One need only refer to a case like that of Luciano, who is now in 
Italy. He is much more dangerous as a criminal there, it seems to me, 
than if he were here under surveillance or under probation of some 
court in the United States. 

The Chairman. I wouldn't agree with you, Judge. I would rather 
he stay where he is. 

Judge Levixthal. But he is dangerous to us, according to reports, 
carrying on crimes on an international scale to our detriment. I don't 
think he ever should have been admitted if he was bad originally, but 
if he became bad here he should be treated here just as any other 
American citizen. 


I can understand, jVIr. Chairman, that you feel as you do because 
you have been working in the practices of the laws of our country. 

In the light of our established practices, it may seem quixotic to 
advocate that immiorants, who entered our country without fraud, 
should not be deported, and that all citizens, whether native-born or 
naturalized, should be equal before the law. But I submit that upon 
mature consideration we shall find it to be both ethically right and 
practically wise — certainly in our administration of criminal justice 
and in our system of penology — to heed the oft-repeated Biblical 
admonition first enunciated by Moses more than 3,500 years ago : "Ye 
shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home- 
born." (Leviticus 24: 22.) 

Since my time for presentation before this Commission is limited, 
I ask leave to submit a written statement, which you have. In this 
statement, the points I have discussed are covered in greater detail, 
along with the other principles which the voluntary agencies I repre- 
sent believe should be embodied in our immigration laws. 

The Chairman. Thank you. The written statement you referred to 
will be inserted in the record at this point. A prepared statement 
which I understand the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid So- 
ciety wishes to submit for the record will be included when it is 
received. (See p. 1783.) 

The statement submitted by Judge Levinthal follows :) 

Statement Submitted by Judge Louis E. Levinthal, of Philadelphia, in 
Behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women, the Hebrew Sheltering 
AND Immigrant Aid Society, United Service for New Americans 

The following statement is presented to the President's Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization on behalf of agencies which have a combined 
history in the field of immigration and settlement of nearly 70 years. These 
agencies, which have together aided hundreds of thousands of newcomers to the 
United States, have developed a concept of planned settlement and Americaniza- 
tion aid which combine the techniques of social welfare and technical aid for 
the immigrant. They operate through a network of local affiliates and provide 
a program of aid throughout the country that includes financial and medical 
aid, individual and family rehabilitation, employment services and loan funds, 
retraining, special services for children, protection and social and cultural 
adjustment. Overseas, refugees and immigrants are similarly aided where 
necessary and guided through the maze of migration technicalities and problems. 

The agencies on whose behalf I speak are the National Council of Jewish 
Women, the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society, and the United 
Service for New Americans, which operates overseas through the American Joint 
Distribution Committee. 

The National Council of Jewish Women is an organization with an enrolled 
membership of over 96,000 women in 245 operating local sections. In 1903, the 
council initiated its special program for aid to newcomers at the request of the 
Government. It provides services on a nonsectarian basis to prospective im- 
migrants, helping them from their arrival at the port of entry continuously until 
they have been integrated into our American way of life and have proudly 
achieved United States citizenship. In 1946, some of these national services 
were merged with the National Refugee Service to form LTnited Service for New 
Americans. Members of the council have continued their long and deep interest 
in serving the foreign-born, through the local sections, particularly in the fields 
of Americanization and integration. 

HIAS, the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society, founded in 1884, 
is now in its sixty-eighth year of continual and uninterrupted service to Jewish 
migrants. The original program of the society was to provide shelter and assist 
in finding employment for Jewish immigrants : subsequently it became inter- 
national in scope and character to include all phases of migrant aid, with branch 
officps in the United States, and branches and committees in Europe, the Far 
and Middle East, South Africa, iind South and Central America. 


The general program is as follows: To t'aeilitate atul assist in tlie departnre 
of Jews from countries where they find it diflficiilt or impossible to live, to 
facilitate the legal entry of Jewish immigrants to the United States and to 
other countries which off.n- them a haven ; to provide them with temporary 
shelter, food, and other necessary aid ; to transport them to their final destina- 
tions ; to help residents in the United States prepare and file necessary immi- 
gration documents. The program includes representations to governments for 
the liberalization of innnigration laws. 

HIAS is currently engaged in its traditional work of facilitating the entrance 
of Jewish inmugrants to the United States and other countries, and ast4sting 
them in becoming good citizens in their newly adopted lands. 

HIAS derives its funds from public subscription and contribution, mainly 
from private individuals, labor, religious, and fraternal organizations, and 
comnumity funds. 

United Service for New Americans and its predecessor agencies have a history 
of 1!) years of active work for the immigi'ation, resettlement and integration ot 
Jewish refugees in the United States. Originally organized as the National 
Coordinating Committee for Aid to German Refugees in l!»o4. the agency was 
reorganized and expande<l in 1939 to become the National Refugee Service. In 
1946, when the extent of the displaced-persons problem became known, the 
NRS was merged with the National Service to the Foreign-Born Section of the 
National Council of Jewish Women to form the present agency. 

The Joint Distribution Committee serves as the overseas agency for United 
Service. Like USNA, its funds come from the United Jewish Appeal. The pro- 
grams of both agencies are geared to provide rescue first and joint social 
planning for the benefit of the immigrant, his family, and the Nation as a 

The keystone of the United Service program has been its development of 
Jewish communal responsibility for the welfare and speedy adjustment of new- 
comers. This policy has made it possible to settle newcomers successfully in 
hundreds of conununities in all 48 States and the District of Columbia. 

This very brief description of the work of each ageucy I represent here today 
is given primarily to demonstrate their long, practics. experience in the field of 
immigration and naturalization. This statement, including the proposals being 
made, stem from a thorough working knowledge of the problems and a ileep 
understanding of the democratic heart of America which motivates their activities 
for the mutual benefit of the newcomer and of our Nation. 


The restrictive immigration and naturalization policies of King George III of 
England was one of the sore points of the Colonies, and is specifically mentioned 
in the list of grievances against him in the Declaration of Independence. Our 
forefathers, immigrants themselves, were well aware that continued immigra- 
tion was of vital importance to the growth of the country. Until comparatively 
recently in our development from a new land to the leading Nation of the free 
world, inmiigration was encouraged. Early congressional interest was centered 
in aiding the immigrant, and the first laws actually passed by Congress dealt with 
protecting him from bad transportation conditions on vessels, and giving him 
special assistance in land settlement. 

In 1S75, recognizing the need to control the kinds of persons entering the 
country for permanent settlement, legislation was passed to make certain that 
no convicts should be admitted and that women should not be imported for 
immoral purposes. It was not until 1SS2, under special circumstances, that 
Congress passed the first discriminatory measure dealing with innnigration, when 
they excluded the Chinese, and it was not until 1921 that restrictions were placed 
on the numbers of immigrants to be admitted. 

The Immigration Act of 1921, and as amended in 1924, announced the national- 
origins theory as a policy over the strenuous objections of many people who felt 
that this was discriminatory legislation. In 1940 the nationality laws wei-e 
codified and alien-registration legislation was enacted. Yet even during this 
period there was a recognition of the need periodically to amend the law to in- 
corporate provisions urgently required to solve current social problems. Sus- 
pension of deportation was authorized in hardship cases ; the practice of pre- 
examination was authorized by regidation to help aliens adjust their status. 
Special legislation to meet the needs of the refugee problem and the displaced 
person was enacted in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and liberalized through 
amendments in 1950 and 1951. The trend was definitely toward an awareness 


of the human problems and needs and acceptance of America's responsibilities 
as a leader among nations. The enactment of the Internal Security Act in 1950 
was a i-etrogression. By seriously curtailing the rights of aliens and enlarging 
the powers of deportation, it virtually set the tone for the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952. 

This reflects a distrust of the stranger which is truly alien to our culture 
and our democratic traditions of welcome and haven. While in limited areas 
it makes feeble attempts to correct some of the wrongs which had been obvious 
in our immigration law, it is on the whole strongly restrictive in philosophy and 
in actuality. 

Our country can absorb a greater number of immigrants than has been per- 
mitted under the quota act. The continuing flow of immigrants into our country 
has been the yeast which makes our cake rise ; the combined cultures of many 
countries has given our own culture its special flavor. Immigrants who flee 
persecution, who seek democracy, become the strongest exponents of the demo- 
cratic way of life. 

There is a growing expression of interest in the United States in continuing 
and increasing immigration. The Displaced Persons Act has proved that new 
people can be assimilated into the United States and that they have ability to 
contribute greatly to our welfare at little cost to ourselves. Our exi^erience 
with the displaced persons gives the lie to the quota system, presumably based 
on a belief that natives of some countries cannot be integrated. 

It is a fact that 85 percent of the DP's admitted and successfully settled 
throughout the country came from those very eastern European countries against 
which the quota system discriminates. It is truly a tragedy for our Nation 
that the future quotas of these countries are now so heavily mortgaged that 
unless the system is changed, we will be deprived of many strong future citizens. 

The United States has a special responsibility in the field of inmiigration, both 
as a world leader and as a country built by immigrants. It should enact laws 
giving immigrants just and fair treatment and admitting as large a number as 
the Nation needs to continue its development and add to its strength. 

A first step toward achieving these aims is the abolishment of the national- 
origins system, with its discriminatory and repugnant racist concept. 


The effect of the national origins system was not felt until the late 1920's, and 
coincided with the beginning of world-wide and domestic crises. As a matter of 
actual fact, there were more persons leaving the United States in this period 
than were entering it. Its restrictive aspects, therefore, were not brought home 
in a practical sense. Attention of the average citizen, as well as the voluntary 
welfare agencies, were focused on the practical problems of the moment, the 
growing threat of war, and the final winning of the war itself. This was not the 
time to agitate for a reform in our immigration policy, when the world was in 
flames and our every effort was required to extinguish the conflagration. 

Immediately after the war, when the Allied armies liberated the survivors of 
the Nazi concentration camps and labor camps, some immediate solution to the 
problem of the displaced persons was the major essential. At that time, Presi- 
dent Harry S. Truman attempted to alleviate the situation through extraordinary 
and emergency measures within the framework of existing law. The country, 
aroused by the horrors disclosed and the pitiable situation of the DP's, set up a 
public clamor for special legislation to offer asylum to large numbers of refugees. 
Because of the national origins system, nothing could be done within the frame- 
work of the law. The Displaced Persons Act was consequently passed in 1948 
and twice amended, to permit more than 300,000 persons to enter the country, 
irrespective of country of origin or quota numbers. Nonetheless, this was 
achieved only through a plan of mortgaging 50 percent of future quotas. While 
this temporary solution provided some immediate beneflts. it failed to solve the 
problem. It is now apparent that this expedient method has merely intensifled 
the problem for remaining displaced persons and prospective immigrants. In 
some instances, the quotas of countries are mortgaged for more than 100 years 
ahead, penalizing generations to come. The most heavily mortgaged quotas are 
in those very countries where the need for emigration is the greatest. 

The inequities of a quota system based on national origins are graphically 
demonstrated by the present situation. During the hearings befoi-e the Senate 
Judiciary Committee preliminary to the passage of Public Law 414, the agencies 
I represent had indicated the fallacy of the national origins system and had 


suggested as an alleviate measure the pooling of unused (luotas. In the light of 
curi-ent facts, we now realize that the pooling of unused quotas is jigain a make- 
shift and expedient solution. It avoids the core of the problem. We feel that 
our Nation has both the courage to look facts in the face and the initiative to 

We feel that the United States must take tlie lead in international migration 
plans, as it has taken the lead in other world problems. The United States has 
already shown its interest by allocating funds from the Mutual Security Act to 
the President's escapee program, and by participating in the setting up of the 
office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Provisional 
Inter-Governmental Committee for the IMovement of Migrants from Europe. It 
seemes ironic that the United States should devote millions of dollars to encour- 
aging persons to escape from behind the iron curtain and then refuse them 
admittance to the United States because of an arbitrary and archaic quota 

Pressing problems in the migration field require remedial legislation as quickly 
as possible by the Congress of the United States to maintain our position of lead- 
ership, our foreign relations program and the intergovernmental and voluntary 
agency machineries working in the international migration progranj. 

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

We believe, therefore, that a fair and humane policy must be established. 
What should this policy be? How administered? How accomplished? From 
years of experience and from a knowledge of every facet of the immigration, i-e- 
settlement, and integration operation, we have proposals to make w^hich we 
believe offer a practical and beneficial demonstration of our democratic 


It is our firm belief that a fair and humane immigration policy must embody, as 
a minimum, the following basic principles : 

1. Each prospective immigrant should be judged on his own merits and not 
according to his place of birth or his racial background. Simply stated, this 
means the elimination of the national origins system. 

A substantial increase in the present limits on the numbers permitted entry 
under existing laws, on a planned resettlement basis, is not only desirable but 
essential to our continued development as a nation. 

2. The standards of admission to the United States should be revised to protect 
the interests of the United States and at the same time to give fair and humane 
treatment to the prospective immigrant, giving full recognition to the principle 
of reformation which is basic to all religious, legal, and moral standards. 

3. Because the immigration processes are of concern and benefit hoth to the 
United States and to the immigrant, it is essential that reasonable and adequate 
review practices be established. 

4. There should be one governmental agency to control both the issuance of 
visas and the admission of aliens. 

5. Once a person has been admitted for permanent residence to this country, 
he should not be deported unless his entry was based on fraud. 

6. Distinction between naturalized and native citizens should be abolished, 
except where fraud in obtaining citizenship is proved. 

We wish to take up each of these points in turn and elaborate on the reasons 
why we believe them essential to a proper jiolicy for the country and also detail 
some of the practical means of applying them. 

Paint I. EUm'mation of the national orifnns system and an increase in the total 
number of immigrants to the United States 
There has been voluminous testimony before this Commission illustrating the 
fallacious and vicious nature of the national origins system, which is based on an 
outmoded racist theory. We won a war to prove this very point. The national 
origins system' flatly and clearly says that a person born in England is 60 times 
more valuable to the United States than a person born in Greece. But no one 
would dare try to prove it. 


The national origins system contradicts the basic principles of American de- 
mocracy — that an individual should l)e judged only by his individual worth and 
merits, and not where he happened to be born, a fact over which he had no con^ 
trol. The truly contradictory and almost ridiculous nature of the system is best 
exemplified by the fact that a Britisher born in Greece is chargeable to the Greek 
quota, and the Greek quota is small on the theory that Greeks are less assimilable 
than the British. This system is a malignant growth which must be rooted out. 
Paring it down is no cure. Any substitute based on the national origins system 
miist remain discriminatoi-y, undemocratic, and a chancre on the body politic. 

Many persons have expressed a dislike for the national origins system, but they 
also asked, "What is the alternative?'' There are several possibilities, but we 
wish to describe the one which we consider most simple, effective, and workable. 

The United States has in the past benefited from the immigration of substan- 
tially larger numbers than are permitted entry under existing laws. Our capac- 
ity to absorb new immigrants is much greater than any present or contemplated 
levels of immigration, as attested to by the statements of various demographers 
and experts in the employment field. Vie believe that the ninnber of persons to be 
admitted should be based on the ability of our country to absorb additional 
immigrants and on our expanding economy needs. 

In the decade immediately preceding the First World War, America absorbed 
an average of 1 million immigrants per year. During this same period, according 
to the 1930 census of the United States, the percentage increase in population 
irom 1900 to 1910 was 21.0, while the increase of gainfully employed was 31.3 
percent. It is similarly interesting to note, according to the 1940 census, that 
the 10 States with the highest percentages of foreign-born also had the highest 
per capita income — an average of $733 per capita, v.hile the 10 States v,-ith 
the lowest percentage of foreign-born had an a^'erage income of only .$313.70. 

The United States needs and can profit from a greatly increased immigration. 
We believe that a proper floor would be in the neighborhood of 300,000 which 
is approximately two-tenths of 1 percent of our population, or a ratio of 1 new 
person to every 500 residents of the United States. 

The setting of any maximum ceilin'^- figure should be undertaken by Congress, 
in such a manner as to permit flexibility according to variations in our ability 
to absorb larger numbers. 

We suggest the appointment of a bipartisan Commission by the President, 
with the approval of Congress, representing economic, v^-elfare. and Government 
interests. Such a Commission would have a continuing responsibility to study 
the situation and to set the number of quota immigi-ants admissible on a 
periodic as-needed basis, using a sliding scale between the minimum floor and 
the maximum ceiling set by Congress. Domestic and world-wide factors would 
be taken into account in establishing such ceilings. 

A. Allocation of quota. — Once the total quota has been set for a given year, 
the problem of allocation arises. Only a simple mechanism is required. It 
has been traditional for the prospective immigrant to register his in 
immigrating, with the American ofllcial nearest his home, a useful practice and 
one which should be continued. In the future, as in the past, all persons 
desiring to immigrate as quota immigrants should be required to register with 
a United States official. 

The present nonquota category should be retained. In determining allocating 
quota numbers, the following preferences should be made : 

(1) Family reunion of fireside relatives. 

(2) Family reunion to the third degree of consanguinity (a formula 
used under the DP Act). 

(3) Persons of distinguished skill and merit, such as eminent scientists, 
recognized artists, etc. 

(-1) A set percentage within the preference category should be allocated 
by the Commission on the basis of the foreign-policy needs of the United 
States and special emergency needs throughout the world. Such a provision 
would take care of crisis situations ; for example, persons who must flee 
from persecution — religious, racial, or political. 

(5) After the above preferences, all immigrants remaining should receive 
their visas in accordance with the date of their registration with an Ameri- 
can ofiicial, on a world-wide basis of "first come, first served." This incor- 
porates pre.sent practices but eliminates the assignment of persons to a 
specific quota. 
This would eliminate the tragedy that occurs now when an escapee from 
Hungary registers at the American consulate in Germany and is told that he 
may have to wait a decade to immigrate, whereas an escapee from Czechoslovakia 


registering the same day may reasonably expect a visa as soon as his papers 
are cleared. This is pure accident due to the fact that Czech quota numbers 
are more available at this time than Hungarian quota numbers. 

Points 2 and 3. Revision of standards of admission and revieic procedures to 
give fair and humane treatment to the alien ichile safcffuarding the interests 
and security of the United States 

Immigration procedures should acknowledge the fact that immigration is 
mutually beneficial to the United States and to the prospective immigrant. The 
principle of selective immigration should be realistic, rather than anachronistic, 
as it is now. 

Our present law shows a basic distrust and fear of the alien which is neither 
reasonable nor justifiable. There can be agreement on reasonable standards 
to prevent the admission of such persons as habitual criminals, and so forth, and 
to preserve the security of the country. At the same time, these standards should 
also provide for recognizing the principle of reformation. This principle, basic 
to all religions, to law, and to our social sciences, is negated by our current 
immigration laws which do not accept the philosophy of reformation of character. 

In small measure, the law does recognize the reformation of so-called sub- 
versives if they have openly departed from this thinking 5 years before their 
application for admission. There is no recognition, however, of the possibility 
of reformation of the person who may have come in conflict with the law in 
his home country; a person for example, who, years ago, committed a crime 
involving moral turpitude — i. e., an intentional and willful criminal act — is 
forever barred from immigration to this country, although he may have been 
an upright citizen for years and long since have paid the penalty for his 

Fair, humane, and equitable standards should be applied not only to the 
issuance of visas but to exclusion at the time of entry. At the present time, 
there is no formal provision for appeal from the decision of a consul in 
refusing to grant a visa. While it is true that the alien's American sponsor 
may request the Visa Division to make an informal review, the Visa Division 
can only seek to request the consul for his version of the denial. It is also 
true that in many instances, if the matter comes to the attention of the Visa 
Division, a correction may be made. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, 
according to present practice, the consul still has the final right to reject or 
to grant a visa. The Visa Division may not direct the consul in any specific 
case as to the action he must take. 

It has been previously suggested that it was important to have formal review 
or appeal procedure on the denial to issue a visa. It was contended, in opposi- 
tion, that the prospective immigrant has no standing or right in relation to 
the United States ; hence, no provision can or should be made for an appeal. 
While the immigrant may not have such a right under the current law, there 
is nothing to prevent Congress from bestowing such a right upon the prospective 

When we consider that the immigration is important not only to the immi- 
grant and the country but also to the American relative or sponsor, the picture 
gains proper perspective. The denial of a visa in a specific case deprives the 
prospective immigrant, the United States, the family, the sponsor. An ade- 
quate appeal and review procedure would at least insure that the denial was 

Such a review procedure would be based on a right of appeal by the American 
sponsor, which might include the relative, the employer, or the American volun- 
tary agency interested in the particular case. The review procedure could 
be with a review board set up within the body administering the issuance of 

We are not desirous of instituting an appeal procedure which will be purely 
dilatory in nature or a waste of taxpayers' money. We do, however, believe 
that, as in any other administrative agency, reasonable and adequate adminis- 
trative appeal procedures can be set up to make sure that the law is being 
properly administered and that no injustice is being done. We also believe 
that there should be recourse to the courts, where justified and practicable, in 
the same way that there is recourse to the courts where other administrative 
bodies have abused their discretion. 

The agency responsible for the issuance of visas should, in addition, review 
rejections of visas from time to time, even though no formal appeal is taken, 
in order to assure uniform interpretation by all its field agents. This is the 
kind of sound administrative practice which any well-administered body under- 


takes as a method of supervision and in an effort to determine whether its 
policies are being properly interpreted and implemented. 

Point 4- EstaMishment of one Government ayencij to control the issuance of 
visas and the admission of aliens 

The benefits of any law, no matter how perfect, can be destroyed by ineffective 
administration. At the present time, the administration of the immigration laws 
are divided between the State Department and the Justice Department. There 
has been no uniform interpretation of the laws and regulations between these 
departments. Each department decides for itself what action to take in any 
particular case. Thus, the American consul may issue a visa to an alien while, 
on the basis of the same facts and circumstances but under a different inter- 
pretation, the Immigration Service can exclude him. There may even be a differ- 
ence of opinion within one agency of the Government. The Public Health 
Service abroad may certify a person as admissible to the United States, but 
upon his entry to the United States tlie Public Health Service at the port of 
entry may decide his condition makes him inadmissible. 

Under the DP Act, where three Government agencies were charged with tlie 
administration of the law — the DP Commission, the INS, and the Visa Division- 
there were often as many different interpretations of the same law. Even in 
cases where the Board of Immigration Appeals has made a ruling in a particular 
set of circumstances, the Visa Division is not of necessity bound by such a 
decision to issue a visa. 

At the present time, the American consuls abroad are vested with absolute 
individual discretion to grant or withhold a vist. On the same set of facts and 
circumstances, one consul may decide to issue a visa, while another may decide 
to refuse it. 

We therefore propose the establishment of one independent Government 
agency to be responsible for issuing visas and also for the admission of aliens. 
The Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Gov- 
ernment, in a report on foreign affairs in January of 1049, recommended that 
the visa-issuing functions of the Department of State be transferred to the 
Department of Justice. The report stated that there was an unclear division 
of authority between the two which could be resolved by a merger of functions. 
While we agree with the Hoover Commission that the visa-issuance functions 
and admissions of aliens should be under one agency, we do not believe that 
the agency should be either the Justice Department or the State Department. 

The State Department's basic function is the foreign policy of the United 
"States. It is concerned with world-wide problems in foreign affairs, and the 
visa funtion is only one small part of its responsibilities. Visa issuance is 
liandled by American consuls who have numerous other duties to perform. 
Similarly, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is only one small func- 
tion of the Justice Department, which is concerned mainly with the enforcement 
of all our laws. 

The advantages of one independent Government asrency which would concern 
itself exclusively with the administration of our immi^rration laws ai-e obvious. 
A complete uniformity of interpretation could be achieevd. Once an alien re- 
ceived a visa, he would be admitted to the United States unless certain conditions 
might have changed between the time of issuance of liis visa and the time he 
applied for admission. There would he uniformity of procedure and interpreta- 
tion anionsr the personnel issuinsr the visas. Since the particular offi'^'ial issuing 
visns woidd be concerned only with that function, he could become better trained 
and more expert, with a resulting improvement in the handling of the issuance 
of visns and expediting the entire immigration process. 

At the present time, the American consuls lack sufficient personnel to handle 
the volume of visa applications. At many consulates, even in cases where per- 
sons are entitled to nonouota visas or are chargeable to undersubscribed nuotas, 
there is a long wait before a visa can be issued. In some consulates there is 
only one person assigned part of the time to handle visa applications which may 
run into thousands. It would be of paramount importance, therefore, that a 
new agency be adequately staffed. 

Point 5. No person admitted, for pei-manent residence should he deported unless 
entry iras based on fratid 
Our entire concept of deportation needs rethinkins: and redefinition. It is now 
used as a form of punishment, based on the medieval idea of exile and banish- 
ment. Deportation frequently punishes the innocent, as well as the "guilty." 
Members of the immediate family of the deportee may even suffer greater hard- 


ships than the deportee himself. We are strongly convinced that our immigra- 
tion laws must begin to reflect the modern social concepts by which we live. 
We believe that an alien who does wrong should be punished for his wrong, 
but in the same way as a citizen. The punishment, however, should fit the crime 
without the added penalty of banishment. Once a person is admitted into the 
United States for permanent residence, he should have the privilege of remain- 
ing in this country unless it can be demonstrated that his immigration was based 
on fraud. 

Our present laws assume that an alien shonld be held to higher standards of 
conduct than the native-born, and are based on the concept that an alien is 
admitted here on "probation." Such concepts are harmful to everyone con- 
cerned, and benefit no one. There is no reason why the alien, once admitted 
into this country for permanent residence, should not be made welcome and 
be treated like everyone else in the eyes of the law. The process of adjustment 
and integration into the life of this country is a twofold one in which citizen, 
and newcomer both contribute and gain from each other. Our deportation laws 
today, as embodied in Public Law 414, are a further retreat. Conditit)ns which 
were not previously a basis for deportation at the time the person entered the 
United States, may now be applied retroactively to become a basis for his, 

Take, for example, a matter which has been of great concern to this country 
for some time, although not in particular in relation to aliens. Suppose a young- 
ster of 14 is admitted to this country with his parents. He goes to the neigh- 
borhood school, becomes a member of the community, makes friends with other 
boys his age. Unfortunately, there has been some drug peddling in the neigh- 
borhood and the school itself. This youngster becomes a victim, along with 
other yoiing people in tlie sciiool. It is a tragedy for all the parents and the 
ccmimunity as a whole. l)Ut a special tragedy for the boy and his parents. He 
wasn't a drug addict when he came to the United States ; he didn't become one 
because he was an alien. But he did have the misfortune to land in a particular 
neighborhood and among a particular group of impressionalile youngsters who 
started him off on the wrong foot. 

What happens to the American youngsters? Hopefiilly, they are cared for 
and cured and will take their riglitful place in the community later. 

What happens to the alien youngster? Under the present law, he must be 
deported, since Public Law 414 has made mere drug addiction a basis for 

Nothing has been solved by his deportation and by the extra pimishment thus 
meted out to him and his law-abiding parents. 

This is merely one illustration of the unfairness and tragedy of deportation 
on the basis of conditions arising subsequent to the immigrant's arrival. 
Deportation is a penalty, a very serious penalty which must not be lightly 
exacted. Certainly, problems such as those raised by the Kefauver Crime In- 
vestigation Committee will not be solved by deporting a few aliens and we only 
delude ourselves by seeking to take this easy way out. Wrongdoing must be 
promptly punished, and the social conditions which may have contributed must 
be corrected, but the punishment should be impartial. 

Point 6. Disitivctions hetrrecn naturalized and native citizens should he abolished, 
with the exception of fraud 

The spirit of democracy and of our Constitution is violated by any distinction 
between native-born and naturalized citizens. Such distinctions should be elimi- 
nated from our immigration laws. 

Immigrants have often been described as the country's "adopted" children. 
Agreeing with this definition, we also agree that it is right to check on the "child" 
to be sure that he is adoptable. Proper precautions can be taken, as previously 
described, in immigi-ation and naturalization without violating humanitarian 
and ethical standards. Once the check has been made, we urgently stress the 
desirability of a true and final adopti(ni, always, of course, providing that there 
has been no fraud involved. 

Our "adopted" child then truly becomes a member of the family. He works ; he 
pays taxes ; he contributes to private social welfare ; he is a member of the PTA ; 
his children belong to the Girl Scouts and to the Boy Scouts ; he becomes a mem- 
ber of the church of his faith. He is expected to be concerned and to worry about 
persons less fortunate than himself, both here and overseas. He is then subject 
to a 5-year testing period to see whether the privilege of becoming a citizen should 
be bestowed upon him. With citizenship he takes on additional responsibilities. 


. He must serve as a juror ; he has the responsibility of voting and helping iu the 
elections of our representatives. With citizenship he gains the privilege of ob- 
taining a passport to travel. He has the protection of this country, his country 
now. He deserves to be given this continued protection and to be treated in 
every regard like other citizens. 

Judge Levinthal. If there are any questions I would be very happy 
to answer them. 

Commissioner Harrison. Judge, do you think in order to get the 
full benefit of what you refer to as greater uniformity in interpreta- 
tion, if you were to have a separate independent agency for the is- 
suance of visas that it would be necessary to have that highly cen- 
tralized ? 

Judge Le\tnthal. I should think you would to have it at the 

Commissioner Harrison. The applications, you say, would continue 
to be received in the various countries through the consular offices. 
Now, how would you visualize the operation from that point on in 
order to provide the benefit of great uniformity? 

Judge Levinthal. As I understand the proposal, it wouldn't be the 
consul who would receive these applications. It would be officials 
designated by this independent agency. They might have their of- 
fices in the consulate, of course, but they would not Be responsible to 
the State Department. They would be responsible to this independent 
agency. They would make a report to the agencies and they would 
have to give their reasons for rejecting applications, and there would 
have to be clearing of those reports from time to time. In that way 
there would be uniformity. 

If the people in Washington would see that on the very same facts 
a representative of that agency in Munich rejects an application for 
a visa whereas another man on the very same facts receives one in 
Frankfort, they would know there is something wrong; that they 
have to make a regulation that would guide all consuls. Wliere you 
have a lack of uniformity, of course, you must have injustice. 

The Chairman. Would you not set up another group of officials 
throughout the whole world ? 

Judge Levinthal. No. You have those officials now, only now you 
would divorce that function from the consul and give it to a man who 
would be designated by this independent agency, and he would do that 
and that alone instead of having it done by the consul who has to do 
many things today. So it wouldn't cost more in the long run. 

The Chairman. Wouldn't it ? If you divorce this function from the 
consuls you would have to appoint somebody else to carry out 

Judge Levinthal. Yes, but we have more than one consul in all of 
these communities. 

The Chairman. But there are a lot of places throughout the world 
where you don't have more than one. 

Miss Petluck. I would say that in large countries where they have 
a large consular staff, that some are doing virtually nothing but immi- 
gration work. That was true in Germany and Austria and what you 
found in the administration of the Displaced Persons Act. There was 
a representative of the Immigration Service overseas, a representative 
of the consular service, a representative of the Public Health Service, 
and a representative of the Displaced Persons Commission all working 
in an attempt to facilitate and move the DP's here faster. 


The Chairman. That was a special problem that they had a time 
limit on, but how are 3^011 going to run the immigration 

Miss Petluck. We tried to learn from that experience. Some of 
this check and double check or need to spend time as to whether this 
Service is interpreting it the same as the other Services would be 
eliminated if you had it all in one Service, so that if there is a ruling 
it will apply equally to visas and admissions at the port of entry. 

The Chairman. I would like you to explain to us how, where, and 
whose duty it would be to handle appeals such as you have proposed 
so as to have a practical administrative system. 

Judge Le\t[nthal. Within the agency. 

The Chairman. We have heard from various witnesses much 
criticism of the present system and the absence of an appeal procedure, 
but we are also interested in hearing what you would propose be done 
about it in practical terms. For example, are you proposing that an 
applicant in a foreign country be given the right of appeal, and if so, 
where would he send it ? How would it be processed ? 

Judge Levinthal. Well, Mr. Perlman, he has no right to appeal. 
We admit that we concede the w^ould-be immigrant should not have the 
right to appeal. But if there is an American sponsor or somebody 
living in the United States or a voluntary agency wdiicli is willing to 
sponsor that applicant for admission to the United States and if the 
regulation provided that costs should be deposited by the appellant so 
there wouldn't be any loss to the taxpayer to cover all possible expenses 
of such appeal, why shouldn't there be a provision for an appeal of 
an arbitrary action of an administrative official. It is foreign to our 
entire system of jurisprudence. 

The Chairman. I am still interested in hearing how you would do 
it, assuming for the sake of our discussion that it were desirable. 

Judge Levinthal. Under the present law it cannot be done because 
there is division and duplication of responsibility and authority. 
It is a basic premise of this new suggestion that there be one independ- 
ent agency despite the difficulties that are envisioned to the establish- 
ment of an independent agency. There are these compensating ad- 
vantages. Dealing exclusively with visa issuance and admission to 
the United States, there would be one or two or three appellate 
bodies of five or seven men to revicAv these appeals. We did it with 
courts martial during the war. We had an appellate body. 

The Chairman. Yes, but we are not thinking about a war : we are 
thinking of a permanent immigration policy of the United States. 

Judge Levinthal. This is a war against injustice, which is a very 
serious war. 

The Chx\irman. But we are concerned with permanent policy and 
permanent organization, and if you state the present immigration 
system is in your opinion unsatisfactory, we are interested in hearing 
what you would substitute that is reasonable and practical. 

Judge Levinthal. I feel that immigration is going to be a continu- 
ing problem, just as it was throughout the life of our Nation. I don't 
think you can deal with this as an emergency thing for 3 or 5 years. 

I think in dealing with long-range policy there should be a perma- 
nent long-range agency responsible to the President. 

The Chairman. How are you going to handle these appeal cases? 

Judge Levinthal. Appeals should be permitted to be taken. It has 
just been pointed out to me that theoretically you can take appeals 


today for every exclusion or deportiitioii decision, yet you know there 
aren't such a tremendous amount of appeals. 

The Chairman. There are a <>reat many of them and perhaps the 
reason there aren't more is that the hands of Government sometimes 
have been tied for many years because they can't always deport the 
people to the countries that they are required to deport them to under 
existing laws, so that the issue isn't raised as frequently as it otherwise 
might be. But that occurs here in this country. Also, when you ex- 
clude them at the port of entry. 

Judge Levinthal. Under the DP Act they also kept them out over- 

The Chairman. You are talking again about an emergency law, and 
I am talking about a permanent act. 

Commissioner O'Grauy. I would like to ask Miss Petluck her under- 
standing of section 203 (a) (1) of the new act, and its' relation to 
section 212 (a) (14)? 

Miss Petluck. Well, as I have analyzed sectian 203 (a) (1), which 
deals with the so-called first preference, it would appear to me tliat if 
the phraseology — 

specialized experience or exceptional ability of such immigrant to be substan- 
tially of benefit prospectively — 

those words must mean persons' of particular skill ; otherwise, I 
wouldn't understand what those words meant. I do differentiate those 
from other proposals, such as under the DP Act where you had a 
specific contract as such. 

As I also understand this section in relation to 212 (a) (14), this 
would not apply to that particular category; 212 (a) (14) is the per- 
missive clause which permits the Secretai-y of Labor to certify m a 
particular community on a particular skill that there is an excess of 
labor in the country. It would not, however, apply to the first-cate- 
gory cases or to the so-called 30 percent, which is the reunion of 
families' or to any of the so-called family reunion cases. It would 
apply to anyone who was not coming to this coiuitry within a priority 
or preference, to the so-called general nonpreference quota inmiigrant. 

Now, translating that back again, we theoietically have an elimina- 
tion of contract labor clauses. Yon still have a retention of principle, 
that if labor is in excess in a given connnunity for the nonpreference 
groups that they might be prevented from innnigrating here. 

As we tried to read section 203 (a) (1) taking all -these phrases' 
together and trying to give them some meaning, it sounded as if this 
was for the use of persons of particularly great skill. As a matter of 
fact, we in our own minds paraphrased it as the highly skilled section, 
thinking in terms of scientists or professors who have no nonquota 
status and who definitely are included, and artists of particular merit 
or anyone who has already demonstrated skill. That is' what I would 
say, as I read it. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Judge Levinthal. Thank you. 

Is Mr. Engel here ? 



Mr. Engel. I am Irving- M. Eiigel, chairman of the executive com- 
mittee of the American Jewish Committee. I am accompanied by Mr. 
Sidney Liskofsky. and re])resent the American Jewish Committee and 
the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. 

I have come here with a prepared statement, ISiv. Chairman, but in 
view of the fact that some of the things in that statement have ah'eady 
been said and in view of the hiteness of the hour, I assume I will have 
permission to put in the record this statement and coment on it orally 
and make some remarks. 

Tlie Chairman. You may do so. 

(There follows the prepared statement submitted by Mr. Irving 
M. Engel for the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defama- 
tion League of B'nai B rith :) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, the views on American im- 
migration policy of tlie American Jewisli Committee and the Anti-Defamation 
Leatnie of B'nai B'rith were presented to you by Lester Gutterman at your 
hearings in New York on September 30. I appreciate this opportunity to supple- 
ment some of the views contained in our earlier statement. 

As we pointed out in our earlier appearance, .Jewish groups in this country — 
because of the Hitler holocaust aud because of the creation on the new State 
of Israel — are not special pleaders who seek to encourage immigration so that 
their fellow religionists abroad can come to this country. Their concern with our 
immigration laws and policies stems from a desire to strengthen our democracy 
and to eliminate from our laws and policies all provisions which contradict our 
democratic principles. The proposals we have advanced aud are now advancing 
stem from our desire to strengthen democracy not only in our country bu,t 
tliroughout the world, and to achieve immigration policies which in the long 
run will most benefit our own country. 

In our earlier statement, we declared our conviction that the national origins 
system must go. In the course of your hearings in various parts of the country, 
as the press has indicated, this same conviction was asserted by many groups of 
all kinds. Some of these groups advanced various suggestions as to the arrange- 
ment that might be substituted for the national origins system. 

Undoubtedly, most of these proixisals have advantages as well as disadvan- 
tages. It may be difficult, even impossible, to find a perfect substitute for the 
national origins system — one acceptable to all groups and having no serious 
problems of administi'ation. But even if no perfect substitute can be devised, 
we are convinced that many of the proposals advanced are better than the pre- 
sent system. We are convinced that with imagination and a will to make these 
substitute proposals work, the various objections raised, particularly in regard 
to administration, can be successfully overcome. 

We believe that public opinion is favoralile to a reconsideration of the na- 
tional origins concept itself, and we hope that the Commission will not merely 
consider how to make the impact of that concept less inequitable, but will also 
seriously consider proposals to cast it away altogether. 

I should like briefly to sketch for you the proposal that the organizations on 
whose behalf I speak believe, after prolonged consideration, most promising. 
An outstanding feature of our proposal is that it would provide flexibility with 
regard to the over-all number of quota immigrants to be admitted eacii year. 

I should like to recall to the Commission the fact that our present immigra- 
tion law has flexibility, too, but a one-side flexibility — in favor of exclu.sion. 

25356—52 9S 


Even before the McCarran Act, our immigration code permitted the President 
to suspend immigration in times of war or national emergency. The McCarran 
Act enlai-ged this authority to empower the President to suspend or curtail, at 
will, the immigration "of any aliens or any class of aliens"if he finds their ad- 
mission to he detrimental to the interests of the United States. Thus the power 
to shut oif immigration, which had previously been limited to periods of war 
and national emergency, is now available for use at any time. 

Neither before nor after the McCari-an Act, however, did our immigration 
law allow flexibility to enlarge the number of admissible immigrants to i)rovide 
for emergency situations that tend to arise periodically in this uncertain world 
of ours. Today, for example, we can handle emergencies such as that arising 
out of the continuing flight of refugees from behind the iron curtain, only 
through the slow and difficult process of Federal legislation. 

We propose, therefore, the establishment by law of a National Immigration 
Policy Commission whose members would be appointed either by the President 
with the consent of the Senate, or by the President jointly with both Houses 
of Congress. This Commission would be charged with making a continuous 
study of demographic and economic trends in our own country, as well as of 
political and social conditions in other countries. The Commission would take 
into account the employment and general economic situation in our own country — 
existing levels as well as long-range trends and tendencies. The conditions in 
other countries would be studied with particular reference to their bearing on 
our foreign policy. The Commission would consider how great is the demand 
and need for new homes by refugees and homeless persons abroad, how admis- 
sion of persons to our country would aid in rehabilitating the bastions of de- 
mocracy abroad, how it would demonstrate the good faith of our efforts to 
strengthen democracy throughout the world and to raise the world-wide level of 
economic well-being, and how it would serve to reunite families in our country. 

The Commission would then set the maximum number of immigrants to be 
admitted to our shores each calendar year, or over a period of years. In so 
doing it would be required by law to set a maximum number not lower than 
two-tenths of 1 percent of our total population, nor higher tlian four-tenths of 1 
percent of our total population. The maximum fixed by the Commission would 
represent the highest number of immigrants our country could and should absorb 
in a particular year. The number chosen would be in addition to those who 
come from the Western Hemisphere, who are not subject to any numerical 
limitation under existing law. This exception, which was based on the good- 
neighbor policy, is more highly desirable now than ever and should be main- 

Having established a desirable maximum number of immigrants to be admit- 
ted in a particular period, how should the available visas be distributed? Pre- 
vious law contained a system of preferences based on the applicants' relation- 
ship to American citizens and resident aliens, and on possession of an agricul- 
tural skill. The McCarran Act modified these preferences to a considerable 
extent. The Humphrey-Lehman bill favored yet another scheme of preferences, 
which it applied to its proposed scheme for polling unused quotas. This pro- 
posal was that 25 percent of the available visas within the quota pool should be 
allocated to three preference categories based, respectively, on the principles 
of family reunion, domestic economic need, and refuge to persecutees — the re- 
mainder to nonpreference cases. 

If I may digress for a moment, I would like to comment on the principle of 
basing admissibility on the possession of special skills. As democrats and hu- 
manitarians, we have serious doubts about such a criterion. We believe that 
supporters of this policy tend to classify the immigrant as an economic com- 
modity and to lose sight of the human side of immigration. A person admit- 
ted because he has some needed skill is under pressure to work at that skill, 
regardless of other more desirable opportunities he may have. By this device 
we reintroduce into our law the concept of contract labor which has long been 
repudiated as inhumane and un-American. Hence, we suggest that this cri- 
terion, if used at all, lie used with circumspection and surrounded with safe- 
guards to prevent administrative abuse. 

We Ijelieve that the preference system in the Humphrey-Lehman bill is a 
model that might be adapted to our proposal. The terms of reference given by 
Congress to the Commission could define these preference categories but leave 
to the discretion of the Commission the fixing of the percentages to be assigned 
to them. As is provided in the Humphrey-Lehman bill, the unused portions of 
any of the preference categories should be available to any of the other pref- 
erence categories, or to immigrants without any claim to preference. 


We come now to the question of how visas should be distributed within the 
several preference categories. Our belief, the result of long consideration of this 
question, is that these visas should be assigned to immigrants, without regard 
to their national origin or place of birth, on the basis of the provocatively simple, 
yet just and American principle of first come, first served. 

It is in regard to this latter suggestion that objections about practicability 
have been raised. We feel that these ob.iections are unjustified and stem 
from bias against the type of immigrants who may come in rather than from 
any inherent difficulties in our proposal. Indeed, we ask, is not the principle of 
first come, first served appiied to the distribution of visas within each national 
quota under the present system? The Visa Division manages successfully to 
process the applications for visas that come from applicants born in particular 
countries but scattered throughout the world. Similarly, it should not be too 
diflicult to work out a system of applying the first come, first served principle on 
a world-wide basis. 

Nor are we shocked by the suggestion that such a system could result in 
the bulk of immigration in a particular year coming from Asia or Africa, if 
there should be a large and early registration of persons from such regions. 
In the first place, we do not consider this to be a reasonable fear. The cost 
of Immigration, the requirement of affidavits of support, the minute number 
of relatives of pers'ons of those regions presently in the United States, the 
literacy, health, and other requirements, would undoubtedly operate to keep 
immigrants from those countries at a minimum. The alarmists tend to forget 
that though immigration from Latin America is quota-free under present law, 
the number of immigrants who come to this country from that continent is 
relatively inconsequential. 

More important, however, we do not share the fears — based on conscious 
or unconscious racial bias — of an increase in the number of immigrants from 
those parts of the world. We judge the desirability of persons not by their 
race or national origin but by their individual worth. 

Finally, every applicant will continue to have to meet all of the various 
personal qualifications s'et forth in the law, relating to health, literacy, moral 
character, loyalty, and so forth. 

We believe that a plan based on these ideas would be vastly superior to 
the pre.sent national-origins system. It would have the great advantage of 
flexibility, thus enabling us to adapt our immigration policy to meet new 
situations throughout the world, and it .would make the true interests of 
the United States the determining factor in our immigration policy, rather 
than the doctrine of racial superiority, which is the basis of the present 


I turn now to deportation. Over recent decades there have been many 
deportations of alien residents whose stay in the United States was believed 
to be against the public interest. We believe that the impact of deportation 
upon a resifient alien and his family has received far too little consideration. 
It can hardly be denied that among the evils that may befall a person, deporta- 
tion is one of the most disastrous. It is not accidental that in medieval times 
the punishment of banishment was regarded as one of the most severe pun- 
ishments, second only to the sentence of death. In describing the effect of 
de^ortation on the person affected, one could hardly find more appropriate 
words than those used by Mr. Justice Douglas in a recent case, when he said : 

"Banishment is* punishment in the practical sense. It may deprive a man 
and his family of all that makes life worth while. Those who have their 
roots here have an important stake in this country. Their plans for them- 
selves and their hopes for their children all depend on their right to stay. 
If they are uprooted and sent to lands no longer known to them, no longer 
hospitable, they become displaced, homeless people condemned to bitterness and 

Certainly, deportation is a much harder "punishment" — to use the word 
in the nontechnical sense — than, let us say, a fine of $50 or imprisonment 
for a few days. But while the procedure to inflict even the slightest fine 
or the shortest term of imprisonment is surrounded by an elaborate system 
of safeguards to insure justice and fair treatment of the accused, no similar 
protection is granted to the person threatened with an order of deportation. 
Furthermore, deportation not only affects the person directly involved, but 
generally creates most trying conditions of hardship for his wife and children 
and other dependents. 


It has been suggested that only those aliens who obtained admission to this 
country by deliberate fraud should be deportable and that in no other ease should 
deportation be perniittt^d. An alien, once admitted, should be free to live here 
on the same basis as all others without subjecting himself to possible banish- 
ment if be makes a misstep. We believe that there is much merit to this position, 
especially in view of the growing tendency to use deportation as a means of 
punishing aliens doing unpopular things, who have committed no violation of 
criminal law and cannot, therefore, be tried for crime. If an alien has committed 
a crime he should be subject to the same criminal sanctions as are citizens 
and should not, solely because of his status as alien, merit the additional severe 
punishment of banishment for life. We cannot accept the reasoning that an 
alien who has engaged in criminal activities should be sent back to the country 
of his birth. Rather he may well have committed his crime because of what he 
learned or pressures he was subjected to here in our country. Criminalit.v as an 
inherent trait has long been repudiated by psychologists and criminologists. 

We realize that this point of view is likely to meet with great resistance 
in many quarters. The theory that the alien possesses a tenuous and inferior 
status is deeply ingrained in tlie thinking of many persons. We would there- 
fore urge, at the very least, that deportation be recognized as a drastic punish- 
ment which may be tantamount to imprisonment or death and which, therefore, 
should be used with circumspection and with due regard to the interest of all 
individuals involved. 

We therefore rec(jmmend, first, that in any future law only those situations 
should be declared grounds for deportation wliere the interest of the United 
States clearly requires deportation. Many grounds for deportation contained in 
the present law do not stand this test. This is particularly true of some of the 
grounds for deportation newly introduced into our law by the McCarran-Walter 
Act, enacted earlier this year. For instance, an alien can now be deported who 
fails to notify the Attorney General of a change of address within 10 days, unless 
he can establish to the satisfaction of the Attcn-ney General that such failure was 
reasonably excusable or was not willful. There is no need to elaborate on the 
drastic character of this provision which throws an alien, (mce he has allowed 
the 10-day period to pass, at the mercy of the Attorney General. 

Secondly, we believe that the penal nature of deportation requires that deporta- 
tion proceedings be surrounded by all the constitutional and statiitory safeguards 
available to those involved in criminal proceedings in tlie traditional sense. 
Thus, for instance, the United States Constitution prohibits ex post facto 
legislation. This prohiliition under present interpretation of the law does not 
apply to deportation, since persons can be deported for acts which were not 
grounds for deportation when they arrived in the United States. 


•Basic to our laws and ethics is recognition of the principle of redemption 
through repentance and reformation. Our immigration laws, however, ignore 
this principle. A person once deportable is always deiwrtable regardless of how 
many years he has lived in this country as a law-abiding resident. Thus a 
misstep of an alien, committed perhaps many years ago, marks him as a 
pariah who for the rest of his life must be in constant fear of being torn from 
his family and depoi'ted to a country with which he has lost all connection. The 
inhumanity of this situation has been recently illustrated by the case of a textile 
worker in New England who in 1934, as a young man, joined the Communist 
Party during a textile strike and iiaid nominal dues for a period of 4 months 
under the impression that the party's sole aim was union organization. Al- 
though he withdrew from the Communist Party soon after, in 1952 he was ordered 
deported under the Internal Security Act on the ground of his admitted past 
membership in the Coramiinist Party— this, although he is the father of two 
sons who fought in the American Army in World War II and has for years been 
a law-abiding person loyal to our country. 

This treatment of reformed members of the Communist Party is not only 
inhuman ; it is also, I submit, bad policy. Former Communists have been a most 
valuable source of information in exposing the evil policies and practices of 
the Ctmimunists. Such information has helped our law-enforcement agencies 
to maintain an effective control over the Communists and to counteract their 
every effort. Should we not rather encourage defections from the Communist 
Party by resident aliens than treat such defections as having no effect what- 
ever on the deportability of the person concerned? Our present system tends 
to make every person in siich situation a prisoner of his evil associates, thus 


depriving us of the opportunity to wean mistaken converts to totalitarianism 
baclv to democracy. 

Ttie present law recognizes the possibility of redemption in the case of aliens 
seeking admission. It provides that past members of a totalitarian party may 
be admitted if since the termination of membership they have been for at least 
5 years actively opposed to the doctrine of such party, and if their admission 
is in the public interest. Furthermore, the possibility of repentance should also 
be available to aliens already here. It is illogical to give recognition to this 
principle in the case of aliens seeking admission but not in the case of aliens al- 
ready liere. The injtistice of this is the more apparent since in many cases 
persons became associated with the Communist Party at a time when its true 
nature was much less a matter of public record than it is now. 

We would like again to emphasize the fact that the present immigration legis- 
lation is based on a principle which is completely contrary to our system of 
justice. It leaves the decision as to whether a person qualifies for immigration 
to the absolute discretion of the United States consuls abroad without any possi- 
bility of appeal. No administrative official should in a democratic regime based 
on the rule of law rather than on the rule of men have the sole and final say 
in matters which may be of life-and-death importance for the applicant. Con- 
suls for whom in many cases the issuing of immigration visas is just an inci- 
dental job should not have this power to grant or deny visas without any right 
of api^eal from their decision. There is no reason why an opportunity for 
appeal should not be given in cases where decision to refuse admission is made 
by the American consul abroad. The establishment of a Visa Review Board to 
which persons denied visas by an American consul, or at least American citizens 
interested in their immigration, may appeal is not only in the interest of the 
alien but in the interest of our country and our judicial system. No official 
should have arbitrary power without being subject to proper review. 


May I refer now to another aspect of our immigration and naturalization 
laws whicli we consider undesirable. That is the tendency to eliminate statutes 
of limitations against deportation and denaturalization. The purpose of statutes 
of Limitations, consistent with our basic concepts of order and justice, is to 
prevent wrongs long dead from remaining forever a festering sore. If after 
a number of years time has healed the wounds occasioned by some violation 
of the law, it would be most undesirable to upset the matter afresh by tearing 
open the old wounds. The statute of limitations is a declaration of policy that 
It is desirable to forgive and forget wrongs done long ago and that failure to 
do so can serve only to keep alive old sources of disorder and breaches of 
peace. It is a statement that except in the case of the serious offense, such as 
murder, society will after a time be better off letting dead issues rest. It is also 
a recognition that with the passage of the years it becomes difficult or impossible 
for truly guiltless persons to assemble the evidence necessary to establish their 

Yet, now we find added to our immigration laws a denial of this basic princi- 
ple through undue lengthening or complete elimination of statutes of limitations 
on deportation and denaturalization. This is a retrogressive step and should 
be corrected as quickly as possible. A person technically deportable who has 
lived a law-abiding and peaceful life in our country for many years, thereby 
demonstrating that he can be a useful and productive member of the common- 
wealth, should not after those years be torn away from his family and banished 
simply because of some technical violation of the law which makes him deport- 
able. Similarly, a person who has been a law-abiding naturalized citizen of 
our country for many years, should not because of some latent defect in his 
naturalization be compelled to give up his citizenship and possibly lay himself 
open for deportation thereby. He has passed the test of the years. Why not 
let the matter lie through an elTective statute of limitations? 


The whole racist tenor of our immigration laws is reflected in the new requix'e- 
ment of the McCarran Act that all prospective immigrants must state on their 
visa application their race and ethnic classification. As agencies which have 
long been fighting discrimination based on race, religion, ancestry, or national 
•origin, we know that such questions on applications have often been used, and 
may be so used in the future, for purposes of discrimination. The racial or 


ethnic origin of an applicant for admission to this country is relevant only to 
persons who mistalcenly believe that sucli factors are in some way connected 
with the applicant's abilities or desirability as an inhabitant of our country. 
For that reason we have always been opposed to inquiries on application forms 
regarding race, religion, or national or ethnic origin. 

Now we find that section 222 of the new immigration law requires every 
application for a visa to state the applicant's race and ethnic classification, 
leaving the clear implication that such characteristics are relevant to admissi- 
bility. This, we helieve, is another injection of racism into our immigration 
law. It is a set-back in our progress toward democracy which has witnessed 
the steady elimination of such questions from application forms. 

The inclusion of such potentially discriminatory questions is by no means the 
only undesirable aspect of the requirement. The act nowhere defines "race" 
and "ethnic classification," leaving this task to be handled by administrative 
regulation and thus introducing into our immigration laws another element of 

"Kace" is a term which cannot be defined to the satisfaction of anthropologists, 
let alone for purposes of legislation and administration. Anthropologists in- 
sist that even efforts to classify individuals into the so-called five great races — 
white, black, red, yellow, and brown — are in fact, simply classifications by color 
of skin. And they say that even such classification is invalid because the grada- 
tions of skin color are such as to make it impossible to classify millions whose 
color of skin lies between groups. 

Similar problems arise with respect to ethnic classification. Take, for example, 
the group to which I belong, the Jews. Haddon and Huxley, leading anthro- 
pologists, said in 1936, that "The Jews are not a race but only a people after all." 
They go on to say : "The Jews can rank neither as a nation nor even as an ethnic 
unit, but rather as a socio-religious group." Yet Coou, another leading anthro- 
pologist says in Races of Europe that "Jews form an ethnic group." Still another 
leading anthropologist, Melville J. Herskovitz, says of the Jewish group : "Lan- 
guage, culture, belief, all exhibit so great a range of variation that no definition 
cast in terms of these concepts can be more than partial. Yet, the Jews do 
represent an historic continuum, have survived as an identifiable, yet constantly 
shifting series of groups. Is there any least common denominator other than the 
designation 'Jew' that can be found to mark the historical fait accompli that the 
Jew, however defined, seems to be? It is seriously to be questioned. A word 
can mean many things to many people : and no word, one may almost conclude, 
means more things to more people than does the word 'Jew.' " Science aside, 
there are many Jews who insist that Jews are not an ethnic group at all, but 
simply a religious denomination. 

Anthropologists generally agree that "ethnic group" can mean any group with 
similar cultural attributes, and that there is almost no limit to the number of 
human groups who, taken together, constitute an ethnic group. For example, 
they say that persons of Puerto Rican origin in New York City may be regarded 
as constituting a different ethnic group from persons of Puerto Rican origin 
in Puerto Rico. Similarly, the French in Provence constitute a different ethnic 
group from the French in Normandy. Hence the term has so many meanings 
that it becomes meaningless. And the result is that the provision of law requir- 
ing such information is too vague to be applied. Justice Holmes has rightly 
said that a bad law may be preferable to a vague one. We believe this provision 
of the law to be both vague and bad. 

In closing, may I thank you for the time you have allotted me and the organ- 
izations for which I speak. I am sure that the outcome of your deliberations 
will be a major contribution to immigration policy and that your recommenda- 
tions will benefit ovir great coiuitry and strengthen democracy's hand in its 
struggle with aggressive totalitarianism. 

INIr. Engel. I should like to make this statement: that you gentle- 
men gave us an opportunity when you were in New York in September 
to make a preliminary statement in which we gave the reasons why 
we are so strongly opposed to the McCarran bill, and particularly the 
national origins system. But we at that time were not prepared to 
make a final recommendation or definite recommendation as to what 
we thought should take its place. 

So you gave us an opportunity to make a supplemental statement 
at this time, which is what I will now make. 


I would like to start off, if I may, by referring to the rather exciting 
incident that occurred last week, the granting of a Nobel prize to Dr 
Selman A. Waksman for the discovery of stereomycin, the first anti- 
biotic which has be n discovered as a cure for tuberculosis.^ I mention 
that here because it has a direct connection with immigration, because 
if you had been on a dock on one day in 1915 you would have seen a 
family come to this country from the Ukraine and you would have 
regarded them as outlandish in appearance, with strange clothing, 
strange haircuts and foreign tongue and it wouldn't have occurred to 
us thjit anvone in this group would make a major contribution to the 
welfare of this country, in fact, the world. But that group included 
a boy called Selman Waksman. We admitted him and he was edu- 
cated here and he showed an inclination toward sciences. He became 
a member of the research staff of Kutgers University. He made this 
discoverey and he assigned the royalty to Eutgers so they could con- 
tinue research in that field. 

I mention that because it high lights the fact that immigration is a 
two-sided coin. I think we are too apt to think of it as being something 
that is advantageous to the immigrant, and certainly it is advan- 
tageous to grant to a person in a country where he is subjected to 
persecution and depression and no economic opportunity, a chance to 
come to this comitry where he breathes the air of freedom and has 
an opportunity to pursue the kind of life that his talents entitled 
him to. 

I think we should also remember that immigration is a subject that 
also concerns America, not just the immigrant, and it is important to 
think of the cultural and economic and social contributions that the 
immigrants make, and I could give you dozens of other instances-, 
maybe not as dramatic but still as important, where immigrants have 
contributed to our war effort and to our general welfare. 

I think we should also remember that this has something to do with 
the soul of America. As Monsignor Swanstrom said, this country 
had its greatest development and highest opinion in mankind when it 
was really a haven for the oppressed. While nobody argues today that 
we should have unlimited immigration, we feel we should have as 
much immigration as we could absorb, and in granting visas there 
should be nothing that smacks of international doctrine of racism. 
We agree with those who have appeared today and who have earlier 
appeared who "condemn the national origins system. It is funda- 
mentally bad. It can't be made good. We should not, in our judg- 
ment, be thinking in terms of modifying it to make it less inequitable 
than it is. 

On the matter of strategy I associate myself — and I am speaking 
for myself now — more with Monsignor Sw^anstrom when he said that 
we should direct ourselves toward eliminating the national origins 
system and substituting a new system rather than leaving that provi- 
sion in our statute books and trying to work out temporary legislation 
to take care of emergencies that arise from time to time. I think that 
is sound strategy. 

It was only last June when we were made sick at heart when we saw 
that the Congress, rather casually and really not understanding the 
provisions in this 300-page bill, passed the bill over the President's 
veto. We read that the present basic law had been passed in 1924 and 
more than a quarter of a century had passed before that could be 


changed in any way, and the change when it took place was for the 
worse. We ratlier thought there would be another quarter of a cen- 
tury before we could get that bill changed. 

Look what happened. As Americans we could rejoice in this. It 
shows what a really and truly democratic system we have. The Amer- 
ican people began to sense that in this 300-page bill there were provi- 
sions which were conti-ary to the basic doctrines of American freedom, 
so without much leadership and without much direction there welled 
up a demand for its improvement, for the elimination of these unfair 
provisions. We get as a result the candidates, both candidates of one 
party which had not mentioned this subject in its platform, coming 
out categorically and condemning the McCarran bdl and promising 
to do everything possible to amend it in the next session of Congress. 
We are beginning to see one Congi'essman and Senator after another 
who voted for the bill now^ coming out to excuse and justify and 
apologize for that action and promising to take a leading hand in 
amending it in the Eighty-third Congress. I think the time is ripe. 
We have got a movement that is on the way, and instead of saying it is 
going to take a long time to change this basic fundamental wrong 
and let's leave in this and do something about emergency legislation, 
1 urge that we join in protest that something which is fundamentally 
wrong be allowed to stand and that we should be concentrating on the 
matter of getting a decent bill, a bill that doesn't violate American 
principles, a bill which Americans can be proud of and a bill that will 
help us and not hurt us in the current struggle to wnn the minds and 
hearts of mankind all over the world. 

Now, with that I don't think that I want to go much into detail. We 
favor the formation of a Commission. We think that Congi-ess should 
establish limits, a lower and an upper limit, and within that Commis- 
sion they should be allowed to fix the amount of immigration to come 
in in one year. We suggest a minimum of two-tenths of 1 percent, 
which would be about 300,000 a year and about a maximum of four- 
tenths of 1 percent, which would be around 600,000. We think in times 
like these this country can readily absorb a level of immigration w^ithin 
those two limits. We think that preferences should be given certainly 
on the basis of family reunions and certainly on the basis of hardships 
and perhaps on the basis of skills. We have grave reservations on that 
because it is hard to keep it away from being contract labor. 

Once fixed on that basis, we think two principles should be estab- 
lished: (1) that if those preferences are not filled the unfiled num- 
bers should be assigned to other ])references or to nonpreference cate- 
gories ; (2) wnthin the categories there should be no selection on religion 
or race or national origin, but on a first-come, first-served basis. There 
are those who say that has practical difliculties. Cn the present system 
that is the way w^e grant our visas. There may be people scattered all 
over the world, but when they apply their right to a visa it is based 
on the amount of the number allocated to that country. Of course, 
we would retain the qualifications as to health, loyalty, moral char- 
acter, and education. 

On the subject of de]:)ortation we agree with what has been said 
by Judge Levinthal, although we realize the perhaps lack of realism. 
Certainly deportation, if not technically a punishment, should be sur- 


rounded by the same safeguards that we set up that might lead to 
fine or imprisonment. We believe in the principle of redemption; 
that Avhen a man has been guilty of a wrong but has lived that down 
and has now shown that he is a decent citizen, that should not be 
held against him. We point out the inconsistencies that confront a 
man who applies for a visa outside of the country, and we take the 
principle of doctrine of redemption into account. 

Time does not permit me to touch on all of this such as the retro- 
active features. Another thing very bad in the present law is the 
lengthening or elimination of the statute of limitation. The statute 
of limitation is a fundamental part of our system. There are two 
basic reasons for that: (1) the thought of letting bygones be by- 
gones. When a thing has been committed and a certain number of 
years have passed there is no point in reopening the sore. Second, 
is having regard for the difficulty of one who may be innocent being 
charged with something that took place 10 years ago and being un- 
able to get the witness and the proof to answer that charge. We think 
that principle should be applied in our immigration and naturaliza- 
tion laws as well as in the rest of our judicial system. 

Then, another thing we bring up is this requirement that immi- 
grants state in their visa applications their race and ethnic classifica- 
tion. No. 1, we are very fearful that the purpose — if that isn't the 
purpose of it, nevertheless, it will be treated as the purpose for deny- 
ing applications where a person handling the application is so in- 

No. 2, nobody knows today what is a race and what is an ethnic 
group. We can give you various definitions of that. Incidentally, 
we are having scientists and some anthropologists make a study of 
that. We are hopeful of having it completed so we can have it out 
before you submit your study. 

Now, we associate ourselves with those who urge the establishment 
of some system of review or appeals. I am not an expert on this sub- 
ject, but as you were asking the previous question, Mr. Chairman, it 
seemed to me a fairly obvious and, if I may say so, simple answer to 
your question. I would say for the most part of the applications 
made today they are made on an informal basis without a record, 
but if action is taken for granting or rejecting it that the Government 
in one case or the immigrant or the sponsor ought, on its own, call on 
the officer for a rehearing for the purpose of establishing a record. 
And at that rehearing they should have a record made just as we 
have in any administrative board in this country, and on that record 
the appeal could be taken by either the immigrant or his sponsor, on 
the one hand, or by the Government, on the other hand. 

Now, that about covers the subject. We are very grateful to you 
for giving us this second chance for presenting our views. If there 
are any questions I would be glad to try to answer them with the help 
of Mr. Liskofsky. 

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

Wlien the study you mentioned you are having made concerning 
race and ethnic classification is completed, if you will submit it to 
us, it will be incorporated in the record at this point. 

Mr. Engel. Thank you. 


(The study referred to follows:) 

Statement Submitted by Sidney Liskofsky in Keiiai.e of the Amepjcan 

Jewish Committee 

The American Jewish Committee, 

New York, N. Y., November 20, 1952. 
Mr. Haruy N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, PresidenV s Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization, 

Executive Offlcc, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mb. Rosenfield: In the testimony of Irving M. Engel, iiresented to the 
Commission at its hearings in Washington on October 28, he discussed briefly 
certain problems raised by the requirement in section 222 (a) of Public Law 414 
that the immigrant in liis visa application state his race and ethnic classification. 
At that time, he informed the Conunission tliat the American Jewish Committee 
was studying the question more closely and hopes to submit to the Commission, in 
due time, a more detailed analysis. 

This analysis, prepared after consultation with eminent sociologists and 
anthropologists, is contained in the attached document. We hope that the Com- 
mission, among the numerous other matters it is engaged in studying, will consider 
and have some recommendation to make with respect to tliis question. 

A copy of this memorandum has been submitted to the Bureau of the Budget 
and the Visa Division of the State Department. 
Sincerely yours, 

Sidney Liskofsky. 

Identification of Immigrants by Race and Ethnic Classification in Section 
222 (a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, Public Law 

The problem of the classification of immigrants to the United States has always 
been a particularly knotty one because the terminology of classification is open 
to challenge. This is true of the most recent immigration legislation — the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (Public Law 414) — which in section 
22£' (a) demands of the prospective immigrant that he state his "race and ethnic 

The term "race" has long been used in our immigration legislation. As long 
ago as 1S9S, the office of the Commissioner of the L^nited States Immigration and 
Naturalization Service ordered that the immigrant's race and religion he re- 
corded — in addition to counti-y of birth, country of last residence, and country of 
citizenship. Immediately the question arose as to what was meant by "race." 
The Commissioner apparently wanted to intei-pret the term in its broadest ix)ssi- 
ble sense and he issued a checklist of not less than 50 different "races" -or 
"peoples," ranging from African to West Indian. This listing influenced the 
content of the Dictionary of Races or Peoples (S. Doc. No. 662, 61st Cong., 3d 
sess. ) which the Immigration Commission presented to Congress on December 
5, 1910. The dictionary also provided the basis for classification under the 
Immigration Act of 1924, section 7b, which required that each inunigrant state 
his race. With some modification, the Dictionary of Races or Peoples still serves 
as a basis for the classification of immigrants. 

Both the Commissioner's insistence that immigrants be classified racially and 
his method of classiflcati(m, were a product of the time. The lS90's in the United 
States were market by an increasing race consciousness. Historians, economists, 
and even the budding disciplines of sociology and anthropology, inspired by the 
winds of racist dogma that blew from Europe and by native racialists as well, 
were making extensive use of the race concept. Most of those who wrote as- 
suredly of the role of race, did not bother to define the term. And if they did, the 
definitions were so varied as to range from population groups with biologically 
determined physiological traits to those having the vaguest sort of cultural 
identity. The Dictionary of Races or Peoples reflects this confusion and has 
been doing so for more than 40 .years. 

Since the dictionary became the basis of the classification of immigrants, much 
has happened in the field of anthropology to render it obsolete. Almost a helf 
century of experimentation with various methods for the classification of man- 
kind into races has resulted in the use of such criteria as shape of head, color 
and texture of hair, skin color, lip formation, nasal index, blood type, etc. But 


none of these, alone or in combiiiatiou, have proven to be infallible as criteria 
of classification. 

For example, the Dictionary of Races or Peoples on the bases of certain of these 
criteria speaks of the peoples coming from Northern, Central, and Soutliern 
European countries as belonging to the Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean races. 
But the fact is that the individuals coming from these countries do not all fall 
conveniently into these three racial categories. There is, first of all, considerable 
race mixture and, secondly, it is altogether possible for the members of a single 
family to fall into diverse racial categories. Thus, parents with predominantly 
Nordic featiires have children who differ from their parents and from one an- 
other in stature, nasal index, shape of head, color of hair and eyes, pigmentation 
of the skin, and in blood type. Nordic parents, therefore, may have offspring 
with predominantly Alpine or Mediterranean characteristics. 

In addition, we might also inquire as to how valid are these classic lines of 
race division? Many anthropologists are not at all convinced that Nordic, Alpine, 
and Mediterranean represent pure or original race types. They question whether 
in prehistoric times the white peoples of Europe evolved as separate races having 
the physiological characteristics which are today ascribed to Nordics, Alpines, 
and Mediterraneans. They maintain that the contemporary effort to categorize 
peoples along these lines is more of an arbitrary effort than justified on the basis 
of what is known of the history of Europe's peoples.^ 

Finally, the criteria of race, no matter how established, are assumed to be 
permanent and virtually impregnable to environmental change. But Franz Boas, 
on the basis of studies of the physical changes among immigrants to America, 
concludes "that the assumption of stability in man's physical characters is no 
longer tenable without qualification * * *. Not only may immigrant popula- 
tions undergo modification when transposed to a sufiiciently difi;erent environment, 
but physical changes may also occur in fixed populations as their environments 
alter in the course of time." Boas observes that the Eastern European Hebrew, 
who has a very round head, becomes more long-headed in America ; the southern 
Italian, who in Italy has an exceedingly long head, becomes more short-headed, 
"so that both approach a uniform type in this country, so far as the roundness 
of the head is concerned." It would seem therefore that those bodily measure- 
ments upon which the anthropologists rely for the detection of race differences 
are impermanent in a changing environment and do not have that degree of 
fixity which the racialist assumes.^ 

Writing in the magazine Commentary, Prof. Don J. Hager of Princeton Univer- 
sity repudiates attempts toward the racial classification of peoples according 
to their physiological characteristics on these grounds: "(1) An uncritical com- 
mitment to measurement for mea.surement's sake; (2) the unfortunate tendency 
to change tlse criteria of racial membership as one goes from one group to 
another, thereby compounding the confusion; (3) neglect of the inevitable fact 
that any increase in the number of different criteria used to determine racial 
membership will automatically increase the number of races discovered by the 
investigator ; (4) the acceptance of the blending theory of inheritance which sets 
the classical investigator off on the search for pure and ideal racial types ; and 
(5) a general unawareness of the genetic complexities underlying the trans- 
mission of conventional criteria of racial membership, e. g. cephalic index, skin 
color, hair and eye form, stature, and the like.^ 

However, Hager is not content to let the theory of racial classification rest at 
this point. He obviously thinks well of the efforts of Prof. William C. Boyd, 
the geneticist, to classify people racially on the basis of gene frequencies for 
blood groups and types.' But another geneticist, Theodosious Dobzhansky, is in 
sharp disagreement insofar as he finds unconvincing all attempts to correlate 
the blood-group situation with the classification of the human races based on 
external characteristics.^ And Earnest A. Hooton of Harvard also disagrees 
with the assertion that the particular type of blood which is inherited seems to be 
independent of the other physical features in which race is determined." 

1 H. J. Selijrman, Race Against Man (New York. 19.S9). dd. 66-91. 

2 Franz Boas, Chanprps in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants, American 
Antl^ropolotrist, XIV (1912). 530-562. 

^ New Lifrht on the Races of Man. Commentary, XIII (January 1952), SI, 

* Genetics and the Races of Man: An Introduction to Modern Pliysical Anthronolo^v 
{Boston. 1950). The quotation is from Hager. p, 81. 

* Genetics and the Origins of Species (New York. 19.37) 51 
»Up From the Ape (New York, 1931), 97. 


Now, it is not within the province of this presentation either to affirm or to 
deny the possibility of a racial classification of mankind. What we have demon- 
strated, rather, is the difliculty involved in arriving at a definition of race and a 
scheme of classification flowing therefrom that is scientifically tenable and upon 
which the experts are to some extent agreed. Such a conception of race, it is 
plain, has not been evolved nor does it seem likely that it will soon evolve. And 
this in turn poses the problem as to what the immigrant is to answer when 
inquiry is made as to his race. 

Certainly, on the basis of the evidence pi'esented, it is apparent that the use 
which the Dictionary of Races or Peoples makes of the race concept is demon- 
strably fallible and, what is more, scientists can offer nothing positive to replace 
it. Under the circumstances, the conclusion of Huxley and Haddon seems 
applicable : "The ^A•ord 'race' as applied scientifically to human groupings, has 
lost any sharpness of meaning * * * that no such clear-cut term as applied 
to existing conditions, is permissible.' 

The further provision of the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act for the ethnic 
classification of pi'ospective immigrants raises other difficulties of definition and 
classification. The term "ethnic" has not been defined in American law,* 
although for administrative purposes the Department of State has endeavored 
to descriiie it in relationship to the Volksdeutsche. The second part of section 
12 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1048 provides that between July 1, 1948, and 
June 30, 1950, 50 percent of the German and Austrian quotas shall be available 
exclusively to "persons of German ethnic origin who were born in Czechoslovakia, 
Hungary, Poland, Rumania, or Yugoslavia * * *" 

The Department of State on March 30, 1949, issued the following definition of 
German ethnic origin for the guidance of American consular officers in Germany 
and Austria. This definition demands that the applicant be "characteristically 
Germanic * * *" This, in turn, is to be determined upon the basis of the 
following combination of factors, the presence or absence of any particular one 
of which will not, in itself be considered as conclusive, but any combination of 
which may be considered as providing satisfactory evidence of German ethnic 
origin : 

"(«.) Antecedents emigrated from Germany. 

"(ft) Use of any of the German dialects as the common language of the home 
or for social communications. 

"(e) Resided in the country of birth in an area populated predominantly by 
persons of Germanic origin or stock who have retained German social characteris- 
tics and group homogeneity as distinguished from the sun-ounding population. 

"(d) Evidences common attributes of social characteristics of the Germanic 
group in which he resided in the country of his birth, such as educational insti- 
tutions attended, church affiliation, social and political associations and affili- 
ations, name, business or commercial practices and associations, and secondary 
language or dialects." 

Even though this definition was drawn with reference to a particular group— 
the Volksdeutsche — there are difficulties in the path of its application. For 
example, take a Polish national, one of whose parents emigrated from Germany. 
At home, the household was bilingual in the sense that both German and Polish 
were used. He lived in an area in Poland that was predominantly German in 
population, but attended a school in which the language of instruction was Polish. 
At the same time, he still retained some interest in German cultural and social 
activities, going so far as to join a hiking and sports organization, the member- 
ship of which was predominantly German. While at school, he meets and even- 
tually marries a Polish girl and they go to live in a iJredominantly German area 
of Poland where they are in business. For business reasons, he retains many 
of his German cultural interests and associations — but in the household Polish 
is sjjoken, the childri^n go to Polish schools, and he alone maintains slender ties 
to the German grouj) in the cultural sense. What is the ethnic classification of 
such an individual and his family? Is he ethnically a German or a Pole and on 
what basis is he to be assigned membership in one group or in another? 

'J. S. Huxle.v and A. C. Hartdon. We Europeans (New York, 1936). 

8 A search of the following failed to disclose the use, definition, or explanation of the 
tenns "ethnic" or "ethnic classification" : The lesrlslative history of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act of 1952; the Federal Disest ; Descriptive Word Index (vol. 1) and 
Words and Phrases (vol. 71 ; U. S. Code Annotated) : Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1928 
edition) : Ballnntine Law Dictionary (19.30 and 1948 editions) ; Black's Law Dictionary 
(19.3.T edition) ; Corpus Juris — Cyclopedia of Law and Corpus Juris Secundum; Ruling 
Case Law ; the card ind<^x of the Library of the Association of the Bar of New York. 


Under the instructions issued by tlie State Department, the consular officer 
may exercise a wide range of discretion in interpreting which, and how many 
of these criteria, go into determining "characteristically Germanic." And so, 
it is altogether possible that any two consular officials might decide the case of 
the above individual differently — one calling him and liis family etlinically Polish 
and another finding them "characteristically Germanic." It is significant that 
the United Service for New Americans has obtained a ruling that certain Jews 
might be considered "characteristically Germanic" and therefore eligible for 
a visa under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. 

Assuming that the definition of the term "ethnic" made by the Department of 
State on March 30, 1949, was made to apply, under the McCarran Immigration 
Act to the Jewish group, how would such a person as David Daiches, the literary 
critic, be classified? Dr. Daiches, whose father was trained to be a rabbi in 
Rimiania, was born in Sunderland, England, where Sails Daiches had a congre- 
gation. In 1918 Sails Daiches having been appointed rabbi of the Hebrew Con- 
gregation of Edinburgh, the family moved to that city and it was in Scotland 
that David grew up and was educated. So what is David ethnically? Is he Jew, 
Scotch, or English? The answer is that he is probably a mixture of all three — 
bi;t what does he reply to the specific question on the visa application? 

Further along this line, let us ask how Jews are to be identified under the pro- 
vision for ethnic classification demanded by the McCarran Act? The Jews them- 
selves are divided as to how Jews are to be characterized. One segment of 
Jewish opinion liolds that the Jews are primarily a religious group ; another 
that they are an ethnic group or people ; and a third would have Jews identified 
with the country of birth or adoption — Poles, Swedes, English, etc. Not only is 
there disagreement among Jews as to what they are, but anthropologists are also 
far from unanimous as to their proper classification. J. S. Huxley and A. C. 
Haddon claim that "The Jew^s can rank neither as nation nor even as ethnic unit, 
but rather as a socio-religious group * * *" " On the other hand, Carleton 
S. Coon disagrees with the above and asserts that "Jews form an ethnic group." ^° 
Another authority, Melville J. Herskovitz, denies emphatically Coon's conclusion. 
He states of the Jews : "Language, culture, belief, all exhibit so great a range of 
variation that no definition cast in terms of these concepts can be more than 
partial. Yet, the Jews do represent a historic continuum, have survived as an 
identifiable, yet constantly shifting series of groups. Is there any least common 
denominator other than the designation 'Jew' that can be found to mark the 
histoi'ical fait accompli that the Jew, however defined, seems to be? It is seri- 
ously to be questioned. A word can mean many things to many people : and no 
word, one may almost conclude, means more things to more people than does the 
word 'Jew'." " 

It is apparent then that any definition of "ethnic" as applied to many of the 
world's peoples — and particularly to Jews — must be without the rigor that law, 
to be successfully administered, must have. 

It is to be hoped for the reasons developed above, that in due time. Public 
Law 414 will be amended and the requirement that the immigrant state his race 
and ethnic classification, will be altogether eliminated. However, until the law 
is thus amended, it is recommended, first, that the 1910 Dictionary of Races or 
Peoples should no longer be used as a guide, but should be discarded as obsolete 
and altogether out of accord with accepted scientific and even lay concepts and 
usages. Second, we most earnestly ui-ge that "Hebrew" or "Jewish" not be in- 
cluded in any lists (if such are contemplated) of purported racial or ethnic 
groups prepared for purposes of implementing section 222 (a) of the law. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Ml". Chairman, before adjournment for the morn- 
ing, may I ask permission to insert in the record statements that have 
been submitted to the Commission for tliat purpose ? 

I have a statement from the national board of the YWCA of the 
United States, submitted by Mrs. Harrison S. Elliott, general secre- 
tary, and another statement submitted by the Mennonite Central Com- 
mittee by Mr. William T. Snyder, assistant executive secretary, and 
another statement from the National Council of Jewish Women by 

»0p. cit., p. 147. 

"The Races of Europe (New York, 1939), 442. 

" M. J. Herskovits, Who Are the Jews ? in Louis Finkelstein, ed. The Jews, Their History, 
Culture, and ReUgion (New York, 1949)* II, 1168. 


Mrs. Jose])li Willen, cluiiruian of the national coniiiiittee on education 
and social action. 

The Chairman. These statements may be inserted into the record 
at this point. 

(The statements referred to folloAv:) 

Statement Submitted by Mrs. Harrison S. Elliott in Behalf of the National 
Board, Young Women's Christian Association of the United States 

Young Women's Christian Associations 

of the United States, 
Neu- York, N. Y., October 23, 1952. 
Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, President's Co)nmission on Immigration and Naturali- 
sation, National Archives Biiildinff, Auditorium, Pennsylvania Avenue 
and Eighth Street NW., Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Rosenfield: In reply to your letter of September 29, I am happy 
to send you a sliort statement from the national board of the YWCA regard- 
ing the immigration and naturalization policies of the United States of Amer- 
ica. I am glad to be able to do this becaui^e over a period of years the Young 
Women's Christian Association has had many relations with foreign-born 
persons who come to our shores seeking either a haven from oppression or a new 
life and new work under congenial surroundings. 

The YWCA has long ^\•orked for an immigration policy based not only on 
our own needs but on human welfare and is anxious that such policy will help 
the lest of the world know that the United States of America is anxious and 
ready to continue to uphold the proud position she has maintained for so many 

Yours very truly. 

Grace T. Elliott, 

Mrs. Harrison S. Elliott, 

General Secretary. 

The requirements and administration of our immigi-ation laws with respect 
to the admission, naturalization, and denaturali/.ation of aliens and their ex- 
clusion and deportation are vital concerns of the Young Women's Christian As- 
sociation of the United States of America. During the great tide of immigra- 
tion to these shores following World War I, thousands of foreign-born wom- 
en and girls found their way to the doors of the YWCA. The association or- 
ganized international translation and sei vice bureaus and oiiened interna- 
tional institutes in many big cities to which the immigrants came in large num- 
bers. In 1022 the national board endorsed the Cable Act. The YWCA has 
watched and supported legislation over the years to reunite families and to 
afford the foreign-horn person the largest possible measure of humane treat- 
ment. They were gratified therefore when President Truman appointed a Com- 
mission on Immigration and Naturalization on September 4, 1952. They would 
like to offer several suggestions for consideration by that Commission. 

Sub.sections (a) and (c) of section 2 of the President's Executive order are 
of the most interest to the YWCA. However, with regard to subsection 5 it seems 
obvious in light of incontrovertible facts that the admission of immigrants to 
this country has proven of undoiibted economic and social value. In times of an 
expanding economy, such as the United States is experiencing today, there is 
little fear that jobs and business opportunities will be curtailed by the admis- 
sion of a carefully screened, restricted number of immigrants. Under the new 
law, the census year of 1920 is perpetuated as a base for determining quota 
allocations, which was the quota pattern set by the Immigration Act of 1924. 
While legal quota limits are l."')4.O0O yearly, net Enroi^ean immigration from 
19.30 to 1949 avei-aged only 46,000 per year, about one-thirtieth of one percent 
of the T'nited States population. ]\Ioreover, liecause under the Displaced Persons 
Act of 194S refugees admitted to this country are charged against the future 
quotas of tlieir country of origin, immigration from many European countries 
will be drastically curtailed in years to come. The number of immigrants 
would to all appearance be so small that they could not affect the economic 
scene adversely. 

Because the YWCA has long worked for the freeing of our immigration and 
naturalization laws from racial discrimination it is a matter for gratitude 


tbat the legislation passed by Cou.irress last June contained a gesture toward 
the elimination of racial discrimination and quotas are now extended to all 
Asiatic countries. All discrimination in naturalization has been eliminated. 
However, the general pattern of racial discrimination remains in spite of these 
changes. For example, severe immigration restrictions are placed upon persons 
boi'n in a colony or other dependent areas. Since the native peoples of some of 
those areas are mainly of Negro stock, the impression upon the rest of the world 
is such that the United States appears to be guilty of racial discrimination. The 
national board of the YWCA would like to see this discrimination removed. 

The question of the effect of our immigration laws and their administration 
including the national origin quota system on the conduct of the foreign policies 
of the United States of America is of grave concern to the Young Women's 
Christian Association. The distribution of quotas under the base year of 1920 
still remains unfair. Some countries, notably Great Britain, do not fully use 
their quotas and large numbers are wasted aunually. No other country may 
take advantage of this waste. The United States has long been the friend of 
oppressed peoples and it would seem to be a humanitarian course to use these 
unused quotas in order to relieve to some extent, the plight of those victims of 
totaliarianism who seek asylum in this country. Many thousands of refugees 
are still stranded in Western Germany and Austria, and many llee from behind 
the iron curtain every month. 

The waste of quota numbers by countries with large quotas brings another 
criticism, on the use of national origin system to determine quotas, forcibly to 
.mind. Using the 1920 census figures as a base, gives to Western and Northern 
Europeans an unfair advantage over nationals of Eastern European countries. 
This inevitably means that the United States will be judged as being guilty of 
discrimination and inhospitality toward certain groups. A reexamination of 
this wastage seems to be urgently necessary. 

Statement Submitted by William T. Snyder, in Behalf of the Mennonite 

Cenit^al Committee 

Mennonite Central Committee, 
American Mennonite Agency for Foreign Relief, 

Akron, Pa., October IS, 1952. 
Ml'. Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, Presidcnfs Counnii^.sion or, IifDiiigrdlioii and Naturali- 
zation, Washington 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : Attached hereto is a statement by the Mennonite Cen- 
tral Committee which summ;;rizes our views on the immigration and naturaij- 
zation situation. 

We regret it was not possible for us to offer testimony in St. Louis, but \\e have 
invited Dr. J. Winfleld Fretz to submit a statement of his views for inclusion 
in the record. We will send thi.s to you after receiving it from Dr. Fretz. 
Yours very truly, 

Mennonite Central Committee, 
William T. Snyder, 

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

Statement on Immigtation and Natltralization by Mennonite Central 
Committee, Akron, I'a. 

The Mennonite Central Committee is an organization through which the Men- 
nonite churches of the United States and Canada conduct refugee migration and 
resettlement services in addition to other foreign relief and domestic service 
programs. We are plea.sed to share with the President's Commission on Immi- 
gration and Naturalization our convictions on American immigration and natu- 
ralization policy. 

It is the firm conviction of our committee as well as our representatives over- 
seas that the United States cannot permit the refugee problem in particular to 
rest where it is. There are still hundreds of thousands of homeless people in 
Europe and it is our opinion that this situation threatens the stability of Europe 
and somehow our country along with other nations of the world must find a 
humanitarian and Christian solution to the problem. We believe that there 
should be legislation presented and passed in the United States C(;ngress whereby 


our Government will appropriate funds for assisting in the migration of people 
from Europe to other parts of the world and, additionally, our country should 
take its fair share of the immigrants. We make these recouunendations after 
having been very close to the refugee resettlement programs of the international 
agencies and the United states Government since VE-day. 

Although there have been disappointments in the reception and resettlement of 
immigrants in this country, we believe the long-term contribution of these new 
immigrants far outweighs any temporary inconvenience that may be caused 
resettlement agencies or immigration officials. 

The present immigration and naturalization law represents much hard work 
by the Senate and the House and there are certainly good features in the law. 
However, it would seem advisable to us, in our own national interest, to nmke 
further provision for the refugee population in Europe. Our viewpoint is that 
between 200,000 and 300,000 persons should be admitted from this category over 
and above the regular immigration provided for iinder the quota. 

We believe that the United States can absorb this number of people. We have 
observed how remarkably the immigrants, particularly the children, fit into the 
American scene. While there are problems in connection with the resettlement 
of the older people, we feel that the United States will immeasurably benefit from 
the young people who enter as family members. 

Our agency is not able to evaluate the problems of denaturalization ; exclu- 
sion and deportation as our experience in these activities has been very limited. 

Our suggestion that the refugee problem be given further support is not a new 
idea, of course, since our Government has generously supported the international 
refugee organizations as well as the Displaced Persons Commission; our plea 
is that this effort not be discontinued because the problem to which we directed 
ourselves as a government is far from solved. 

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting these views to the President's 
Commission on Immigration and Naturalization and stand ready to provide addi- 
tional information if it is necessary. 

OCTOHER 17, 1952. 

Statement Submitted by J. Winfield Fretz, Bethel College, Chairman of the 
Mennonite Aid Section of the Mennonite Central Committee 

Mennonite Central Committee, 
Mennonite Agenct for Christian Service and Relief, 

Akron, Pa., November 10, 1952. 
Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, President's Commission on Immigration and Naturaliza- 

Washington 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : You will find attached hereto a statement prepared by 
Dr. J. Winfield Fretz, Bethel College, North Newton, Kans. We ask that this 
statement be made part of the record as an elaboration of the basic statement 
which we gave you from the Mennonite Central Committee. 

Dr. Fretz is the chairman of our Mennonite aid section, which is the depart- 
ment of the Mennonite Central Committee handling the movement and resettle- 
ment of refugees, both Mennonite and others. 

We are looking forward with much interest to the report that the Commission 
will make to the President. It is my strong hope that the change in administra- 
tion will not affect the Interest in improving the McCarran-Walter legislation. 
Yours very truly, 

Mennonite Central Committee, 
William T. Snyder, 

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

Statement on United States Immigration and Naturalization by J. Winfield 
Fretz, Bethel College, North Newton. Kans. 

By way of introduction, I have served on the Kansas Governor's commission 
on displaced persons, as chairman of the Kansas UNESCO displaced-persons 
commission, and as chairman of the Mennonite Central Committee aid section. 
My vocation is that of professor of sociology at Bethel College, North Newton, 
Kans. I write to express my concern about the United States policy of immigra- 


tion and its relationship to the many refugees and displaced persons throughout 
the world. 

I sincerely believe that the United States Government has a moral obligation 
to provide legislation that will permit the immigration of at least 300,000 addi- 
tional immigrants over and above the number permitted to enter under the quota 
system. The present immigration law has some commendable features, but I 
believe the law needs to be rewritten so as to eliminate certain discriminatory 
provisions based on color, race, and nationality. 

The State of Kansas is eager to attract increased population, and in my experi- 
ence with displaced persons in the last 4 years I am unaware of any opposition 
to displaced persons by any labor organizations in Kansas. An overwhelming 
percentage of the displaced pei'sons brought into this country entered one of three 
types of work, namely, agriculture, unskilled factory, and domestic service. In 
all three of these areas there has been consistent manpower shortage, and the 
displaced persons thus filled a gap in the labor market. It is my conviction that 
additional immigrants could very well be absorbed in this general area. 

In Kansas, displaced people were handled almost entirely through religious 
organizations. The Governor's commission consisted of representatives from five 
religious groups. The voluntary agencies of these groups helped to find sponsors 
for the displaced people through individual congregations. This plan of absorb- 
ing displaced people has worked very well since they were quickly oriented into 
a new community. Congregations literally adopted new families and saw to it 
that proper housing, jobs, and social facilities were provided. The close contact 
furthermore gave the immigrants an opportunity to acquaint their American 
sponsors with conditions in Europe. 

This method of absorbing immigrants into our American economy seems wise, 
eflScient, and practical. The method, I believe, also affords opportunity through- 
out this central area for the settlement of additional refugees. 

The action of the President in creating the Commission to study the present 
immigration legislation is sincerely appreciated. I pray that the Commission 
will be divinely guided in its recommendations to the President and that its 
efforts will result in relief for thousands of those who are still homeless while 
we in America are living in comfort and in plenty. 

Statement Submitted by Mrs. Joseph Willen, In Behalf of the National 
Council of Jewish Women 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

New York, N. Y., October 21, 1952. 
Mr. Harry Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, President's Commission on Immigration and 
Naturalization, Washington 25, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : Enclosed please find a statement by the National Council 
of Jewish Women for inclusion in the record of the Commission's hearings. 
Respectfully submitted. 

Pearl L. Willen, 
Mrs. Joseph Willen, 
Chairman, National Committee on Education and Social Action. 

The National Council of Jewish Women, an organization of 97,000 members 
in 245 sections throughout the country, is traditionally concerned with main- 
taining and strengthening democracy within the United States and through- 
out th'^ world. In the field of international relations and in domestic affairs, 
the democratic spirit and democratic values are council's primary concern. For 
this reason we are pleased that the hearings presently being conducted by the 
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization give opportunity 
for exjiression on the need to expand the restrictive immigration policy of the 
United States, and we feel sure that the hearings will ultimately be a decisive 
factor in liberalizing that policy. 

Any attempt to apply the democratic standard to the immigration policy of 
the United States reveals many omissions, failures, and, indeed, contradictions. 
On the one hand, the United States is doing everything in its power, through 
economic aid, through military assistance, through propaganda devices such as 
the Voice of America, to expand the boundaries of democracy and demonstrate 
25356—52 99 


the genuine devotion of our country to this effort. But liow effective can the 
United States be if, at the same time, we follow an exclusionary and discrimi- 
natory path in the area of immigration. It is an essential principle of the 
democratic faith that all men are created equal, yet our immigration laws 
discriminate among men on the basis of their race. This kind of discrimination 
which directly affects many potential immigrants to our land, often outweighs 
and even destroys the effect of our public pronouncements of democracy. 

Both major American political parties proclaim the need for equal rights 
for the individual regardless of race, creed, or color, but our immigration policy, 
which speaks for us much more strongly and to a much wider world audience, 
continues to discriminate against people on the basis of their Asiatic ancestry. 
In order to achieve a free world, the United States was one of the first nations 
to urge and participate wholeheartedly in United Nations action against Com- 
munist aggression in Korea. But United States immigration law excludes from 
our shores the refugees from the iron curtain in Eastern Europe who have 
first-hand experience of Soviet totalitarianism and who are ardent in their 
hatred of it. These evidences of contradiction between our words and our 
deeds engender suspicion and hostility among those who should be our partners 
in striving for a free world. 

The National Council of Jewish Women believes that much of the failure of 
United States immigration policy results from a lack of familiarity with the 
sul^ject on the part of the American people. We feel sure that if the majority 
of citizens realized that United States immigration policy is not a thing apart, 
but bears directl.v on American foreign policy and the whole area of civil 
lil)erties and democracy, Congress would have a mandate from the citizens to 
formulate a liberal, democratic immigration law. We sincerely hope that one 
of the results of the hearings being held by this Commission will he to dissemi- 
nate more information on immigration throughout the country and thereby arouse 
great interest in the whole subject. 

The National Council of Jewish Women feels especially qualified to testify 
on the value to the United States of an expanded immigration policy, in view 
of its 48 years of experience with newcomers to these shores. We have first- 
hand experience of their full integration into and varied contributions to the 
American way of life. It is with this experience in mind and a deep faith in 
democracy that we look forward to the formulaton of an immigration policy 
based on the most precious ingredient of the democratic life, the dignity and 
worth of the individual. 

The Chairman, We will now take a recess until 1 : 30 o'clock this 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 45 p. in., the Commission recessed until 1 : 30 
p. m. of the same day.) 





Washington^ D. C. 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
met at 1 : 30 p. m., pursuant to recess, in the Archives Auditorium, Na- - 
tional Archives Building, Washington, D. C, Hon. Philip B. Perlman 
(chairman) presiding. 

Present : Chairman Philip B. Perlman, Mr. Earl G. Harrison, vice 
chairman, and the following Commissioners : Dr. Clarence E. Pickett,^ 
Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson, Mr. Thomas G. Finucane, and Msgr. 
John O'Grady. 

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

The Chairman. The Commission will come to order. 

Prof. Louis L. Jaffe is the first witness this afternoon. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce, prior to Professor 
Jaffe's testimony, a letter from Mr. John W. Cragun, chairman of the 
section of administrative law, the American Bar Association, express- 
ing the views of the American Bar Association, and indicating in what 
respect Professor Jaffe has been delegated to represent the American 
Bar Association in connection with these hearings. 

The Chairman. That may be inserted in the record. 

(The letter from Mr. John W. Cragun, chairman, section of admin- 
istrative law, American Bar Association, follows:) 

Statement Submitted by John W. Cragun, Chairman, Section of Administra- 
tive Law, American Bar Association 

American Bar Association, 
Section of Administrative Law, 
Washhiffton, I). C, October 14, 1952. 
Hon. Harry N. Rosen field, 

Executive Director, PresidenVs Commissiov on I>nmigration and 

17 in O Street NW.. Washington 25, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Rosenfield : I have your letter of Octol)er 1.3, 1952, with respect 
to the desire of your Commission to have the section of administrative law of 
the American Bar Association present its views at the hearing' to be held in 
Washington, D. C, at the National Archives Building Auditorium, Pennsylvania 
Avenue and Eighth Street NW., on October 27 and 28, between 9 : .30 a. m. and 
6 p. m. You indicate that your Ccmimission will study and evaluate the im- 
migration and naturalization policies of the United States. 

The American Bar Association has gone clearly on record in siipport of the 
Administrative Procedure Act <act of .Tune 11, 1946, ch. 324. 60 Stat. 237, .5 
U. S. C, sec. 1001. et seq.) and has directed this section by all necessary and 
proper means to preserve the gains made by that act and develop and .seek the 
adoption of improvements thereof. Seventy-flve Reports A. B. A. 446 (1950). 



The Supreme Court of the United States in Wovp Yang Sunff v. McGrath (339 
U. S. 33) helfl the Administrative Procedure Act to he applicahle to deportation 
proceedings.' This was promptly folloAA'ed hv a legislative rider to the Supple- 
mental Appropriation Act of 1951 (act of September 27, 1950, 64 Stat. 1044, 1048), 
exempting from the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act proceedings 
under laws relatini: to the exclusion or expulsion of aliens. 

The American Bar Association opposed this exemption from the Administra- 
tive Procedure Act of deportation proceedings. We understand that it was 
obtained upon the representation to Congress that providing hearing examiners 
in accordance with section 7 (a) of the act would cost in the neighborhood of 
$30,000,000 (and there have been other estimates by officials of that service of 
from $25,000,000 to $100,000,000). In a letter to the writer by Hon. Francis E. 
Walter of the Committee on the Judiciai-y of tlie House of Representatives in 
1951, he called attention to the last annual report of that agency which showed 
that there was litigation under the act in only 37 cases, which he indicated as 
proof of the extravagance of the estimates, and that the claims are ill founded. 

Under tlie new Immigration and Nationality Act approved June 27. 1952, over 
the President's veto (Public 414, ch. 477, 82d Cong., 2d sess.), section 403 (a) 
(47) repeals the rider contained in the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1951. 
<3n its face, it might be assumed that the exemption has been withdrawn. I 
re.spectfully call attention, liowever, to sections 235, 2.36 (a), 242 (a) and (b), 
and 287 (a), pi'oviding for hearings on immigration and deportation matters by 
a "special inquiry officer" (not a Federal hearing examiner under the Admin- 
istrative Procedure Act), and providing as to eacli that the procedui'e pre- 
scribed "shall be tlie sole and exclusive procedure."' While I am not prepared 
to state an opinion that the guaranty of a hearing before a Federal hearing 
examiner pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act is vitiated in the lan- 
guage of tlie sections to wliicli I have referred (and note that there is like 
question as to the provisions of tlie Administrative Procedure Act for judicial 
review, see sec. 242 (a)), I respectfully urge the position of the American Bar 
Association that the guaranties of the Administrative Procedure Act should 
apply in connection with whatever acts governing these subjects are adopted. 

The section of administrative law has not been given authority by the Ameri- 
can Bar Association to deal in any respect with the ultimate policies respecting 
imm'gration and naturalization. This section is concerned with the integrity 
and fairness of hearings or other proceedings before administrative agencies, 
and with court review of the decisions of those agencies. 

Prof. Louis L. Jaffe of the Law School of Harvard University, Cambridge 38, 
Mass., has been the chairman of the committee on immigration and naturaliza- 
tion of the section of administrative law. As such, he is delegated to represent 
the American Bar Association in connection with liearings wliich you liold, and 
in support of the association's view that tlie Administrative Procedure Act 
ought to apply to these proceedings. In the event Professor Jaffe finds it pos- 
sible to attend your hearings, I will expect him and your Commission to make 
such arrangements for his appearance as may be convenient. 
Very respectfully yours, 

John W. Cragun, Chairmnn. 

The Chairman. Will yon proceed, Professor Jaffe. 


Professor Jaffe. I am Louis L. Jaffe, professor of administrative 
laAY in the Harvard Law Scliool, and I am speakino- not only on my 
behalf but on behalf of Prof. Henry M. Hart, Jr., professor of law in 
the Harvard Law School, \fho has had a ofreat deal of experience in 
research and administration of immigration law. 

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in connection with my repre- 
sentation of the American Bar Association, that representation has 


been restricted to one question alone, namely, the administration of 
the Administrative Procedure Act in connection with deportation pro- 
ceedings and hearings ; and I will indicate at the time when I inake the 
statement which of those views are the views of the American Bar 

JNIy colleague, Professor Hart and myself, have decided to restrict 
ourselves to a general glance at the procedure of the act, and particu- 
larly the spirit in which the procedure of the act has been framed. 
We don't feel particularly competent on the question of quotas, though 
we do agree with the general criticism that has been made of the quota 
system. But this is not our field of understanding, particulaidy. We 
have therefore looked over the procedure with a view to the spirit in 
Avhich the procedural arrangements of the present act are drafted, and 
with a view in respect to what the new spirit should be restricting. 
We have picked out a few in order to indicate what we believe to be 
the very improper and inappropriate way in which the present a;'t 
is drafted. 

The present act is compounded with hostility and suspicion of the 
immigrant. Xow let us assume that there is going to be some limita- 
tion on immigration to this country, both in the way of over-all quotas 
and in the way of personal qualifications. Nevertheless, it is our feel- 
ing that those who are permitted to come should be treated as friends. 
This is a transaction, we believe, of mutual benefit to them and to this 
country, and to the particular relatives and friends who are the 

Furthermore, we believe that the immigration law is one of the 
princi]3al expressions of the interest in this country of friendship 
with the rest of the world and that, therefore, the act should be 
entirely restudied, completely restudied with this kind of spirit in 

Xow, just a few examples of the hostility and suspicion which sur- 
round the immigrant from the moment he comes, and stays with him 
long after he has arrived. For example, take an old inequity, which 
continues in this act. It is true there were some attempts to eliminate 
it by the discretion of the Attorney General. 

If a mistake is made in granting an immigration quota number to an 
immigrant he becomes inadmissible at this end even though he has 
come here and pulled up stakes and come with his famih^ It is true 
that the Attorney General in his discretion may lift this bar, but we 
feel that it is entirely inappropriate that a person who has come here 
in all good faith and whose coming here was not due to his mistake 
or the mistake of the country or the authorities, is subject to the 
uncontrolled discretion of an officer. It is contrary to sound adminis- 
tration, contrary to American policy. What difference in a country of 
150.000,000 persons can it make that one or two or a few ex-quota 
people come into the country? Once the immigrant is here or has 
arrived he is surrounded by all kinds of burdens and risks of proof. 

For example, if he becomes a public charge within 5 years he must 
show that it is not due to causes which existed at the time when he 
came. If he becomes a mental defective within .5 years he has the 
burden of showing that it isn't true or due to causes that antedated his 
coming to this country. Furthermore, and this is a change for the 
worse from the old act, he is deportable at any time — it makes no 

1568 coMAnssiox ox immigration and xaturalization 

difference how lonor he has been here — if for some reason or other he 
was not admissible to come to this country. 

Under the old law there were provisions for 3 years and 5 years of 
various kinds for a variety of effects of this sort. One of the most im- 
])ortant and necessary provisions in the act is tliat which permits the 
Attorney General to suspend deportation where the person has rela- 
tives, close friends, in this country, and where his deportation under 
the old law would have been an economic hardship to him or his 

Now look what has been done in the new law. The House com- 
mittee, speaking about this act, says in its rather cruel and casual way 
that all cases of deportation under these circumstances involve hard- 
ship and frequently unusual liardship; but this is not enough, says 
the committee — tlie hardsliips should be exceptionally and extremely 
unusual. In other words, the Attorney General is being asked to trade 
in distinctions of misery and liere we have involved the interest of 
citizens of this country because this man will usually have a wife or 
children here, and the Attorney General is put in this invidious and 
administratively indefensible position of making distinctions between 
extreme and extremely unusual hardship. That, of course, means 
that the decisions can't be made ou any sound administrative basis, 
but have to be made by some mythical intuition in order that the 
Attorney General not be subjected to criticism by hostile congressional 

Another thing, the new act contains what to us has been a shocking 
provision and has been for a long time in immigration, and that is that 
any alien who voluntarily takes a trip abroad, though a permanent 
resident, when he returns to this country he is making a new entry, 
and therefore all of the rules that are applicable to a person who has 
never been here and has no connection with the United States are then 
automatically applied to him. 

Now it is true that with so many things in this act the Attorney 
General may weigh, the Attorney General is given all kinds of dis- 
cretionary powers where there should not be discretion and, conse- 
quently, the Attorney General, in his discretion, with a number of new 
limitations on the exercise of his discretion, that have absolutely noth- 
ing to do with the question of what law should be applied to him, such 
as a 7-year requirement of residence — all these restrictions are added 
to the old law, vrhich had a very definite purpose. 

It is our view, finally, that a person who has established permanent 
residence here shoukl be free to travel the same way any other citizen 
is free to travel and that when he attempts to return to the country the 
question of his right to remain here should be governed by the rules 
which relate to deportability and not to exclusion. 

In other words, we believe that this rule that every time an alien 
leaves this country he makes a new entry should be abandoned as a 
hostile and mean rule, sei'ving no purpose appi'opriate to the policies 
of the immigration law. 

Tlie last point in this attitude toward the immigrant is one you have 
had pointed out to you a great many times, but it simply completes 
tlie picture, of the position of the alien in this country and that is 
the provisions which I liave noted from the ])ress have been stressed 
over and over again; that even after the alien has become a natural- 
ized citizen, if he, under one circumstance I believe, is gl^ilt3^ of a 


contempt for refusing to answer a congressional committee, it is 
conclusively concluded that his entry into this country is fraudulent. 
In other words, if he is associated with some organization which would 
be cause for exclusion, there is a very heavy assumption, though not 
conclusive. Now this creates a very special class of second-class citi- 
zenship and it is a second-class citizenship that attaches itself to the 
alien. The suspicion and distrust of any and all aliens, and we think 
that this whole law should be drastically considered and reconsidered 
with the end in view of conforming it to a rational spirit, a rational 
attitude toward the alien. 

Now the second point Ave are interested in is the question of the 
power of the conscience. It seems to have been thought prior to the 
new legislation — at least it was thought in many circles — that the 
consular authority with respect to the denial or granting of visas was 
not reviewable in the Department of State. Whatever was the true 
view, I read the new law and as I read the committee report — and I 
hope maybe we are wi'ong on this — but as I read it there is a very 
deliberate attempt to put the consular decision with respect to visas 
beyond any possibility of review by anyone whatsoever. There is 
this very curious provision saying that the Secretary of State has a 
general power to administer this immigration law with the exception 
of this one feature. 

Now, I think, if you begin to look tlirough the law, look through 
the whole body of the law, you will find that it is almost unprecedented 
that a power of such vast dimensions affecting the alien so nearly, 
affecting his relatives and friends in this country so nearly, a power 
really as large as any which is granted to an official in this law, that 
this power is granted without any review whatsoever. We have 
searched in vain for anything comparable to it. It has come to be 
a premise of our whole administration of justice that no one man 
should Iiave an absolute power which cannot be reviewed anywhere, 
and here you have these consuls all over the world, the great variety 
of men, men we may admit perfectly competent and perfectly good 
men. but men with the greatest variety of standards of character, of 
attitudes, of understanding of the law, and here 3'ou are permitting 
these men all over the world to adjudicate these very, very important 
interests without any power of review by any men at all, and par- 
ticularly any administrative power, and the only effective review is 
a power of administrative review. 

It is not only that this is absolute power. It is that it is uncoordi- 
nated power. It is contrary to the correct principles of administration 
to allow to a great number of men spread all over the globe to make 
the policy of the United States without any power of coordination 
and control in the upper hiei'archy. 

Be3^ond that, we feel that there should be the possibility of review. 
Now perhaps there is judicial review at the moment; there is very 
little law about this. Cases are here and there, just one or two; but 
there are very considerable difficulties about judicial review. There is 
first the question of who could bring the proceedings. There is one 
case that permitted the sponsor or relative, I believe it was the husband, 
to bring a mandamus proceedings in order to mandamus a consul to 
grant a visa in favor of his wife. No question was raised. We think 
the law should be clear that the person who is the sponsor — that is, 
who is the official sponsor, the relative or person bringing over this 


person as a laborer — by having cleared it with the Attorney General, 
should be in a position to raise this matter in court. We don't feel 
that we emphasize the judicial review to the same extent that we do 
the administrative review, because judicial review is not an appro- 
priate instrument for day-to-day control, and the court can only 
review when abuse of discretion or an improper construction of the 
law is applied. 

We are also aware that there may be some procedural problems 
connected with this review, and we think that those problems have to 
be woi'ked out once the major decision is made. There are problems 
of proof. But there will in most cases be a sponsor in this country 
and he will be in a position to adduce evidence or to raise questions of 
law. Furthermore, it might be possible to attach a semijudicial officer 
or roving officers, let us say, to the embassies, or let us have someone 
in the embassy abroad who is in a position to review this sort of thing. 
We don't go into the details ; w^e don't think that would be profitable. 
We think first the major procedure should be made and then these 
procedural problems could be based on this and passed as they come up. 

Our next point has to do with visitors' visas. Now, you have re- 
ceived testimony about this just recently from persons who are far 
more competent than we are to deal with it. From scientists who 
have seen the impact of the administration of the visitor visa clause 
on scientific meetings in this country. Some cases mentioned have 
had to be held without the chief authority in the subject being present. 
We don't go into that, and the only contribution that we can make to it 
at the moment is an appendix which I have appended to these remarks, 
a suggestion for amending the law in order that Congress will give a 
go-ahead to the Attorney General to issue regulations for the expedit- 
ing of visas. We feel that though the Department of Justice is pres- 
ently competently able to make regulations of this sort, that the state of 
opinion is such and the state of the congressional indications of policy 
is such that the Attorney General really has no mandate to undertake 
the expedition of this type of visa. It might well be subject to 
criticism in Congress, which he would not like to subject himself 
to. We therefore think that there should be an expressed declaration 
in the statute of a policy of favoring the coming to this country of 
aliens, of learned aliens for learned meetings, and that the regulations 
will go in terms of these persons being brought under official or 
representative or responsible sponsorship. That is, they would be 
brought under sponsorship of a university or learned society. 

We have been studying this, a small committee of which we were 
members last year, and some physicists at Harvard, and some scientists, 
at Harvard and MIT, studied this problem, and we came up with this 
appendix which you will find at the end of our prepared statement. 
It is simply a suggestion. It may not be the best way of dealing with 
the problem, but the suggestion suggests a possible point from which 
drafting could proceed. 

Then we come to the question of the application of the administra-' 
tive procedure act to deportation and exclusion hearings, and that, 
too, has been a matter, I am sure, about which this Commission has 
heard a good deal, and about which there has been a great deal of 
writing, so I can assume you all know the background and all cases 
and authorities will have been brought to your attention. 


The committee of the American Bar Association, of which I am the 
cliairman, the committee on innnigration, a committee of the admin- 
istrative hiw section of the American Bar Association, restucliecl the 
problem last year as to whether the Administrative Procedure Act 
should be applied particularly to deportation hearings. 

Now the real meaning and real question of this is not the question 
of all the elaborate details of the Administrative Procedure Act. 
They' are involved but they are only very incidentally involved. The 
crux of this question is who the hearing officer shall be ; whether he 
shall be an official in the regular staff of the Immigration Service or 
whether he shall be one of these sort of quasi-independent hearing 
officers under section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The 
decision of the Administrative Procedure Act was that in proceedings 
that involved an accusatory element, an element of trying a person 
for violating the law or for some personal dereliction, the hearing 
officer should be a man picked out on certain standards set up by the 
Civil Service Commission and who is not beholden to the department 
for which he works for advancement, and who could on\j be disciplined 
by the Civil Service Commission and who had no other function than 
that of a hearing officer. It was thought that this would induce a 
proper judicial frame of mind. 

Now the Supreme Court in the Wong Yang Sun case decided that 
since an alien about to be deported was constitutionall}' entitled to 
a hearing that Congress should have been taken to have understood 
to have meant that such a hearing officer should be provided for a 
case of that type. In other words, if a person's right to a hearing 
stood on a constitutional basis it would be assumed that he would be 
entitled to the best kind of hearing that Congress knew how to provide, 
and in the middle of this was the Administrative Procedures Act, 

Now you know after tliis decision the Immigration Service indi- 
cated to Congress that this would be a very expensive decision to 
implement and might run to $27,000,000 a year. 

My committee was disinclined to believe that it would run so high. 
This was based on the assumption that all deported aliens or aliens 
about to be deported would ask for a hearing of this type, and that 
these hearings would each run a half day. Now these things seem 
to be rather unlikely. However we are not experts and really know 
very little about this question of expense, and it is one that you can get 
information on far better than we can. 

We do say this, however, with respect to the element of expense : that 
expense is not the only consideration ; that really the decision is in- 
volved in the Administrative Procedure Act, it was a decision that 
in the interest of justice and fairness, some expense was warranted. 
Now there may be great expense, there may be the risk of greater ex- 
pense. But these are very valuable, very vital. No more basic or 
vital would be a hearing to deport a man that may long have been a 
resident in this country. 

Now my colleague, Professor Hart, and myself would be inclined 
to provide a similar hearing in exclusion cases, but we don't press 
the point. If there is a problem of expense that seems insuperable 
here, why then we suggest that at the very least aliens who have been 
admitted here for permanent residence, that is, who have been duly 
iidmitted, admitted according to the usual proceeding, at least they 


should have the very best hearinjj possible. Mr. Hart thinks there is 
a good case for judicial heariiifr in this case. These, by the way, would 
be the bulk of hearino- cases, because where the immigrant has not 
come in with proper papers or cannot show he has come in at a regular 
port of entry, there will usually be no important questions of fact 

Just one point about the comment on exclusion in the new act. It 
is provided that a special inquiry officer will hold the hearing, who will 
not have been a pei'son who investigated the case in which he is sitting. 
But that isn't good enough. He will have been a person who is investi- 
gating or has investigated other cases. He has a rare power with the 
immigration inspector who is presenting the case to him. Further- 
more, this is the provision that under normal circumstances he, him- 
self, will conduct the hearing ; if he is to conduct the hearing and is a 
member of the regular inspection staff he will not have that dis- 
interestedness of mind that he should have in hearing these issues, and 
even if a special staff is set up, though that certainly would be the very 
best solution short of the Administrative Procedure Act solution, even 
so, these persons will be beholden to the Department for their ad- 
vancement and for their discipline within the Immigration Service, 
which would not be true of an Administrative Procedure Act, sec- 
tion 11, trial examiner. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion 
which was initially the conclusion of the bar association that the Ad- 
ministrative Procedure Act, the application of section 11, to the immi- 
gration procedures should be restored. 

Now, one last point : there are few provisions in the procedures re- 
lating to declarations of nationality. We were not too clear from 
the notice wdiether the nationality sections are a part of the inquiry 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Yes, they are. 

Professor Jaffe. Well, the thing that bothers us in this section on 
declaration of nationality, is that any change should have been made 
at all restricting the availability of this very liberal and humane 
pi-ocedure which existed during the present act. Why, for example, 
why w^as there a limitation of 5 years which previously could always 
h ave been availed of ? I don't know that the effect of this act is that 
no procedure would then be available as to declaratory judgment; but 
the alien w^oulcl not have the advantage of a certificate of identifi- 
cation. He would not be able to have an ordinary declaratory judg- 
ment action to come to this country. It is, I take it, only under section 
268 that the certificate of identification is issued. 

Another thing that bothers us somewhat more about the new pro- 
cedure with respect to declarations of nationality is that, if there has 
been an exclusion proceeding in the })ast or if there is presently an ex- 
clusion proceeding, these proceedings are adjudicated. The alien 
cannot in this type of procedures raise the question of citizenship. 
This we think is bad. 

We have this most peculiar situation under the old law. The per- 
son in the country was entitled to the trial in the issue of citizenship ; 
but if that person left the country voluntarily for a trip or only for 
10 or 15 minutes, he comes back and then the question of his citi- 
zenship or nationality, as it is phrased in this statute, is raised; he is 
not entitled to a judicial trial. Now, that is an invidious and absurd 
distinction. It has no relation to justice. It has no relation to the 


policy of the act. It is part of tliat old business that every coming 
back is a new entry and placing the resident in the same — the per- 
manent resident, in the same category as a person that has been out- 
side of the country. 

Mind you, this, however, is with respect to a person who may in- 
deed be a citizen. Now, under a decision of the Court of Appeals of 
the District of Columbia in 1950, the court held this distinction no 
longer prevailed; that the crucial proceeding, the fact that there had 
been previously proceedings was not res judicata and the question 
of nationality would be given a complete nationality trial, and that 
is the correct solution, in our opinion. 

Now the new law Avould seem to abolish that distinction because it 
makes an exclusion proceeding, either past or present, res judicata 
and the p^'oceeding that anyone coming to this country shall not have 
a judicial proceeding at all. That is, a person who comes to this 
country under a certificate of identification does not come in order 
to attend a judicial proceeding, as I understand this drafting; he 
comes in order to be admitted into this country under the procedure 
available for excluding aliens. Now this to our mind is a distinction 
without any justification, to distinguish between a putative citizen 
who ha})pens to be abroad and a putative citizen who happens to be in 
this country seems to us to be no proper justification for that. 

I suppose this is a very rare case and I don't know the background 
of it from the point of view of the nationality law. But if the person 
has never been in this country he is not entitled to a certificate of 
identification at all, and there is no provision in this statute for his 
having any action. Maybe he has an action. I daresay he has an 
action under the general declaratory judgment act, I don't know ; but 
in comiection with that declaratory judgment act, there is no pro- 
vision for him to get this. He cannot get a certificate for getting here 
to be a plaintiff in a declaratory judgment. 

We object to the inadequate notice provisions in other sections 
tluit we point out, but they are rather small matters and they can be 
looked at in our memorandum. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Professor, 

Conunissioner Finucaxe. May I just ask one question: the Ad- 
ministrative Procedure Act provides after hearings you have intro- 
duced a way of ultimate decision by the agency head? 

Professor Jaffe. Yes. 

Commissioner Fixucane. In the immigration field that would be by 
the Attorney General, as it is now set up? 

Professor Jaffe. Yes. 

Conunissioner Finucaxe. Now there has been some discussion and 
criticism of that on the ground that the Attorney General is also the 
prosecuting officer and issues some directives in the field of prosecuting 

Professor Jaffe. Yes. 

Commissioner Fixucaxe. And the idea has been expressed that 
possibly when the case gets into the adjudicative process the ultimate 
decision shouldn't be left with the Attorney General and the sugges- 
tion has been made that in lieu of final decision by the Attorney Gen- 
eral there should be set up a statutory appellate board of some nature 
which is completely independent of any decision or any action that 
the normal agency head may make, that is, independent of action by 


the Attorney General. That presumably would be goin<z even beyond 
the safeguards provided in the Administrative Procedure Act. I 
think we would be interested in any view you might have in that field. 

Professor Jaffe. I think it would be a very wise procedure. I see 
no adequate reason for the Attorney General to sit as the ultimate 
judging officer. 

Now insofar — I wouldn't want to speak with respect to the exercise 
of discretion — that is, insofar as the functions of discretion are vested 
in the Attorney General, that may raise another issue and I would 
have to think about that. But insofar as the questions are questions 
of fact it seems to me that the Attorney General has no appropriate 

As I said, my colleague. Professor Hart, and I hadn't time to think 
through the thing or to notice whether to agree with him or not ; but 
believes in these cases that the hearing indeed should be juclicial 
which, of course, goes even further and includes all administrative 
authorities. But I think there has been an unfortunate tendency in 
this country to lump all administrative activities together and sup- 
pose they are all subject to the same kind of rule. There are situations 
of course where the head of an authority in working out a policy 
should have not only the power to initiate the action but he should 
have the power ultimately to declare the policy. Such a thing is true 
in my opinion of the Federal Communications Commission or the 
Interstate Commerce Commission. But I don't think that applies to 
a matter fundamentally accusatory. AVliere the person violates this 
act is a criminal or comes in, in violation of this rule, those issues are 
not issues of policy. They are in a sense but no more than issues that 
are tried by courts. I would consider that to be a very wise suggestion. 

The Chairman. I was looking at that appendix that you have sug- 
gesting a change or additional sections. I didn't quite understauvl 
how the Attorney General could be authorized to issue rules and regu- 
lations to expedite the granting of these nonimmigrant visas when 
they are issued in the first instance by the consuls through the State 
Department. Would you not have one Cabinet officer trying to 
expedite the action of an official in another department ? 

Professor Jaffe. We may have gotten the wrong person. I think 
that as we studied the act at the time when we did, we may have been 
wrong about this, the Attorney General had certain powers with 
respect to admitting subversives. T think that was our understand- 
ing, and therefore, that he was the proper person — in ol her words, he 
was a man who had rather tremendous discretion. We may have 
been wrong there. 

The Chairman. Would you want him to expedite the granting of 
visas by another department? 

Professor Jaffe. I don't know, perhaps we have the wrong fellow. 
This, of course, would involve a departure from the notion that the 
consular authority can deny visas at will and it would subject him 
to some type of overriding regulations by the Attorney General ; but 
we believe some proper authority, be it the Attorney General or be 
it the Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting jointly, 
should put out some type of regulation of this sort. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Professor. 

The more detailed statement which you and Professor Hart have 
furnished us will also be inserted in the record at this point. 


(The statement follows:) 

I am Byrne Professor of Administrative Law in Harvard University. I am 
also c'liairman of tlie committee on immigration of the administrative law 
section of the American Bar Association. However, as such chairman I have 
authority to speak for the committee and the association with respect only to 
one subject, namely, the application of the Administrative I'rocedures Act to 
immigrati(m hearings. In the course of my remarks, I shall specifically identify 
those views which I am authorized to express on behalf of the bar association. 
I have no authority to speak for the association on any other views here 

I would like also to advise the Commission that I have the authority to asso- 
ciate with me in the views expresse<_l here Henry M. Hart, Jr., professor of law 
in the Harvard Law School. Professor Hart has had experience both in the 
study of the immigration laws, and in their administration. He was a member 
of the committee of three which made a study of the Inuuigration Service when 
it was in the Department of Labor. In 11)40—41, at the time of the transfer 
of the service to the Department of Justice, he served as a Special Assistant 
to the Attorney General as.signed to the service and, among other things, assisted 
in the establishment of the Board of Immigration Appeals as recommended in 
the report of the earlier committee. Professor Hai't and myself have conferred 
on the views here expressed, and they are our joint views unless otherwise 

We shall confine ourselves primarily to questions of administration and pro- 
cedure. It is not within our competence to evaluate the existing quota system, 
nor to suggest alternatives. We shall assume, for present purposes, that any 
system adopted in the immediate future is likely to have quotas of some sort; 
categories of admissibility and nonadmissibility ; and provisions looking to the 
deportation of aliens who have demonstrated their uudesirability. Within 
this frame of reference we have studied the administration and procedure as it 
<-ulminates in the present act and we have certain criticisms and suggestions for 


Though we may accept the proposition that the law will continue to require 
careful scrutiny of visitors and to limit inuuigration, with resi^ect both to its 
total and to the personal characteristics of the individual immigrant, we cannot 
accept as a necessary or appropriate corollary the spirit of the present act. It 
bristles with hostility to aliens. It is instinct with suspicion of anyone who 
seeks to enter this country. It is a bacchanalia of meanness. 

Even visitors must cross a barbed-wire entanglement of restrictions. We 
used to encourage people to come to see us not only because we liked them 
and because their visits were profitable but because also of a deep awareness 
that true understanding of America was best secured by first-hand observation 
and that such understanding was our best assurance of international respect 
and amity. Now, more than ever, we need to bind ourselves with ties of friend- 
ship to foreign countries. The present statute, however, is written as if it 
were trying to throw away this best of all resources for promoting world-wide 
appreciation of the American way of life, and to convert it instead into an 
instrument for the cultivation of international irritation against the United 

The law treats the immigrant even more harshly than the visitor. It makes 
it hard for him to enter, and subjects him to a cruelly invidious and discrimina- 
tory regime after his entrance. It has been our tradition to welcome the immi- 
grant to our country, on the theory, first, that he has an important contribution 
to make to the national welfare and, second, that his coming and remaining 
here is of vital importance to relatives and close friends who are citizens or 
resident aliens. The ultimate resource of any coxmtry is the human abilities 
of its people. The intelligent use of that resource calls for warmth and friend- 
liness, not hostility and suspicion. Although we may limit the numbers who 
come here, it should be a major premise that those who are permitted to come 
are not only receiving a benefit but conferring one on us. It is a transaction of 
lugh mutual advantage. All administrative and procedural arrangements 
should be tested by that major premise and made to conform to it. 

To describe all the manifestations of hostility in the present act would 
require a treatise. We are forced to confine ourselves to examples. 


A prime example of injustice — which, however, is merely adopted from the 
old law rather than newly invented — is embodied in section 211. Under this 
section, an alien to whom a visa has been issued and who has made the journey 
here may be sent back if any one of several mistakes has been made in the issuance 
of the visa. This is proi>er enough if the mistake is fairly chargeable to the 
alien's own carelessness or misrepresentation. But the section goes much fur- 
ther than this and visits upon the alien the consequences of purely administra- 
tive errors of the consul or the Department of State. These iiiclude errors in 
determining nationality, the availability of a quota number, nonquota or prefer- 
ence status, and the like. 

Sometimes, It is true, the Attorney General "may in his discx'etion" admit 
the alien in such cases. This illustrates, the policy apparently followed through- 
out the drafting of the 'act : "Don't give an alien a bi-eak if you can help it; 
but, if you can't, make the break depend upon the uncontrolled discretion of 
Kome administrative official." There is no valid reason in this situation for 
subjecting the immigrant to this hazard of oflBcial grace. Not even this dis- 
pensation is open, moreover, if the available quota numbers for the current 
and the following year have been used up. Yet, a few extra immigrants can 
mean nothing to a country of l."»0.()()(),()(H). In such a case the United States 
in its majesty says to the immigrant (and to his citizen relatives and friends) 
that he must shoulder complete responsibility for the error ; that the solemn 
determination of the riovernment's own officer in reliance upon which he 
has torn up his roots <it home and transplanted himself to a new country is 
worth no more than a s'crap of paper, and that he must go hack. 

P^or the senseless cruelty of this provision we can discover no warrant. It 
belies the natural feelings of Americans and senselessly impairs the honor and 
good name of the Nation. 


Once the immigrant has' been duly admitted he is placed under' a special 
and invidious regime. This is particularly indicated by onerous burdens of 
proof and heavy presumptions of undesirability and misconduct. For example, 
section 241 (a) (3) : An alien is deportable if within 5 years after entry he 
becomes institutioiuilized at public expense because of mental disease, defect, 
or deficiency unless he can show that the condition did not exist prior to entry. 
Section 241 (a) (8) : He is deportable if in the opinion of the Attorney General 
he has within 5 years after entry become a pubUc char"e from cuse'^ not 
affirmativel.v shown to have arisen after entry. Section 241 (a) (1) : He is 
dei)ortable at any time if at the time of entry he was within one or more of the 
classes of aliens excludable by the law existing at time of such entry. Under the 
earlier law there was a 5-.year limit on this class of deportability. 


The present act retains the power of the Attorney General to suspend de- 
portation, but substitutes for the simple provision of the earlier act a host of 
refined and formidable distinctions which will make it extremely difficult to 
realize the beneficent aim of this power. The earlier act allowed suspension if 
the deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or 
legally resident alien who is the, parent, or minor child of such deportable 
alien. The present act substitutes for "serious economic detriment" "exceptional 
and extremely unusual hardship." 

The committee noted that in almost all cases of deportation "hardship and 
frequently unusual hardship" is experienced. Under the new act, said the 
committee, the hardship must not only be unusual but "exceptionally and ex- 
tremely unusxial." Rarel.v has there been a balder statement of a national 
purpose to be cruel. It is bad administration to require the Attorney General 
to make a distinction so intellectually imponderable, so obnoxious to normal 
impulses of sympathy, and so ruthlessly regardless of the reasonable expecta- 
ti(ms of the alien resident family. Since all of these decisions must be sub- 
mitted to Congress for rejection or aiiproval, the Attorne.v General's judgment 
in the matter is likely to be dictated by political rather than administrative 
standards. In addition the interest of the family is further disregarded by 
requiring the alien to have had continuous neriods of residence of from 5 to 
10 years, depending on the cause for deportation. 


A Jiew and most exceptional power over the life of the immigrant who has 
been duly received into this country is that given to the Attorney General to 
deport an alien for "activity which would be prejudicial to the public interest." 
This comes close to granting to the Attorney General a nearly undehned power 
to make policy in this' area. Our objection to this is not merely on abstract 
grounds of separation of powers but to the violation of its precepts in this 
i-ase. Thus, the very foundation of the life of a permanent resident and of 
his family and fi'iends is made to depend on the power of one man. In view 
of the fact that Congress has had the opportunity to study immigration policy 
for .J years, it is indeed remarkable that it has found it necessary to invoke 
such a supplement to a law already so drastic. Here, again, we have an ex- 
pression of the attitude that the alien in our midst threatens* the counti'y with 
nameless unimaginable dangers. 

, D 

The new act continues the shocking provision of the present law under which 
an alien who has been duly admitted lor permanent residence is permitted to 
travel abroad only at the price of putting into fresh jeopardy his right to be here. 
The provision is that such an immigrant who leaves the country voluntarily is 
to be deemed to make a new "entry" when he returns. Though he may come 
in ex (piota, he may in all other respects be treated as a newly arrived immigrant 
lioth substantively and procedurally. 

We are aware tliat under section 212 (a) the Attorney General may waive 
most grounds of exclusion in favor of a lawfully admitted alien who has resided 
here for 7 years. But why should such an immigrant become sul ject to anyone's 
uncontrcjlled discretion merely because he has chosen, or been impelled by busi- 
ness or family necessity, to leave the country temporarily? The consequence is 
a serious discrimination between an alien who does not or has no occasion to 
leave the country and one who does. We look in vain for a reason relevant to 
immigration policy for thus restricting and penalizing the freedom of movement 
of resident aliens. It is one more indication of the disabilities wMth which the 
law hedges about the activity and the personality of the immigrant ; it is one more 
indication of the law's unfriendliness and suspicion. 

In our view, an alien who has been duly admitted for permanent residence 
should be subject both substantively and procedurally to the provisions relating 
to deportation and not to those relating to exclusion. 


The culmination of this attitude is manifested in section .340. In subsection 
(a) suspicion of the immigrant is carried to the point that 10 years after naturali- 
zation, normally 1.5 years after entry, he will on the basis of certain misconduct 
be conclusively presumed to have procured naturalization by fraud. And in 
subsection (c) certain conduct within 5 years following naturalization creates 
a prima facie case of fraud. We are not here raising the question of the major 
liolicy which these provisions implement. But it seems to us contrary to a decent 
regard for the immigrant to single him out for this peculiarly heavy jeopardy, 
and contrary to sound national policy thus to create a new status of probationary, 
second-class citizenship. 

These are but some of the many indications of hostility to the immigrant. 
We suggest that in reconsidering and redrafting the immigration and natural- 
ization law the draftsman consider his task upon the assumption that, as long 
as we permit immigration, immigraticm serves our purpose as well as the im- 
migrant's, and with awareness that a spirit of friendliness is not only good 
morals but good policy in promoting loyalty and respect for our institutions. 


The present law, resolving all doubts under the earlier law, vests nearly abso- 
lute ix)wer in the individual consular officer to deny immigrant and nonimmigrant 

Though the Secretary of State under section 104 (a) is charged with the 
administration and enforcement of the act, there is especially excepted from 
his supervision the powers, duties, and functions conferred upon the consular 
officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas. There is set up in the 
Department of State a Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs headed by 


an administrator who is to maintain close liaison with the appropriate com- 
mittees of Congress in order that they may be advised regarding the adminis- 
tration of this act by consular officers. In this Bureau there is to be set up a 
Visa Office and a general counsel who shall have authority to maintain liaison 
with the consular officers with a view to securing uniform interpretations of 
the provisions of this act. 

The implication of these provisions is that the Bureau no more than the 
Secretary has any authority to review or control the individual actions of the 
consular officer in the field. This implication is confirmed by the conference 
report. The report notes that suggestions were made for the creation in the 
Deiwrtment of State of a seniijndicial board to review consvdar decisions. The 
committee concluded that it did not feel that such a body should be created by 
legislative enactment, "nor that the powers, duties, and functions conferred upon 
consular officers by the instant bill should be made subject to review by the 
Secretary of State." 

It might be argued that the failure thus to set up such a board by legislative 
enactment was not meant to exclude its establishment by administrative rule. 
We should not like to deny the possibility of such an interpretation, but the 
committee's statement (particularly the italized words quoted above) lends 
itself to the view that tl;e Secretary of State may not set up such a board. 
Furthermore, following the quoted sentence is the further statement, "However, 
the Secretary of State will have under this bill ample authority to provide within 
the Department of State for a system of cooperation between consular officers 
stationed abroad and the Department, so as to be able to advise and assist such 
officers in reaching the decision in more complex, individual cases pending before 
them." This expression of an authority to provide for cooperation, advice, and 
assistance might be thought in the context to exclude a power to review. We 
note, however, that in the previous paragraph dealing with the Board of Immi- 
gration Appeals the committee, though rejecting a proposal to establish it as a 
statutory body, does not thereby negative the power to the Attorney General 
to establish it by regulation. 

If the decisions of the consular authorities in the field are indeed final, this 
in our opinion, is an absolutely unsound situation. 

In putting the question in its proper light, we must once more advert to the 
general principles which should determine the spirit of administration. The 
interest of the potential immigrant is the greatest imaginable. He seeks to 
lay a foundation for all the future major activities of his life. But, as we have 
said above, this objective is one in which we too, within the limits set by law, 
have an important interest. And it is an interest not only of the country as a 
whole but of the parents, children, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, other 
relatives and friends, businessmen, farmers to whom the coming of the immigrant 
is a vital concern. In short, this is no trivial matter for decision but one of 
large import. 

It has become a fundamental premise of our jurisprudence that the decision 
of weighty matters should almost never be placed in the power of a single indi- 
vidual free from the control of a superior reviewing body. We search in vain 
for any parallel in our institutions for this despotic consular absolutism. Rela- 
tively few decisions even of Federal judges are free from the possibility of 
appellate revision. But the consul is not only immune from review but from any 
other kind of check, even of publicity. If there is such a thing as an axiom of 
law, it is that where there is power there must be safegimrds against the abuse 
of power. We have no doubt that consuls, as a group, are as conscientious and 
honorable as any other group of Government officials. We may even assume that 
they are much more so. Still it is indefensible to give to any man, acting in 
.secret in a remote land, autocratic power to grant or withhold a privilege of such 
enoimious value as that of entrance to this country. 

Quite apart from the possibilities of abuse is the necessit.v, as a fundamental 
premise of a government of laws, of some means of effective coordination of 
decisions. Any considerable body of men exercising authority even in the 
utmost good faith will exhilnt a wide variety of judgment as to fact and policy. 
If their judgments cannot be reviewed at a higher level, there will be distorted 
judgments of fact based on the peculiar attitudes and limitations of the officer, 
and differing standards of judgment an<l policy based on individual conceptions. 
Our law sets a very high value on equality and fairness of administration. These 
objectives cannot be secured unless there is review and coordination of field 


Though there are difficulties in reviewing consular decisions, they can be over- 
come. In practically all cases today the immigrant has a sponsor in this country 
who will be a source of information. It is possible also that the immigrant could 
be allowed to come here and present his case, by analogy, to the person who is 
permitted to enter to plead in support of a proceeding to establish nationality. 
Another possibility would be a semijudicial officer from the Department operating 
out the various emhassies abroad who would review cases in the field. The 
working out of the details of procedure can wait upon the major decision that 
some reform is necessary. Once that decision is made the exact dimensions of 
the problem can be more accurately gaged by setting up a tentative apparatus 
which in time would reveal what can be done. 

We believe too that sucli decisions should be ultimately subject to a limited 
judicial determination of legality. But administrative review is a requisite 
first step. Judicial review is perforce a very limited remedy inappropriate for 
the day-to-day control and coordination of administrative action. Furthermore, 
the difficulties of making a record and of providing a proper party defendant 
would be somewhat met were the administrative pi'ocedure to culminate in this 
coiuitry. In tlie event that some judicial relief were made available, it would lie 
appropriate to consider whether the immigrant's sponsor or relative in this 
country could be a proper party plaintiff. Compare United States ex rel. TJlrich v. 
Kellogg (30 F. 2d 78-4, D. C. 1929; husband of alien brings mandamus; lost on 
merits). The immigrant could of course appear in our courts, but there might be 
many practical difficulties of making an appearance here. Some of these, no 
doubt, could be avoided by powers, of attorney. Nevertheless, in our opinion 
we should not be taking too drastic a step in recognizing that, as we have already 
pointed out, the American sponsors of an immigrant have a very great personal 
interest. Many of the classifications of the act already give recognition to this 
interest. And in certain cases, as under section 204 (b), such persons are per- 
mitted to petition the Attorney General for favorable action. Thus, it would be 
the logical extension of an already established principle to allow such persons 
to become parties plaintiff in a judicial proceeding. 


We have already referred to the vital matter of visitors' visas, and its relation 
to long-run considerations of promoting American security by promoting inter- 
national understanding of American institutions and American life. This is one 
of the fundamental problems which we face in our efforts for the ultimate attain- 
ment of a free world. 

Our fears of Communist penetration constitute at present the chief barrier 
to a solution of the problem. We cannot here undertake a thorough af5praisal of 
the competing considerations involved, much less try to strike a balance among 
them. On this issue we content ourselves, therefore, with pointing out that it is 
easy upon a superficial view to underestimate the price that must be paid for 
complete short-run protection. If we could keep out the last Communist agent, 
for example, only by barring access to the country altogether, we should lose far 
more than we could possibly gain. 

In at least one important respect it seems possible, without any major reorien- 
tation of policy, to avoid needless sacrifice, for the sake of security, of other 
national interests. We refer to the question of visitor's visas for scholars, 
students, and professional persons. 

It has grown increasingly difficult to bring together in this country distin- 
guished and representative scientists and learned men from all parts of the world 
to engage in intellectual interchange. Many of these men have found it difficult, 
humiliating, or impossbile to procure a visa. Under our present legislation, 
aliens who have been associated or are associated with certain organizations or 
who have entertained suspected views are excludable. We do not here quarrel 
with these categories of exclusion. Furthermore, we note that the Attorney 
General, the Secretary of State, or the consular officer may waive the applica- 
bility of most of the categories of exclusion. Nor do we quarrel with the fact 
that the applicability of section 212 (a) (27) and (29) cannot be waived. But 
the administi-ation of the waiver pi'ovisions has been very satisfactory. 

Many of the intellectuals of Europe have at one time or another flirted with 
political leftism, and most of them have now forsaken it. The consular au- 
thorities and the secretaries have l)een hesitant and timid in granting waivers to 
such persons, probably because they have feared adverse congressional comment. 
25356-— 52 100 


But the effect on learned meetings in this country has been devastating. Impor- 
tant meetings have been canceled or have proceeded in the absence of the chief 
authority on the subject discussed. Our scientists and scliolai'S have been the 
losers. Free interchange and discussion is a condition of scientific progress. 
Here we have a clear case of cutting off our nose to spite our face. 

Yet we would not criticize the administrative authority. What is needed is a 
lead from Congress. Even the present statute in many of its sections recognizes 
the interest of the counti'y in learning, scholarship, and science. The statute 
should specifically make clear this policy in connection with visitors' visas. 
A group of lawyers and scientists with which we have been connected has worked 
on legislation which would express a policy of relaxation toward the issue of 
visas to scholars who are invited to this country by its responsible learned 
organizations and societies. It is proposed that the Attorney General be em- 
powered to make regulations expediting the grant of visas. The exact form of 
the legislation and of regulations thereunder is a matter for further study. We 
have taken the liberty of attaching to this statement a copy of a draft developed 
last year. It is attached simply as a suggestion of one possible legislative 
approach to the subject. 


We shall next direct our attention to the exclusion and deportation procedures, 
particularly the latter. This Commission is familiar with the recent legal his- 
tory concerning deportation procedure. The Wong Yang Sung case held that 
sections 5, 7, 8, and 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act were applicable to 
deportation hearings. This decision was based on the constitutional right of 
the alien to a hearing before deportation ; and incidentally must be taken as a 
qualification of the somewhat unguarded statement in House Report No. 1365 
implying that the power to deport is absolute. See also the excellent judgment 
of Wyzanski, J., in Latva v. NicoUs (106 F. Supp. 658 (D. Mass. 1952)) indi- 
cating that there are probably some substantive as well as procedural limitations 
on the power to deport aliens. The crux of the Sung decision was the require- 
ment of iiiderendent trial examiners, entirely divorced from the function and 
the attitude of prosecution. 

The Immigration Service thereupon represented to the Appropriation Com- 
nnttee of the House that it would need an additional $3,000,000 and ultimately 
$27,000,000 per year to hold hearings under APA. The Appropriation Com- 
mittee recommended a rider (which was enacted) to the Supplemental Appropri- 
ation Act of 1951 completely exempting immigration proceedings from sections 
5, 7, and 8. This, of course, went much beyond the reinstitution of immigrant 
inspectors for APA examiners. It exempted the hearings entirely from the 
separation of functions safeguard. 

It does not appear, however, that the Immigration Service availed itself of 
the complete exemption. Its rules reflected many of the APA safeguards. 
Though the present act repeals the rider, it is not clear how much of 5, 7, and 8 
is thereby made applicable. 

In any case, the act rejects what is in our opinion the most significant feature 
of the APA, the independent trial examiner. Deportation and exclusion hear- 
ings are to be conducted by special inquiry officers. The officer must not have 
participated in investigative functions in the very case in which he acts as 
judge. But he may be currently functioning as an investigator in other cases. 
It is, therefore, probable that he will have the prosecutory attitudes common to 
an enforcing stafT ; probable that he will listen sympathetically to a case devel- 
oped by his working partners. 

The act, furthermore, provides that the pi'esiding oflScer shall himself conduct 
the examination of the case against the alien unless the Attorney General pro- 
vides specifically or by regulation that an additional immigration officer be 
as.signed to present the case on behalf of the United States. To say, as section 
242 (b) does, that "no special inquiry officer shall conduct a proceeding in any 
ease * * * in which he shall have participated (except as provided in this 
subsection) in prosecuting functions," and simultaneously to allow the oflBcer 
to be given responsibility for building the record against the alien, is discredit- 
able douhle talk. 

We do not doubt the good faith of the Service nor its disposition to give fair 
hearings. We do not deny that the act is an improvement on the rider of 1951. 
But we return to the fundamental proposition that the provisions of the APA 
taken in their entirety represent a careful, well-considered view of the minimal 
procedural protection needed in a trial involving accusatory elements. This is 


not less but indeed more true of deportation proceedings than of other pro- 
ceedings to which APA is applicable. The interest of a person about to be 
deported and of his relatives and close friends is among the weightiest and most 
significant that can be imagined. In our opinion it is unsound to go below the 
minimum in this ease ; and it is destructive of the genei'al purpose of APA to 
admit exceptions in the absence of a showing that the standard procedure is not 

It has been argued by the Immigration Service that the application of the 
Administrative Procedure Act to deportations would increase the administrative 
cost from $8,000,000 to $27,000,000 annually. This was based on the calculation 
that all deportees would demand a hearing; that each hearing would consume 
a half day, and that for every present hearing officer who presently conducts 
a hearing alone there would be required an attorney and a clerk or stenog- 
rapher. But the recent majority of deportees are Mexican wetbacks. In their 
case there is no disputed question of fact : either they lack proper entry docu- 
ments or have overstayed their time. Wetbacks are presently entitled to a 
hearing but do not ordinarily claim one. There is no reason to suppose that 
they will claim a hearing simply because of its greater formnlity. nor that an 
attorney can be induced fruitlessly to spend his time on behalf of these penni- 
less persons, nor that such a hearing if held would consume 4 hours. 

In the last analysis it seems that some added expense shoukl be hazarded 
where there is in question such exigent claims to justice. We do not overlook 
the fact that the new act restores the APA provision for separation of function. 
But it is just at this point that the APA provision for independent trial examiners 
is significant. The .sejiaration of function is muc^i more than a foi-ni : it em'oins 
an attitude of mind. It seems to us that a special inquiry officer who is a prose- 
cutor one day and an examiner the next will be less apt to develop th's ai-titiide 
than an APA examiner. Even assuming, as may be the case, that the Service 
provides a corps of hearing officers who do nothing else, they will look to their- 
superiors for promotion as APA examiners do not. 

As indicated at the outset, the American Bar Association and its appropriate 
committees concur in the views here expressed that the present act insofar 
as it supersedes the Administrative Procedure Act is unsound. 

Mr Hart and myself believe, furthermore, that similar safeguards should 
apply fo exclusion hearings. This rests again on the basic premise which, in 
our opinion, should determine the character of all of the acts' administrative 
arrangements. The attitude toward the immigrant should be one of friendli- 
ness and welcome, a recognition of his tremendous interest in the transaction, 
of the vital interest of his American relatives, friends, and sponsors, and of the 
interest of the country. Once he has made the determination to come here, 
to pull up stakes, to invest in transportation for h'mself and his family, it is 
cruel to send him back unless he has received an unimpeachable hearing. 

If the foregoing views do not meet with approval, we suggest an Plternative 
for the Commission's consideration. Among deportation cases, those which bulk 
the largest numerically and which present the least sympathetic and the 
w-eakest case for full procedural protection are the cases of aliens wlio have en- 
tered the country surreptiously — notably those of the Mexican wetbacks. Al- 
though it does not aiiq^ear to us to be necessary, there would be warrant for 
exempting from the APA all those deportation cases in which the charge is failure 
to enter the country by the established procedures through a proper port of 

Mr. Hart wishes also to advance a further suggestion. The cases which pre- 
sent the strongest appeal for full procedural protection are those of aliens who 
have been duly admitted for permanent residence. He believes that the respect 
which the United States owes to its own prior determination calls, if nothing 
else, for consideration of the possibility of authorizing deportation in these cases 
only by judicial process. 


We wish finally to note a number of procedural arrangements concerning 
judicial review and action which trouble us. 

CI) Section 360. (a) Declarations of nationality: The present legislation sets 
up a number of new restrictions on these actions which appear to us to be with- 
out justification. Actions under section 360 (a) by residents must now be 
brought within 5 years of the denial of the privileges of nationality. There 
should be no time limitation on the right to secure such a declaration of status. 
This concept applicable to an action for damages is inapplicable here. 


But there is a far more important objection. If tlie person's nationality ha& 
been the subject of an exclusion proceeding or presently is the subject of an 
exclusion proceeding he cannot biing the action at all. Under the present 
act an earlier adverse administrative ruling has not l)een held not to be 
res judicata (Mnif Yhw Off v. McGrath, C. A. D. C. 1950. 187 F. 2d 
199). This has had the effect of doing away with the discredited and discred- 
itable distinction arising under Ju Toy (198 U. S. 253 (1905) ) and Ng Fung Ho 
(259 U. S. 276 (1922) ). In the latter case it was held that a resident was en- 
titled to a judicial detei-mination of citizenship. It was in this case that Mr. 
Justice Brandeis made his famous observation concerning "the difference in se- 
curity of judicial over administrative action." But Ju Toy continued to govern 
the procedural rights of a person who was seeking to enter the United States at 
the time he claimed citizenship; he was limited to an administrative hearing. 
The strange perversity of this distinction is further emphasized when it is re- 
aliz?d that Ju Toy had long been resident in this country and had only departed 
temporarily (Cf. United f?tates ex rel. Medeiros v. Watkhis, 166 F. 2d 897 (2d 
Cir. 1948)). The holding in Mah Ying Og, supra, had two effects: (1) It per- 
mitted the action despite an earlier administrative exclusion; (2) it permitted 
a judicial trial of the issue of nationality. This is as it should be but the new 
legislation appears to restore the old procedural distinctions. 

The earliei" statute and the pi-eseiit statute both provide that a claimant to 
nationality not physically present in this country may be given a certificate of 
identity to enable him to come here and make his claim. Under the earlier 
statute the claim would be adjudicated in a judicial proceeding ; under the present 
statute in an exclusion proceeding. The earlier statute applied to all claims 
made in good faith. The present statute is applicable only to claimants who 
have been physically present in the United States. For those who are thereb.v 
excepted there appears to be no provision either for a certificate of identity or 
for an action of any kind. It is possible that the general declaratory action 
procedure is available. But the claimant Nvill be seriously handicapped if he 
cannot be present. This is wrong. Insofar as such a person may be a national 
of the United States he should be given the procedural facilities deemed requisite 
to a proof of the claim. 

(2) Section 242 (a) provides that the courts may review the Attorney Gen- 
eral's refusal to admit to bail and i-elease on a conclusive showing that the Attor- 
ney General is not procet^ding with i-easonable dispatch. This language may be 
read as excluding review on any other ground. In many situations the deporta- 
tion of an alien will take months and years, and in some cannot be consummated 
at all. In such instances if the Attorney General is acting with all the dispatch 
pos.sible, his decision to keep the alien in indefinite custody would (under this 
reading) be immune from judicial scrutiny. To vest an absolute unreviewable 
power of detention and incarceration in an executive ofl!icer violates one of our 
greatest traditions. Such powers have been granted or assumed in time of war. 
We should hesitate in peacetime to turn our country into an armed camp. 

(3) Section 340, revocation of naturalization; If the naturalized person be 
absent from the United States or from the judicial district in which he last had, 
his residence, notice may be given by publication. Such notice is grossly inade- 

(4) Section 342: The Attorne.v-General is authorized to cancel documents of 
citizenship. Notice may be given at the person's last-known place of address. 
Such notice is grossly inadequate. 

Appendix A. Visitor Visas 

Proposed section 212 (d) (9) : 

(9) Since the regular procedures for the issuance of nonimmigrant visas give 
rise to delays which from time to time prevent, contrary to the public interest, 
the participation of aliens in meetings, conferences, temporary employment, or 
other transactions in the United States for which customarily participants do 
not make arrangements long in advance of their occurrence (such as scientific, 
scholiirly, trade, and industrial conferences, employment in temporary research 
positions, and the conduct of commercial, industrial, or pi'ofessional transactions), 
the Attorney-General shall issue regulations, where he finds it to be in the public 
interest, to expedite the granting of visas to. and the temporary admission of, 
aliens to participate in such meetings, conferences, temporary employment, or 
other transactions, and may admit such aliens, pursuant to such regulations, 
without regard to their possible excludability under iu\y of the provisions of 
paragraph (28) of subsection (a). Nothing in this paragraph shall be con- 


«true(l to allow the admission of any alien who is excludable under any of the 
provisions of paragraphs (27) or (29) of subsection (a), nor to limit the dis- 
cretion of the Attorney C4eneral to exclude any alien whose presence in the 
United States he knows, or has reason to believe, will prejudice the national 

(There follows a supplementary statement submitted by Prof. 
Henry M. Hart, Jr., and Prof. Louis L. Jaife, as an addendmn to 
their prepared statement:) 

In our ori.ninal statement we suggested that the refusal of consular officers 
to issue visas should lie subject to some appropriate mechanism of coordination 
and control. We understand that this suggestion has been made by others; 
and that the Commission is interested in it but would like additional statements 
as to how a plan of cnntrol could l)e worked out. 

We are aware of tlie difficulties in establishing review of consular decisions. 
The consular officers are spread all over the world, many of them far distant 
from this country. If tliere is to be any review in the tield, either a great num- 
ber of reviewuig officers might be required or large distances would have to be 
traversed. If review were restricted to Washington the record might be too 
inadequate to lay the basis for meaningful action or place upon the consuls 
heavy burdens of preparing a record. And there are many problems of detail, 
:such as the form which evidence if any is to take, the treatment of coutidential 
evidence in sul)versive cases, and the like. 

Because the problem is a novel one for which there is little precedent, it 
would be unwise at this juncture to try to elaliorate a detailed blueprint ; or to 
be too concerned to develop a system which completely satisfies all claims. Only 
by setting up a system along experimental lines can the nature of the problems 
be fully developed. We will do no more, therefore, than to suggest certain 
broad bases upon which a beginning can be matle combined with a generous 
rule-making power to secure flexibility. 

1. A board of review should be set up in the Department of State, with au- 
thority to determine whether the action of a consul in denying a visa is "in 
accordance with law." 

2. Whenever a consul denies a visa, he should be required to state in writing 
the reason for the denial and to communicate this to the applicant, notifying 
Iiiui in the communication of his right to appeal to the Board of Review. To 
■discourage the multiplication of appeals, the notice could properly state that 
primary authority in the issuance of visas is vested in the consuls; that the 
Board is authorized to nnKlify or reverse the decision of a consul only if it 
finds that it is not in accordance with law ; and that such action accordingly is 
extraordinary and to be anticipated only in very exceptional cases. 

3. If the applicant chooses to appeal he should so advise the consul within 
^ short period of time. If the cou.sul has based his action upon evidence or 
information outside of the application, he should embody the evidence in a 
statement addressed to the Board, and serve the applicant with a copy of his 
statement, subject, however, to the proviso that if the consul has denied the 
Tisa because of subversive activities or associations, and believes that it would 
be contrary to the interests of the United States to reveal the evidence or the 
source of the evidence, he should so advise the applicant and transmit the evi- 
dence to the Board in confidence and without making it known to the applicant. 
If, in this or any other case, the applicant challenges the basis of the consul's 
<letermination in fact, he should be required to support the challenge with ap- 
propriate affidavits. 

4. The applicant should be entitled to be represented before the Board either 
through counsel or through relatives, friends, or employers who are sponsoring 
liis application. The representative should be allowed to introduce testimony 
or submit additional affidavits, and make oral argument. 

5. On the basis of the record thus compiled, the Board would decide either (a) 
to affirm the ruling of the consul; or (6) to reverse the ruling forthwith and 
i.ssue a visa; or (c) before final decision, to send an officer abroad to hold a 
hearing and/or make such other investigation as the Board deemed necessary 
and to report to the Board. 

6. The Secretary should have authority to make rules and regulations not 
inconsistent with these few basic mandates. 

The intention of the suggestions just made is for the most part obvious, but a 
few comments are in order. 


We have been concerned not to impose npon the consul too heavy a burden; 
of formal procedural duties. Thus he is not required to hold any hearings, and 
in the hrst instance he is required to make only a short pro forma report. Only 
in cases of appeal must he formulate a somewhat more elaborate document. The 
record conse<iuently will he of modest inoportious. It will thus limit the work 
of the board of review. 

The board is deliberately given very broad discretion as to the record on which 
it chooses to act. It will therefore be in a position to sort out the routine from 
the difhcult cases. The use of investigating or hearing officers in the field is 
placed entirely in the board's discretion. Thus are avoided both the enormous 
organization that would he required if a field hearing were made I'outine and the 
great number of legal problems that would arise if hearing of evidence were given 
as a matter of right. 

The board is given the power to issue a visa. This takes the onus from the 
consul in a case where he has not seen fit to do so. 

Tht standard proposed for the board's measurement of the consul's decision, 
has a content made familiar by long use. It is to be anticipated that it would 
warrant reversal in only a relatively few cases. But it is to be anticipated also,, 
from the whole history of American administrative law, that the very possibility 
of review and reversal would stimulate more careful consideration by the con- 
suls, and thus improve the quality of decisions at least as importantly in those 
cases that were not appealed as in those that were. 

No proposals are made with respect to judicial review, but since the board 
is given the authorit.v to issue visas it is probable that it can be reached in the 
District of Columbia bv mandamus in a clear case of refusal to act pursuant to 
law. (See United States ex rel, Ulrich v. Kellogg, 30 F. 2d 784, D. C. 1929.) 

(There also follows an exchange of correspondence with the Amer- 
ican Bar Association pertainino- to the foregoing testimony of Prof. 
Louis L. Jaffe.) 

American Bar Association, 
Section of Administrative Law, 
Washington, D. C, Novemher 3, 1952. 
Hon. RoBEUT G. Storey, 

President, American Bar Association, 

Republic Bank Building, Dallas, Tex. 

My Dear Mr, Storey: The evening of Friday, October 81, 1952, my attention 
was directed to an article in the Washington (D. C.) Post which had appeared 
in the issue of Wednesday. October 29. 1952. opposite the editorial page, which 
included the following paragraph near the end of the article : 

"Louis L. Jaffe, chairman of the innnigration committee of the American Bar 
Association, said that, procedurally, the McCarran-Walter [Immigration and 
Nationality] Act adopted June 27, 1952, over the President's veto ( Public, 41 1, 
ch. 477. 82d Cong., 2d sess.), 'bristles with hostility to aliens. * * * it ij^ ^ 
bacchanalia of meanness.' " 

I am drawing this matter to your attention because Professor Jaffe is chairman 
of this section's committee on immigration and naturalization. I did not see 
his written statement — probably through oversight or lack of sufficient copies; 
nor did I hear his oral presentation. My information came in a casual conversa- 
tion with our section secretar.v. Miss Patricia Collins. I checked this information 
with Hon. Ben.iamin G. Habberton. the Deputy Commissioner of Immigratitm. 

By reason of the misconception of the ABA's position which might be given the 
public as a result of the newspaper report, I prepai'ed the same evening and 
delivered to the editor of tlie Post a letter, copy of which is enclosed. 

More immediately, I am concerned with the possible public^ — or, at any rate, 
newspaiier — misinterpretation of Professor JalTe's personal observations about 
the McCai-ran-Walter Act. I am aware that on occasion representatives of tlie 
ABA appearing before congressional committees, even on direct inquiry by com- 
mittee memliers, have asked to be relieved from stating their personal views, as 
perhaps tending to confuse the con)mittee as to the view of the association. 
While perhaps that is a little extreme, it does seem to me that a possible solution 
would be for regulation by the board of governors to make plain that article XII 
of the bylaws, forbidding secticm or committee or member appearance on behalf 
of the association without prior authorir/.ation of the house of delegates, contem- 
plates that no person so appearing shall inchide with his statement personal 
views, even though plainly labeled as such. Further, that he shall not stimulate 
request from the legislative or otlier body for a statement of his personal views. 


and, if nevertheless request is made of them, that he request an opportunity to 
appear in his personal capacity for the sake of making response, and to be 
excused from making the response as part of his appearance or testimony on be- 
half of the association. 

On the other hand, there may be ground to consider unwise the adoption of 
such I'egulations. Ordinarily, the good judgment of the lawyer and his sense 
of propriety will be sufficient restraint and will leave him that freedom to meet 
the particular situation to which he is accustomed in his ordinary professional 
work. On the contrary, there may be occasional instance of ignorance of the 
bylaws, which would be true as well of any regulations under them. And there 
may be irresponsible intent, regardless of bylaw or regulation, to exploit the high 
standing the association enjoys with the Congress in order to grind the ax of the 
particular individual or some interest with which he is alined. I raise the 
question, though, of the need for some further attention to this field for what, if 
any, action you ma.v he inclined to take. 

By way of report to the council of the section of administrative law, I am 
taking the libert.v of sending a copy of this letter and enclosure to each member. 
Sincerely yours, 

John W. Cragun, Chairman. 

American Bar Association. 
Section of Administrative Law, 
Washhujton, D. C, October 31, 1952. 
Editor, Washington Post, 

Wa.'uhington, D. C. 

Sir: My attention has been directed to an article in the Post by Murrey 
Marder, Post reporter, October 29, 1952, concerning the McCarran-Walter Immi- 
gration Act, and bearings being held by the President's Commission on Immi- 
gration and Naturalization. The article states that "Louis L. Jaffe, chairman 
of the inunigration committee of the American Bar Association, said that, pro- 
cedurally the McCarran-Walter Act 'bristles with hostility to aliens. * * * 
It is a bacchanalia of meanness'." So reported, the article may convey to 
rea<lers an erroneous impression as to the position of the American Bar Asso- 
ciation with respect to the recent Immigration Act. 

Professor Jaffe is chairman of the committee on immigration and naturaliz- 
ation of the section of administrative law of the American Bar Association. That 
section is one of the semiautonomous groups within the membership of the 
American Bar Association, but the section's committee on immigration and 
naturalization is not a committee of the association proper. To the best of 
my own belief, tliere is no similar committee of the American Bar Association. 

The section of administrative law is concerned with the administrative integ- 
I'ity of proceedings before Government agencies — the fairness of those proceed- 
ings, the right of the individual to be heard, the judicial review of agency deter- 
minations, and the like. It supports the Administrative Procedure Act, including 
the right to a hearing before a Federal hearing examiner who is impartial and 
who caimot combine the functions of judge, jury, and executioner. 

But this section cannot and does not take any position with respect to the 
policy or substantive aspect of the law. To put it another way : The section's 
concern is not that there shall be an immigration law, but only that if there is 
to be such a law the fairness of its administration be guaranteed. 

In February lO.lO. the Supreme Court of the United States held in Womi Yang 
Sung V. McGrath that the administrative hearing: in connection with deportation 
of an alien must be held before a Federal bearing examiner. Thereupon, the 
Immigration Service obtained an exemption from the Administrative Procedure 
Act of matters relating to the exclusion or expulsion of aliens. This was ob- 
tained by legislative rider to the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1951, approved 
in September 1950. It was obtained over the protest of the American Bar 
Association and its section of administrative law. 

While the new act. the McCarran-Walter Act, repeals at least in form the 
exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act just referred to, there is 
•some question wliether it does not still deny to persons involved a hearing before 
an impartial Federal hearing examiner. To the extent that the exemption 
from the Administrative Procedure Act may be continued in the new act. that 
exemption is opposed both by the American Bar Association and its section. 

The President's Commission has been directly informed that "the section of 
administrative law has not been given authority by the American Bar Asso- 


ciation to deal in any respect with tlie ultimate policies respecting immigration 
and naturalization." It is reported to me that I'rofessor Jaffe's written state- 
ment likewise njade clear that the American I>ar Association was represented 
by him only as to the problems above mentioned resjiecting application of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. I am informed that in his oral presentation 
the Commission itself could not have been misled as to the scope of the American 
Bar Association's opposition. 

By reason, however, of certain personal views as to the McCarran-Walter Act 
expressed by Professor Jaffe, it may be that the public attending the hearings 
mistakenly understood that the American Bar Association opposes the act 
itself in some such terms as expressed by your reporter — that "It is a bacchanalia 
of meanness." Whether the immigration policy expressed by that act is mean, 
or on the contrary lofty and inspired, is a matter as to which the American 
Bar Association has thus far taken no position. The American Bar Association 
continues to insist that the Administrative Procedure Act shall apply to the 
hearings conducted pursuant to whatever act on this subject is adopted if proper 
standards of administration are to be observed. It goes no furtlier. 
Respectfully yours, 

John W. Cbagun, Cliainnan. 

President's Commission on Immkjration and Naturalization, 

Washington, D. C, November 12, 1952. 
Mr. John W. Craoun, 

Chairman, Section of Administrative Laic, American Bar Association, 
7^4 Jackson Place NW., Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Cragun : This is to acknowledge receipt of a copy of your letter of 
November 3, addressed to Robert G. Storey, president of American Bar Asso- 
ciation, enclosing a communication of October 31, addressed to the editor of the 
Washington Post. 

Professor Jaffe made it perfectly clear to the Commission when he was speak- 
ing for the American Bar Association and when he was speaking for liimself and 
Professor Hart. As far as the Commission is concerned, thei'efore, I think you 
need not be concerned about any misconception as to Professor Jaffe's testimony. 
However, unless you have any objections, I should like the privilege of incor- 
porating your communication in the record of the Commission's hearing. 
Sincerely yours, 

Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director. 

American Bar Association, 
Section" of Administrative Law, 
Washington, D. C, November IJf, 1952. 
Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director, President's Commission on Immigration and Naturali- 
zation, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : I have your letter of November 12, 19r»2, acknowledg- 
ing the copy sent to you of my communication to the Washington Post of Oc- 
tober 31, and a letter to President Storey of the American Bar Association of 
November 3, 1952. 

I am gratified with your statement that Professor Jaffe made it perfectly clear 
to the Commission when he was speaking for the American Bar Association and 
when he was speaking for himself and Professor Hart, and that there need be 
no concern about any misconception as to Professor Jaffe's testimony so far as 
tlie Commission is concerned. 

This accords with my earlier information that the Commission itself could 
not have been misled as to the position of the American liar Association. 

I will raise no objection to your incorporating the communication in the record 
of the Commission's hearing as you request. 
Sincerely yours, 

John W. Cragun, Chairman, 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Masino here? 



Mr, Masino. I am Filindo B. Masino, president of the Association 
of Immigration and Xationality Lawyers. 

With your permission, I will read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman, You may do so. 

Mr. Masino. Mv. Chairman and members of the President's Com- 
mission, in recent years our immigration and citizenship policy has 
become a matter of vital national interest; and during the course of 
4 years' time the appropriate committees of Congress have engaged 
in serious research and study for the purpose of a general revision 
and modernization of the pertinent statutory and decisional laws. The 
Asssociatioii of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers was happy to 
assist in this commendable work ; but I regret to report that the fait 
accompli is a far cry from the contemplated revision and simplifica- 
tion of the laws. Compare the text of Public Law 414 with the immi- 
gration and nationality laws in existence prior to its enactment and 
you will conclude that 119 printed pages of 142 intricate sections and 
subsections falls short of democracy in action. Almost every sec- 
tion makes some cross-reference, and there are many which are so 
involved as to defy the ingenuity of the most gifted advocate or jur- 
ist. Without counting references to prior laws, there are 77 sections 
which contain cross-references to other portions of the law. This 
leaves only 65 sections that may be read without thumbing through 
innumerable pages. 

It is recognized that racial barriers to immigration and naturaliza- 
tion have been eliminated, that sex equality has been established, 
and that at least some minimum immigration quota is afforded to each 
of the free nations of the Asia-Pacihc triangle. But these benefits 
are eclipsed by the maze of intricate language, repressive and inhu- 
mane procedures, and unreasonable and calculated encroachments on 
the constitutional safeguards that have made us a Nation sensible to 
the responsibilities of moral leadership in the struggle for world 

Already, the new law has evinced some deficiencies even before 
formal operation ; and interminable litigation must be expected unless 
the manifest hardships and errors are timelj^ revised. 

The association is grateful for the opportunity to extend its views 
to this Commission. It is justifiably proud of its pioneering work 
with the technical staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, its con- 
tribution to the appropriate committees of Congress, and its zealous 
effort to refine and simplfy the constitutional safeguards and pro- 
cedural guides. 

It is always much easier and far more constructive to rouse inter- 
est in working for a goal that is affirmative and hopeful than merely 
to be against a bad situation. It is better to light one candle than to 
curse the darkness. Hence, we welcome another opportunity to of- 
fer constructive criticism of the handiwork of legislators who seem 
disposed to penalize all immigrants for fear that they may be tainted 
with subversion and atheism. 


If experience means anythin*?, then I think that I can say with un- 
offending egotism that the members of the Association of Immigration 
and Nationality Lawyers are particidarly qualified to evaluate the 
omnibus bill. Not only are we laborers in the vineyards of citizen- 
ship and immigration but a great number of our members have had 
the happy experience of working with the Immigration and Naturali- 
zation Service, thereby learning the administrative techniques and 
procedures. If, therefore, advocates in the field of immigration and 
citizenship have come to grips with the • legal problems of aliens, 
they must, of necessity, have breasted the exciting backwash of con- 
gressional and judicial trends. 

Several months ago the United States Supreme Court decided that 
deportation does not partake of the nature of criminal procedure; 
but this pronouncement has failed to impress the authors and ad- 
herents of the omnibus bill. If the exclusion and expulsion provisions 
of that law are not ex post facto, I am reasonably certain that there 
is an attempt at attainder without the benefit of a hearing or inquiry 
ino the facts. 

I think that it is fair time for everyone to stand up and be counted. 
We can no longer attempt to speak out of both sides of the mouth at 
the same time, even if our utterings are calculated to secure the United 
States from subversion by atheistic and anarchistic ideologies. If 
we would preach the doctrine of freedom and democracy, we must 
demonstrate the courage of our convictions. The association does not 
advocate an open-door policy with no holds barred. But, if we are 
going to treat with foreigners for a better world, then we cannot be 
guilty of duplicity. In other words, if we intend to be restrictive on 
immigration, then let there be equality for all jjeoples. Otherwise, we 
ouglit to equate our immigTation and citizenship policy on the basis of 
the greatest good for the greatest number. 

Before closing, let me cite two instances in the new law which shout 
for immediate attention. As a result of the report of the conferees 
that preexamination has been prohibited, we have the anomalous sit- 
uation of not being able to work out the adjustment of status of hun- 
dreds of aliens who have been accorded this privilege but who will 
not be able to complete their cases before December 24, 1952, by reason 
of the lack of clerical facilities at the American consulates in Canada. 
This is very serious, because the omnibus bill does not in fact prohibit 
preexamination; yet the State and Justice Departments have inter- 
])reted this misinformation in the conference report as enjoining 
administrative action on preexamination cases after December 23, 
1952. Untold hardships will be visited on countless families where 
the breadwinners may be subjected to departure to the country whence 
he came, if this can be accomplished, or to some strange country, to 
await an unpredictable period of time for his visa. 

The next anomaly occurs in the savings clauses covered by section 
405. Proceedings pending on Deceml)er 2'>, 1952, are protected in 
every respect except applications for suspension of deportation under 
section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, or for adjust- 
ment of status under section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, 
as amended. Although the new law does not become operative until 
December 24, 1952, section 405 arbitrarily cuts off suspension proceed- 
ings and section 4 cases under the Displaced Persons Act after June 


iiT, 1952. I fail to see the wisdom or reason for this arbitrary provi- 
sion. But, it is in the hiw, and, unless soon corrected, it will be among 
the sections to be challenged in the courts. 

That concludes my prepared statement. I should like to direct the 
balance of my testimony for just a few minutes to an observation, to 
two deficiencies M'hich cry out for correction even before the law has 
formall}' become operative; and to spend the balance of the time 
allotted to our association and me to a criticism — constructive criti- 
cism — of the law which will be brought forward by our legislative 
coirespondent. Jack Wasserman. 

As a result of the report of the conferees, that preexamination has 
been prohibited, we have the anomalous situation of not being able 
to work out the adjustment of the status of hvmdreds of aliens who 
have been accorded this privilege, but who will not be able to complete 
their cases before December 24, 1952, the date on which the new law 
takes effect. 

By reason of the lack of clerical facilities at the American con- 
sulates in Canada, this is very serious, because the omnibiis bill does 
not in fact prohibit ])reexamination. Yet the State and Justice De- 
l)artments have interpreted this misinformation in the conference re- 
port as enjoining aduiinistrative action on preexamination cases after 
December 28 of this year. Untold hardships will be visited on families 
where the breadwinner is the alien whose status is sought to be 

Also on families where susi)ension has been accorded the alien by 
administrative procedure and the case has gone to Congress for affirma- 
tive action, but because of a new policy in the congressional committees . ,, 
those cases have been held up since aliens in many instances are able ij 
to effect a departure from the United States, go to Canada, under '" 
]>reexamination procedure, obtain a visa, and come back to the United 
States. After December 2>), 1952, preexamination procedure will 

The next, and very next, anomaly comes in the savings clauses 
covered in section 405. Procedures pending on December 23, 1952, 
are protected in every case, except for applications for suspension of 
deportation under section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 or for 
adjustment of status under section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act, 
unless the applications were pending on June 27, 1952, the date on 
which the law was enacted. I fail to see the wisdom or reason for this 
arbitrary provision, but it is in the law, and unless it is soon corrected 
is among the sections to be challenged in the courts. 

In conclusion, may I present for the record a statement from the 
Los Angeles chapter of our association, which was addressed to me as 
national president. It has to do with a subject which is closer to that 
group than it appears to men practicing in this field in other parts of 
the country. 

The Chairman. We were in Los Angeles. Did we receive it there ? 

Mr. Masino. They mentioned they did not appear before your Com- 
mission because of the fact that they knew the association would have 
representatives from the national board to appear here. 

I think in supplementing our statement I should like to present this, 
if it be acceptable. 

The Chairman. All right, we will put it in the record at this point. 


(The statement follows:) 

National Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers, 

Los Angeles Chapter, 
Los Angeles, Calif., October 2^, 1952. 
Mr. FiLiNDO B. Masino, 

President, Association of Immigration and Nationality Laivijers, 
New York, N. Y. 

Dear Mr. Masino: By resolution of the membership at our last meeting on 
October IG, 1952, it was agreed to submit to the national association for possible 
presentation to or use before the President's Commission on Immigration and 
Naturalization a resume of some leatures of the new Immigration and Nationality 
Act which are peculiarly adverse from a local viewpoint. 

The nienibership is acutely aware and proud of the activity of the national 
association in its forthright opposition to the McCarran and Walter bills at the 
hearings before the congressional committees. We are equally confident of the 
excellent representation the association will display before the President's 

The large Mexican population in southern California, estimated to be 800,000, 
points up the absolute discrimination embodied in the act in section 244 (b) 
wherein natives of contiguous countries and adjacent islands are denied the 
privilege of suspension of deportation notwithstanding a showing of eligibility 
under the terms of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 244 (a). The theory 
behind this legislation seems to be that the Mexican and other nearby nationals 
may easily return to their native countries and readily procure a nonquota 
immigration visa. This reasoning is fallacious from the practical standpoint 
because it ignores the mechanics of the visa procedure and the substantial wait- 
ing fme attendant to qualifying for such document. 

For example, as a preliminary step to registering and obtaining an audience 
with an American consul, the Mexican national must procure a passport from the 
foreign oftice in Mexico City, D. F., endorsed with permission to journey to the 
United States and remain here. Those residing within the Los Angeles area, file 
their applications for passiwrts at the local office of the consul general of Mexico. 
The following are requisites : 

1. Birth certilicate. 

2. Police clearance certificate. 

3. Letter of current employment or evidence of resources. 

4. Documentary evidence of residence in the Los Angeles area for at least 
1 year. 

5. Marriage certificate, if spouse is a United States citizen or legal resident. 

6. Proof of the citizenship or legal residence of spouse. 

7. Personal appearance of a blood relative of the applicant who will 
acknowledge in writing a willingness to pay the applicant's expenses to 
Mexico should his return there ever become necessary. 

8. Proof of the employment or resources of the blood relative denoting his 
ability to undertake such obligation. 

Photographs and passport and other minor fees comprise the remaining details. 
The application is forwarded by the local consulate to Mexico City. The present 
waiting period for the issuance of a passport ranges upward from 3 months. This 
waiting time undoubtedly will be tremendously increased when Mexicans can no 
longer be granted suspension of deportation and must apply for passports in 
anticipation of pursuing the visa procedure. 

After the receipt of the passport, negotiations are begun with an American 
consulate to establish eligibility for a visa. Currently, the waiting time for an 
appointment to make formal application for visa, at least at consulates at^jacent 
to the border, is not less than 3 months and more often 5 or 6 months or longer. 

The foregoing will demonstrate that, insofar as Mexican nationals are con- 
cerned, the ready obtainment of an immigration visa is a figment of the imagina- 
tion. Those who might meet the requisites for suspension of deportation but are 
no longer eligible under the new act, including men v/ith families to support in 
the United States, will face an inoi'dinate waiting time in Mexico before receiv- 
ing any consideration for return. It has already become the practice, evidently 
using the strictness of the new act as a guide, for the officer in charge of the Los 
Angeles district to grant short periods, 30 or 60 days, within which voluntary 
departure from the United States must be effected. This time is hardly adequate 
to obtain the essential passport and secure an appointment with an American 
consul. As a consequence, aliens are separated from their families and employ- 


ment while awaiting the completion of the slow-moving visa procedure. Real 
economic hardship for the alien and his family is the certain result. 

While it is known that the requisites for obtaining a Canadian passport are 
less rigorous, most Canadians will encounter long delays before American con- 
sulates because of the large volume of visa work prevailing at those offices. 

Congress has certainly given recognition anew to the practice of suspending 
deportation. Why it should discriminate now against our neighboring nationals, 
particularly in view of the practical difficulties in securinaj a visa, is difficult of 
comprehension. They are as equally worthy of such privilege as other Western 
Hemisphere natives or overseas nationals. This nefarious unfairness should 
be wholly eliminated from the act. 

Another problem, somewhat local in character, involves the infamous section 
directed against citizens of the United States, namely, section 360. The language 
of section 360 (b) eit'ectively denies to persons, not within the United States, 
claiming a right or privilege as a national of this country, the right to a judicial 
determination of the claim should it he rejected by the executive officials of the 
Department of State. The latter will become the sole and exclusive arbiters 
of the applicant's claim to citizenship. Their dominion over the issuance of a 
certificate of identity gives indirect control over the applicant's ability to obtain 
transportation to the United States where he might, despite an administrative 
denial, prove his citizenship in a court of law. 

Section 360 (b) applies equally to persons of all races, but it will have a par- 
ticularly devastating effect upon west-coast activities in the immigration and 
naturalization field because of the multitude of children of American parents of 
Chinese descent who are applying now for travel documents at the office of the 
American consul general in Hong Kong, British Crown Colony. Those claiming 
citizenship under statutes of the United States should not be forced to rest their 
case upon determinations at the executive level, but should have some remedy 
more commensurate with our legal principles and the priceless concept of citizen- 
ship. It is significant that where the rejection of citizenship claims by officials of 
the Department of State has been tested in the courts under the provisions of 
section 503 of the present Nationality Act, the plaintiff citizens have been 
notoriously successful. 

Where a certificate of identity is actually granted, allowing the applicant to 
proceed to the United States for examination by the immigration authorities, the 
new statute, section 360 (e), evinces a clear desisn to evade any projier judicial 
adjudication of the findings and conclusions of the administrative officials by 
limiting review to habeas corpus proceedings. 

It is submitted that the enumerated provisions of section 360 are most unjust 
and discriminatory and deny to a citizen of the United States an impartial 
determination of his citizenship by a court of competent jurisdiction. The more 
equitable provisions of section 503 of the present Nationality Act should be 

Some features of the act over which the membership has expressed concern, 
and which are undoubtedly included in the agenda of the association for dis- 
cussion are : 

1. The pertinacious language of section 244 reserving suspension of de- 
portation for cases demonstrating "exceptional and extremely unusual hard- 
ship." Such verbiage will offer unlimited opportunity for the too-strict 
hearing officer to order denial of the application for relief from deportation. 

2. The retroactive effect of deportation charges (sec. 241 (d)). Great 
hardships will inure to many aliens of long residence, most with families, 
who will become amenable to deportation under the new legislation. There 
will be cases of long-time residents who committed minor crimes when 
quite young — now completely rehabilitated — whose deportation will be 
sought under section 241. 

3. The right to predicate an exclusion, and hence a deportation upon such 
tenuous language (sec. 212 (a) (9)) as the alien's admission of acts con- 
stituting the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude. 
Questions of intent, the overt act, etc., will receive little consideration if past 
experience is indicative. 

A suggestion has been advanced that some appellate machinery should be 
inaugurated to review decisions of consular officers where issuance of a visa is 
refused. Often the applicant is a member of a family of American citizens, 
and the refusal of a visa operates to effect a separation of such family. An 
appellate board should be established in the office of the Department of State 
with authority to review the decision and affirm or reverse it. At least there 


would then be opportunity for relatives and friends iu the United States to 
intervene and prevent a hasty, unreasonable, or arbitrary decision by a consular 

This statement of the Los Angeles chapter is beins submitted in qutidruple so 
that it may be presented to the Commission as a poi'tion of the association views 
should you deem such action advisable. 
Fraternally yours, 

Marshall E. Kidder, 
Chairman, Los Angeles Chapter. 

Mr. Masino. Mr. Perlman and members of the Commission, in 
conchidino" ma}^ I say that I miderstand one of the members who we 
requested leave to have apepar today before the Commission has testi- 
fied previously on behalf of some other a<iencies when the Commis- 
sion appeared in New York. What he has to offer as part of the 
message of the association we believe is important. I ask leave that 
he be accorded just a minute to produce that into the record, but not 
to make any comments on it. 

That is, Mr. Amerioo D'Agostino. from New York. 

The Chairman. He may submit it. 

(There follow^s the prepared statement submitted by Mr. Amerigo 
D'Agostino, chairman, committee on congressional trends. Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Lawyers Association:) 

Statement Sttbmitted by Amerkjo D'Agostino, Chairman, Committee on Con- 
gressional Trends, Immigration and Nationality Lawyers Association 

Probably the most serious crisis facing legislators today is the accessibility 
and organization of human knowledge and experience. We are the unproud 
owners of an enormous "encyclopedia" which is not even arranged alphabetically. 
Our "index cards" are spilled everywhere — they are not even in order — yet the 
answers we want may be buried son>ewhere in the heap. 

It may be stated as a general premise that the legislators in preparing the 
codification of Public Law 414 considered two basic factors. 

One : In the light of available experience, what statutory provisions should be 
codified, or drafted to fill an existing vacuum in the law. 

Two : In the light of possible or probable experience in future, what provisions 
should be drafted to avoid possible vacuums which the future may bring forth. 
This mental operation is believed to be instinctive for draftsmen ajid perhaps the 
worth of such statute writers may be measured by their ability to fill possible 
vacuums which might arise in the future. 

. Another operation, though negative in character, must be added to the two 
Me have discussed. The constant concern not to duplicate or overlap the law. 
Hence the mental operation might take the following steps : 

One : Does not overlap or duplicate. 

Two : Provides new provisions for existing cases. 

Three : Provides for all possible cases in future. 

Our examination deals mainly with the third operation leaving the first and 
second to future analyses. 

This third operation, which rallies all the trained imaginative processes of 
the draftsman, i)rovides the basis for the havoc and confusion arising out of 
the use of : 

1. Executive discretion 

2. Legislative intent 

3. Administrative rulings 

4. Operational instruction 

It is recognized that every statute sets forth one or more conditions which 
must be met by the fact or facts in order to comply with the applicability of the 
law. Even definitions when read with this thought in view, are essentially condi- 
tions which in all cases must apply to cases or fact situations. 

For example : "An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" represents 
a condition, which we can identify as (A). This condition can give rise to two 
cases. He is or he is not. Yes or No. 


If we add to this condition that he must apply "within 5 years" =condition 
(B) we can have the following cases : 
Thus the number of cases which may arise would be 4. 

Let us then pass to the conditions required in section 244 (a) (1) : 
Condition No. 1. The date now is before June 27, 1957 
" " 2. Alien entered before June 27, 1950 

" 3. Has been continuously present for 7 years before application 
" " 4. Deportable under any law 

" " 5. 19d is not applicable 

" (5. Good moral character for 7 years before application 
" " 7. Extreme, exceptional hardship to himself or others. 

In this first category 128 possible cases may arise out of which only 1 could 
fulfill conditions 1 to 7. 

In section 244 (a) (2) the following conditions are met : 
Condition 1. Alien entered after June 27, 1950 

• " 2. Not served with final order of deportation 

" 3. Continuous physical presence 5 years before application 
" 4. Deportable for act or status prior to entry 

5. Does not fall in 244 (a) (4) 
" 6. Had all requisite documents at entry 
" 7. Good moral character 

8. Extreme, exceptional hardship to himself and/or others. 
This second category gives rise to 256 possible cases out of which only 1 could 
fulfill conditions 1 to 8. 

In section 244 (a) (3) we meet : 

Condition 1. Alien entered after June 27, 1950 

" 2. Not served with final order of deportation 

3. Continuous physical presence 5 years after act or status 
" 4. Deportable for act or status after entry 

5. Does not fall in Sub. 4 or 5 

" 6. Had all requisite documents at entry 

" 7. Good moral character 

" 8. Extreme, exceptional hardship to himself or others 
Here we meet with 256 possible cases out of which only 1 could fulfill condi- 
tions 1 to 8. 

In section 244 (a) (4) we meet: 
Condition 1. Entered after June 27, 1950 

" 2. Continuous physical presence 10 years after entry 

" 3. Not served with final order of deportation 

4. Deportable under 241 (a) (1) or 241 (a) (2) 
" 5. Does not fall with Sub. 5 

" 6. Good moral character 

" 7. Extreme, exceptional hardship to himself or others 

Again we have 128 possible cases only 1 of which can meet all conditions. 

In section 244 (a) (5) we meet: 

Condition 1. Entered anytime 

" 2. Not served with final order of deportation 

" 3. Continuous physical presence 10 years after act or status 

4. Deportable under 241 (a) (4), (5), (6), etc. 
" 5. Good moral character 10 years 
" 6. Extreme, exceptional hardship to himself or others 

Here we have 64 possible cases only 1 of which can meet all conditions. If we 
add the conditions in each category we have : 

Category 1=7 

36 Conditions 

Going back to the analyses or mental operations which the legislator made, we 
find that the process of vacuum elimination, at least inspired by desirable admin- 


istrative eflSciency in the execution of tlie law, should aim at a classificatory 
elimination in a gradual process of exclusion. 

Let us then consolidate all of the conditions contained in categories 1 to 5 and 
on a Yes or No basis establish the total number of conditions upon which the 
administrative process must impose its fact-finding apparatus. 

Not served with final order of deportation 

Date now before June 27, 1957 

Date is now after June 27, 1957 

Alien entered before June 27, 1950 

Alien entered after June 27, 1950 

Continuous physical presence 7 years before application. 

Continuous physical presence 5 years after act-status 

Continuous physical presence 5 years before application. 

Continuous physical presence 10 years after act-status 

Continuous physical presence 10 years after entry 

Good moral character 7 years before application 

Good moral character 5 years after act-status 

Good moral character 5 years before application 

Good moral character 10 years after act-status 

Good moral character 10 years before application 

Deportable under any law 

Deportable for act-status before entry 

Deportable for act-status after entry 

T:)eportable under 241 (a) (1) or (2) 

Deportable under 241 (a) (4), etc 

Deportable under 241 (a) (2) 

Sec. 19d not applicable 

Does not fall under sec. 4 

Does not fall under sec. 4 or 5 

Had all requisite documents at entry 

E.xtreme, exceptional hardship 






























From this table we observe that the total possible cases which may arise under 
all categories are 65,828,864 and, when time arrives that all 5 are applicable to 
a set of cases, only 5 out of 65,828,864 can fullfill all the conditions simultaneously. 

Further examination reveals additional factors which make it appear question- 
able as to whether or not the legislator intended to so write this law. 

For example, the availability of the remedy of suspension of deportation is 
limited as to time as follows : 

Category 1 available now. 
Category 2 available .7une 28, 1955 and after. 
Category 3 available June 28, 1955 and after. 
Category 4 available June 28, 1960 and after. 
Category 5 available now. 

But since 2, 3, and 4 are not available now, category 1 specifically provides 
that the latest possible entry must have occurred on or before December 23, 1950. 
Hence, the alien coming in after this date and not falling within 2, 3, or 4 must 
seek his remedy in 5. 

But let us now consider the vacuums, or looplioles. 

1. After December 24, 1957, the remedy under category 1 ceases to exist. There- 
fore, the remedy will be available only to those specifically provided for in 2, 
3, 4, and 5. 

2. The remedy under 2 and 3 does not apply until June 28, 1955, while remedy 
under 4 does not begin to operate until June 28, 1955. 

3. Remedy under 4 is applicable under either of two base^ : 

(1) Is deportable because he was cxcludadle as being a criminal, prosti- 
tute, immoral person, subversive, narcotic law violator ; or 

(2) Is deportable because he was excludaMe as having entered without 
inspection or at any time or place other than designated. 

4. Provision (2) is identical with the alternative in 5 providing that alien must 
be deportable under section 241 (a) (2), but the last words in section 241 (a) (2) 
"or in violation of any other law" would make categories 4 and 5 applicable to 
any "Alien . . . who entered in violation of any other law . . ." 

5. Category 2 applies to those deportable only "for act committed or status ex- 
isted prior to entry" ; the obvious conclusion is inescapable that alien was at 
time of entry excludaNe. 


6. It is apparent that categories 2 and 4 are in conflict, because 4 treats with 
a specific class of cxcludahlcs while 2 seems to say that if the alien cannot use 
category 4, or is not eligible under it, he may select 2. 

Since categories 2, 3, and 4 will not become effective until June 28, 1955, June 
28, 1955, and June 28, 1960, respectively, let us observe how many conditions 
must be considered in the examination of an application for suspension after 
December 24, 1952, under categories 1 and 5. 


1 . Not served with final order of deportation _. 

2. Date now is before June 27, 1957--- 

3. Date now is after June 27. 1957 

4. Alien entered before June 27, 1950 

5. Alien entered after June 27, 1950 

6. Continuous physical presence 7 years before application 

7. Continuous physical presence 7 years after act or status or entry . 

8. Good moral character 7 years before application 

9. Good moral character 10 years after act-status 

10. Deportable under any law 

11. Deportable under 241 (a) (2) (4) etc.. 

12. Sec. 19d not applicable 

13. E.xtreme, e.xceptional hardship 


Yes - 









The possible cases which may arise under these two categories are 8,192, of 
wliich only 2 cases may possibly qualify. These possibilities when considered 
together with the total of 65,828,804 provided by the composite table bring one 
to ask if there is possibly any way in which all conditions or an extremely great 
number of possibilities make for simple and accurate laws and their efficient 

In the processing of applications for suspension the Attorney General must 
of necessity, at this time, consider if the conditions 1 to 13 are met or not. 

It has been said that since 13 or extreme or exceptional hardship clause is 
applicable to both categories, he should put this down as a primary requirement 
for examination. But he cannot do this because he must answer condition 1 
first and 2 second and so on in tlie mental operational process looking to the 
applicability of either category 1 or 5. 

For administrative purposes we can then visualize a chart based on the 13 
conditions with a furtlier breakdown such as the following for the type of 
testimony or evidence to establish the conditions : 

For example : 

The availability of the remedy of suspension of deportation is limited as to 
time as follows : 

Category 1 available now. 
Category 2 available June 28, 1955, and after. 
Category 3 available June 28, 1955, and after. 
Category 4 available June 28, 1960, and after. 
Category 5 available now. 

But since 2, 3, and 4 are not available now, category 1 specifically provides 
that the latest possible entry must have occurred on or before December 23, 1950. 
Hence, the alien coming in after this date and not falling within 2, 3, or 4 must 
seek his remed.v in 5. 

But let us now consider the vacuums, or loopholes. 

1. After December 24, 1957, the remedy under category 1 ceases to exist. 
Therefore, the remedy will be available only to those specifically provided for 
in 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

2. The remedy under 2 and 3 does not apply until June 28, 1955, while 
remedy under 4 does not begin to operate until June 28, 1955. 

3. Remedy under 4 is applical)le under either of two bases : 

(o) Is deportable because he was excludable as being a criminal, pros- 
titute, immoral person, subversive, narcotic law violator ; or 

(ft) Is deportable because lie iras excludable as having entered without 
inspection or at any time or place other than designated. 

4. Provision (ft) is identical with the alternative in 5 providing that alien 
must be deportable under section 241 (a) (2) but the last words in section 241 
(a) (2) "or in violation of any other law" would make category 4 and 5 applicable 
to any "Alien * * * who entered in violation of any other law * * *." 




5. Category 2 applies to those deportable only "for act committed or status 
existed prior to entry." Tlie obvious conclusion is inescapable that alien was at 
time of entry excludahle. 

6. It is apparent that categories 2 and 4 are in conflict, because 4 treats with 
a specific class of exclndahles while 2 seems to say that if the aliens cannot use 
category 4 or is not eligible under it, he may select 2. 

Since categories 2, 3, and 4 will not become effective until June 28, 1955, June 
28, 1955, and June 28, 19G0, respectively, let us observe how many conditions must 
be considered in the examination of an application for suspension after De- 
cember 24, 1952, under categories 1 and 5. 




By oral testimony 

By I. M. S. 

By documentary 

1... . 












Yes . 

5 . 









Yes . 


Yes.. . . 


8 . . 






Yes . 









Yes . 







We have seen that there arises the need for the legislator in drafting legisla- 
tion to consider the analytical aspect of the proposed law in the light of two 
inevitables : 

( 1 ) That it provides for the smallest possible vacuum ; and 

(2) That it provides for the smallest possible number of applicable conditions. 
An increase in conditions showers the administration of the law with an 

almost unsurmouutable burden necessitating an intricate apparatus of record 
keeping which multiplies itself geometrically with each added condition. On the 
other hand, the danger of the vacuum or loophole arises with a reduction in 
number of conditions thereby creating interpretative burdens upon the admin- 
istrator and the courts. 

Perhaps the solution lies in the application of new analytic approaches to 
legislation with simpler or progressively exclusive conditions increasing in 
number but containing stopgaps along the line of the progression so as to mini- 
mize the increasing burden of administration. 

The key apparently lies in exact legislation. It is this writer's opinion that 
section 244 could have been written containing less than 26 conditions and yet 
achieving ultimate results, indeed more satisfactory, or at least more adaptable 
to the administrative process. 

Exact legislation i)erhaps may come when the lawyer becomes versed or 
applies a spatial-time consciousness to his bill drafting. For example, through- 
out Public Law 414 we recognize two basic premises : 

(1) It deals with aliens. 

(2) It deals with citizens. 

Applying the spatial-time approach, the law could have dealt with the "citizen- 
alien" at three points in space : 

(1) Overseas. 

(2) At port of entry. 

rS) In the United States. 

Depending where the "citizen-alien" is, a certain set of rules and laws apply 
to him. Certainly when we speak of 

(1) Possible admissibility — overseas. 

(2) Admissibility — port of entry. 

(3) Deportnbility— in United States. 

Perhaps if the law had taken the alien at each point separately and had 
expressed the rules applicable to him as he moved in or out the conditions in 
each case would have been reduced. 



Mr. Wasserman. I am Jack Wasserman, an attorney with offices in 
the Warner Building, Washington, D. C. 

I am legislative representative of the Association of Immigration 
and Nationality Lawyers. I have a prepared statement I should like 
to read first and then make a few remarks. 

The Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Wasserman. The Association of Immigration and Nationality 
Lawyers is composed of attorneys who cherish our American way of 
life, and because of this we opposed S. 716 and S. 2550 which became 
Public Law 414. And we are still opposed to it. 

We do not question the fine motives nor the high purposes which 
prompted the sponsors of the bill. But the statute speaks for itself. 
We believe now, as we did when we opposed S. 716, that the provisions 
of Public Law 414 unnecessarily increase the grounds for exclusion, 
deportation, denaturalization, and expatriation. We reaffirm our 
testimony previously rendered. We believe that many — all too 
many — of the provisions of Public Law 414 are unfair, unwise, un- 
workable, unjust, unreasonable, un-American, and unconstitutional. 
As attorneys, we believe in and support the letter and the spirit of 
the Constitution of the United States. We believe that Public Law 
414 was written in complete disregard of the letter and the spirit of the 
Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, we reconmiend its 
repeal. Our association desires to make note of the following observa- 
tions in connection with the adoption of a constructive immigration 
and nationality policy in keeping with American traditions and ideals. 

1. The essence of true Americanism lies in the absence of distinc- 
tions based upon differences of race, creed, color, or national origin, 
and in the full protection of the rights of all. "The Constitution 
of the United States * * * embodies the highest political ideals 
of which man is capable. It insists that our Government, whether 
State or Federal, shall respect and observe the dignity of each individ- 
ual, whatever may be the name of his race, the color of his skin, or 
the nature of his belief" (Justice Black, in Oyama v. Calif oniia^ 332 
U. S. 633, 649, 650 ) . Discriminations based upon race, national origin, 
birth in a colony, adjacent island, or in contiguous territory are un- 
worthy of America. These discriminations adopted by Public Law 
414 in its quota system and suspension provisions should be eliminated. 
We advocate a world quota of 250,000 distributed without discrimina- 
tion of any kind. 

2. One of the fundamental constitutional principles decided by an 
early Supreme Court case (the Japenese hmrdgrant ease^ 186 U. S. 86, 
101) is that under the due-process clause of the fifth amendment, a 
fair hearing must be accorded an alien before he can be deported. 
This principle was recently reaffirmed by the highest court of the 
land in Sung v. McGrath (339 U. S. 33). Nevertheless, in complete 
disregard of this principle. Public Law 414 provides that alien crew- 
men may be summarily deported without hearings (sec. 252-b) and 
that certain aliens entering illegally may be deported without grant- 
ing them any hearing whatsoever (sec. 242-f). 


3. Section 242-b of Public Law 414 does not provide for tlie type of 
independent hearing examiners which fairness and the due-process 
clause of the Constitution, and Sung v. McGrath (339 U. S. 33), 
require in deportation cases. Provision is merely made for a special 
inquiry officer who may be an investigator or prosecutor for the Im- 
gration Service one day and a hearing officer the next, provided that 
he has not investigated the case he is hearing. In the very case 
that he hears, the special inquiry officer will be required to develop 
the case against the alien and then sit in judgment. In addition, 
contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U. S. C. 1004, 1010) 
the special inquiry officer will be subject to control of district directors 
and Assistant Commissioners of the Inmiigration Service who engage 
in investigative and prosecuting functions. We all know that a man 
who has buried himself in one side of an issue is disabled from bring- 
ing to its decision that dispassionate judgment which Anglo-American 
tradition demands of officials who sit to decide questions. (See S. 
Doc. 8, 77th Cong., 1st sess., p. 56) . Where the same men are obliged 
to serve both as prosecutors and judges, administrative fairness is 
undermined, and public confidence in that fairness is weakened. 
(See Final Report of the Attorney General'-s Committee on Achninis- 
trative Procedure, p. 56). 

With specific reference to the deportation process, the Secretary of 
Labor's Committee on Administrative Procedure, the immigration 
service, reported in 1940 as follows (pp. 81-82) : 

"A genuinely impartial hearing with critical detachment is psycho- 
logically improbable if not impossible, when the presiding officer has 
at once the responsibility of appraising the strength of the case and 
of seeking to make it as strong as possible. Nor is complete divorce 
between investigation and hearing possible so long as the presiding 
inspector has the duty of assembling and presenting the results of 

For approximately 60 years, the deportation process has been a blot 
uDon our traditional concepts of Anglo-American jurisprudence. 
Public Law 414 does not preserve fair administrative procedures re- 
quired by the Administrative Procedure Act. It seeks to avoid Sung 
M. McGrath and due process of law. 

"*V'e believe in impartial administrative justice for human rights as 
well as for property rights. This can only be accomplished by moving 
forward and not backward, as does Public Law 414. We recommend 
that a statutory Board of Immigration Appeals be created with 
power of adjudication in all citizenship and immigration matters. 
Under this Board rather than under the Commissioner, should be 
placed all hearing officers, qualified under the Administrative Pro- 
cedure Act and completely divorced from any investigatory or prose- 
cuting functions. The Board should be invested with power to rule 
on appeals from exclusion and deportation cases, citizenshi}) and pass- 
port matters, status and change-of-status cases, and all denials of visas 
as well. In this way administrative justice will be achieved in the 
true American way. 

4. Section 246 of the law authorizes the Attorney General to revoke 
permanent residence of an alien within 5 years after it has been 
gi'anted, and even to a person who may have become a citizen in the 
meantime. No provision is made for a hearing, and there is no 
requirement that such revocation be confined to cases of fraud. We 


believe that it was intended that this might be accomplished without 
a hearing, and accordingly we believe that the section is likewise 

5. Sections 235 and 287 (a) of Public Law 41-1: authorizes any 
immigration officer or employee to board and search without a warrant 
any conveyance or vehicle within a reasonable distance from tlie 
external boundary of the United States, and any such conveyance 
or vehicle anywhere when it is believed that aliens are being brought 
into the United States, and to arrest such aliens. This means that 
without ]n-obable cause that an alien is being transported illegally 
into the United States, any immigration officer may board and inspect 
the automobile of a citizen of the United States, and if he believes 
that an alien is riding therein, he may arrest him. AVe submit that 
these sections authorize illegal searches and seizures in violation of 
the fourth amendment to the Constitution. The fourth amendment 
protects citizens and aliens alike from unreasonable searches and seiz- 
ures (Z7. jS. ex, rel Bilohumshy v. Tod, 236 U. S. 149). It prohibits 
unreasonable searches and seizures, and hence requires a showing of 
probable cause {WeeJcs v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 ; Boyd v. United 
States, 116 U. S. 616). In our opinion these sections of the law were 
not intended to comply with constitutional guaranties, and we there- 
fore believe that they are unconstitutional. 

6. Section 241 (a) (7) authorizes the deportation of an alien who 
engages or has a purpose to engage in conduct defined as prejudicial 
to our interests or has a purpose to organize, join, or participate in 
subversive organizations designated by the Attorney General. Lack 
of knowledge of the subversive character of the organization is a 
defense only where the alien's participation occurred prior to pub- 
lication of the name of the organization by the Attorney General in 
the Federal Register. Hence, an alien may be deportable if he had 
reason to believe that the organization was subversive prior to its 
designation by the Attorney General. The Attorney General is the 
sole judge of the reasonableness of the alien's belief. And by the 
terms of the act (sees. 241 (a) (1) and 212 (a) (29) ), if the Attorney 
General determines in 1952 that any legally resident alien who entered 
the United States in 1910 was at that time likely to at some time 
join a subversive organization distributing popular books at a dis- 
count, for instance, he can deport him without any finding that the 
alien himself was or is subversive. Because of vagueness of the 
conception of what may be prejudicial to our interests (see Jordan 
V. DeGeorge, 341 U. S. 223), as well as because of the fact that the 
section would require deportation because of a person's state of mind, 
it cannot be sustained as being in harmony with our Constitution. 

7. Section 242 (b) would for the first time in our history allow an 
order of deportation to be made in absentia. Convictions in absentia 
are not valid, and we seriously question the validity of a deportation 
order entered in absentia, even if an alien has been afforded a rea- 
sonable opportunity to be present. It will be noted that in matters 
of this character, the tendency of the Supreme Court has been to 
apply criminal standards. See the DeGeorge case. Certainly a con- 
viction could not be sustained on the ground that the criminal had 
been given a reasonable opportunity to be present and refused to 
take advantage of it. At any rate, such procedure for the depor- 


tation of aliens should be abhorent to us, and there is no necessity for 
the same. 

8. Section 342 authorizes the Attorney General to cancel citizen- 
ship certificates and other documents by written notice sent to a 
person's last-known place of address. Similarly, in section 340 (b), 
provision is made which authorizes denaturalization, by publication, 
where a person is absent from the judicial district in which he last 
had his residence, and personal service is not made mandatory in 
either section. In the light of MulJane v. Cetitral Hanover Bank and 
Trust Co. (339 U. S. 30()) the due-process clause would be violated 
by a statute which authorizes the institution of this type of pro- 
ceedings by notice sent to a last-known residence, or by publication 
when the whereabouts of the individual are either known or can be 
ascertained so that personal service can be effectuated. 

9. We believe that there is no place in the United States for second- 
class Americanism or second-class citizenship. President I\Iadison, 
the chief draftsman of the Constitution and the recorder of proceed- 
ings of the Constitutional Convention, stated on February 11, 1813, 
that : "By our law, all the rights of natives are given to naturalized 
citizens." II Letters and other Writings of James Madison 558. The 
fourteenth amendment made all persons born or naturalized in the 
United States citizens of the United States. And under our Con- 
stitution "a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the 
native-born citizen in all respects save that of eligibility for the Presi- 
dency" ( United States v. Wong Kim. Ark^ 169 U. S. G49, 703 ; Osborne 
V. United States Banh^ 9 Wheat. 738, 827; Lauria v. United States^ 
231 U. S. 9, 22, 24). The provisions for expatriation of naturalized 
citizens merely because they reside abroad not only interferes with 
legitimate travel by such persons but is inconsistent with the principles 
which our founding fathers incorporated into the Constitution of the 
United States. We recommend their removal from our laws. "We 
likewise are in favor of removing the provisions which permit denat- 
uralization for any ground other than actual fraud, and even in such 
case there should be a reasonable statute of limitations. Naturalized 
citizens should not be compelled to litigate issues many years after 
events have faded from the memories of witnesses, when sources of 
information are no longer readily available, and when proceedings to 
upset the judgment of naturalization are essentially unfair. 

Attention is also called to section 350 which for the first time would 
forbid a native-born citizen of foreign ancestry who thereby acquired 
dual nationality, from residing abroad and performing certain acts. 
Other native-born citizens are not so restricted. This type of dis- 
crimination between native-born citizens, obviously based upon ances- 
try, offends the Constitution. It will be noted that in Hirahayashi v. 
United States (320 U. S. 81, 100) it was stated that "distinctions 
between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by theii- very 
nature odious to a free people." 

10. Section 360 would deny to certain citizenship claimants the right 
to enter the United States to prosecute a declaratory action for Ameri- 
can citizenship. This would have the result of effectively denying a 
person his day in court, and since he has no administrative hearing on 
the question of his citizenship, it is believed that clue process would 
thereby be violated. 


11. Section 31:9-b of the act creates a conclusive presumption that a 
dual national who resides abroad for 10 years performs any act — 
such as voting, Army service, foreign civil service, and even his act of 
residing abroad — without duress of any kind. Conclusive presump- 
tions, like conclusive findings of fact, are in violation of due process 
wherever constitutional rights, like citizenship, are involved. ( See St. 
Joseph Stockyards v. United States, 298 U. S. 38, 52.) Nothing is 
clearer than the proposition that citizenship of American citizens may 
not be arbitrarily taken away. Perkins v. Elg (307 U. S. 325). We 
submit that this section of Public Law 414 is clearly unconstitutional. 

12. The United States has more grounds of expatriation than any 
other country in the world. We alone make voting in foreign elec- 
tions — even in minor elections in Canada, for instance — a ground of 
expatriation. We have reached the stage where expatriation of our 
citizens has reached a point of ruthlessness and arbitrary action 
equaled only by the Soviet Union and its satellite countries. A democ- 
racy such as ours might well examine and reexamine its expatriation 
laws to see if they are really fair and to be sure that we are treating 
our citizens justly. Public Law 414 contains the harshest, the cruelest, 
and the most unfair provisions for expatriation that you will find any- 
where in the world. 

13. Finally we wish to note our opposition to the totalitarian spirit 
in which aliens are treated in the deportation and exclusion provisions 
of the act. Dictatorships grow and thrive when government is per- 
mitted to function in vacuums of undisclosed secrecy, arbitrary action, 
and uncontrolled opinions. In our time we have seen freedom de- 
stroyed in many lands upon philosophies such as those incorporated 
into Public Law 414. Its provisions for exclusion without a hearing 
in security cases rest upon the undisclosed mental process of the At- 
torney General in form and upon the unknown views of some minor 
officii 1 in actuality (sec. 235-c). 

Judge Learned Hand remarked last Friday that he would prefer to 
take a chance that some people, * * * even traitors, * * * would 
escape detection "than si:)read abroad a spirit of general suspicion and 
distrust, which accepts rumor and gossip in place of undismayed and 
unintimidated inquiry." (See New York Times editorial, October 26, 
1952.) Public Law 414 operates upon a theory of general suspicion, 
distrust, rumor, and gossip. Guilt by association rather than the in- 
herent worth of the individual is the motivating force behind its secu- 
rity provisions (sees. 212-a (28) ; 241-a (6) ). And the reckless denial 
of hearings to individuals who seek entry into the United States with 
proper documentation is encouraged. International travel and free- 
dom to travel — the greatest source of international good will and a bul- 
wark of peace — has been seriously restricted since the enactment of the 
Internal Security Act. It is further restricted by Public Law 414. 

We cannot encourage democracy at home and abroad and at the 
same time show the world how arbitrary we are in our immigration 
laws. We have no place in our Republic for arbitrary laws which vest 
absolute discretion in an Attorney General to detain aliens pending 
hearing and after a deportation order (sec. 242-a, c). The exclusion 
or deportation of aliens should not be made dependent upon the unre- 
viewable opinion of any public official. (See sees. 212-a (15) ; 241-a 
(8) .) Nor should the future happiness of a human being in the United 


States be made to revolve upon such trivial violations as failure to reg- 
ister as an alien or the carrying of a hunting gun without a license. 
(Sees. 241-a (5), (14).) 

Public Law 414 restricts or eliminates every humane provision of 
existing law. It eliminates preexamination, a sensible method of 
granting deserving aliens permanent residence. It restricts the sev- 
enth and ninth provisos (sec. 212-c, d). It restricts suspension of 
deportation which previously had no residence requirement for aliens 
with dependents to the limited cases where "exceptional and extremely 
unusual hardship" is established. It eliminates suspension for aliens 
with 7 years' residence and no family ties (sec. 244) . These provisions 
eliminate or restrict the humane considerations and benefits previously 
extended to aliens. Humanity is replaced with inhumanity to persons 
of foreign birth. 

Deportation laws should not be made retroactive (sec. 241-d), and 
aliens here more than 5 years should automatically be granted perma- 
nent residence unless they are Communists, Fascists, or Nazis. No 
alien with family ties should be subjected to deportation except as a 
penalty for a crime. 

Laws written in the spirit of Public Law 414 are not written with 
respect for the dignity of man, nor in the spirit of the Declaration of 
Independence. Such laws are not written with the knowledge that 
our Government and our institutions are strong enough to withstand 
the pressures of today's conflicts and controversies. "This Republic 
will stand, and so will the great free western community of which it 
is a part, if we continue to believe and to act in the spirit and con- 
fidence of our ancient freedoms." (New York Times editorial, Octo- 
ber 26, 1952.) Our immigration and nationality laws should be re- 
written to conform not to our fears but to our strength, our resources, 
and our hopes. 

Mr. Wasseioian. That ends my prepared statement. I would like 
to say that yesterday the various departments, the Department of 
Justice, the Immigration Service, the Department of Labor, pointed 
out some of the administrative difficulties involved in this law. I 
would just like to add one before I go to some of the constitutional 
phases of the bill, 

I represent a man in New York whose case is now before the court 
of appeals. This case is being handled by the United States attorney's 
office for the southern district of New York. The other day the 
United States attorney was reprimanded because he didn't have his 
brief in, and his explanation to the court was that he was in a quan- 
dary; he didn't know which side he was on; he didn't know whether 
he would have to speak out of both sides of his moutli 

This is due to section 335. It requires the Immigration Service to 
present the views not only of the Commissioner but of the hearing 
examiner, the designated examiner in Naturalization Service, where 
the two of them disagree. 

Now in this particular case the Commissioner recommended nat- 
uralization and the designated examiner was op])osed. We are in the 
court of appeals. Which side is the Government to take in prosecuting 
that appeal? And the United States attorney is just in a quandary. 
It is one of the unworkable administrative provisions of this law. 

Now the Attorney General pointed out that section 274 of this law 
had already been declared unconstitutional because it was void for 


vagueness according to a district court case in the northern district of 
California, I believe. 

I might add that I argued an expatriation case before the Supreme 
Court several days ago and Justice Jackson indicated that he felt that 
section o49-B was unconstitutional. I submit to you that it is clearly 
unconstitutional. It is a provision to the effect that if a dual national 
remains abroad for 10 years it is conclusively presumed that anything 
he does is voluntary without having been subjected to duress; now I 
can't see how that kind of a provision can be sustained from a consti- 
tutional point of view. 

There is another section of this law which is now under attack in 
the courts, and that is section 215. Section 215 gives the President of 
the United States authority to promulgate additional restrictions upon 
the exit and entry of aliens and citizens. Pursuant to that the Immi- 
gration Service is preventing the departure of temporary visitors of 
Chinese nationality who have studied science. They get no hearings. 
They are not told the basis upon which their determinations are made. 
So you have a situation where it is difficult for the scientists to get into 
the United States, and once they get in, even though they may have 
families abroad, they are kept here without hearings. I can think of 
nothing that is more un-American or unconstitutional than that type 
of procedure which is sanctioned by section 215 of this act. 

Now, in addition. I have listed about 10 additional possible consti- 
tutional objections to this bill. We think that the essence of true 
Americanism lies in the absence of distinctions based upon differences 
of race, creed, color, or national origin, and in the full protection of 
the rights of all. We would eliminate all racial discriminations from 
the law rather than adding new ones. 

We submit in i-egard to hearings that one of the fundamental con- 
stitutional principles decided by an early Supreme Court case was 
that h?fore you deport an alien you have to give him a hearing; yet, 
in disregard of that well-recognized constitutional principle, in this 
very law provisions are made for deporting aliens, such as alien crew- 
men, without a hearing. 

We feel much the way Professor Jaff e does about the hearing provi- 
sions. We would set up an independent set of hearing examiners, 
attached to a State-wide board of immigration appeals, totally di- 
vorced from anyone in the department who has anything to do with 
matters of investigation or matters of prosecution. We feel that that 
is the only way you can bring true impartial administrative justice 
in the American way to this type of proceeding. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Would you have it within the department, 
though ? 

Mr. Wasserman. Not necessarily. As long as they are completely 
divorced from anyone who has anything to do with prosecutions 
or investigations. 

Now, we feel there are several other provisions like section 216 
which makes no provision for a hearing, which authorizes the Attorney 
General to revoke suspension of deportation. Now normally I think 
you would say that the Constitution would read into the statute that a 
hearing must be granted in that type of case; but here you have a 
bill which in some sections does provide for a hearing, and in other 
sections does not, and I think on that basis it was the intent of the 
framers to deny hearings where you revoke the important right of 


suspension of deportation. Now if that was their intent, as we think 
it was, then it is clearly unconstitutional. 

We feel that sections 235 and 287-A also give far too great powers 
to immigration officials to arrest people and to investigate and to board 
conveyances or vehicles on the assumption that there might be aliens 
there. Nothing is said about probable cause. Now, there again you 
might read it in. But here again the provisions of the Constitution 
were called to the attention of the framers of this legislation and 
they have refused to recognize the Constitution. 

Section 241 (A) 7 authorizes the deportation of an alien who en- 
gages or has a purpose to engage in conduct defined as prejudicial to 
our interest or has a purpose to organize or join or participate in a 
subversive organization designated by the Attorney General. We 
think that language is so broad that it is void for vagueness. 

Frankly, 1 don't know whether the Immigration Service — although 
the law technically provides for it today — has ever attempted to de- 
port an alien in the United States on the ground that at the time of 
entry his entry would have been prejudicial to the best interests of 
the United States. They have excluded aliens on that ground. But 
I think if they attempt to deport them they will be met with con- 
stitutional objections and since an alien in the United States has the 
full protection of the Constitution that type of proceeding will be de- 
clared null and void. 

Now section 242 (b) will for the first time in our history allow an 
order of deportation to be made in absentia. Now the Supreme Court 
has indicated that these types of procedures should be looked at in 
the same way we look at criminal proceedings. You would never al- 
low a criminal proceeding to be made up when made up in absentia. 
You should certainly not do that. 

Section 342 authorizes the Attorney General to cancel citizenship. 
We feel that that is sending something to his last-known address. We 
feel that is inadequate notice under the Constitution and would be 
violating the due-process-of-law clause. 

We also feel no place in the United States is ready for second-class 
Americanism. We feel that this law doesn't conform to the principles 
of our founding fathers, nor to the principles enunciated by these 
Supreme Court cases. 

We also call attention to section 350, which for the first time in our 
history would forbid a native-born citizen of the United States of 
foreign ancestry from residing abroad with the freedom that he can 
today. The President commented upon that particular provision and 
we call your attention to where the Supreme Court pointed out that 
distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by 
their very nature odious to a free people. 

We have objection, likewise, to section 360 which in our judgment 
as noted by Professor Jaffe, would deny the right of an American 
citizen born abroad to come into an American court and have his citi- 
zenship claim litigated. The intent of this particular section was to 
deny accesss to the courts to these types of individuals. And I think 
the motivating force was discrimination against American citizens 
born in Hong Kong who are attempting to assert their American 


I already have referred to 349 (b) wliich we think is unconstitu- 
tional, and, finall}', I would like to say this about the subject of expa- 
triation: I have studied the expatriation laws of the various coun- 
tries of the world. I think the United States has more grounds of 
expatriation than any other country in the world. We alone make 
voting in foreign elections, even in minor elections, in Canada, for 
instance, n ground of expatriation. We have reached the stage from 
expatriation of our citizens to the point of ruthlessness and arbitrary 
action equaled only by the Soviet Union and its satellite countries. 
I think there is only one real distinction, frankly, there in Russia, 
for instance, by decree of parliament a man's citizenship can be taken 
away by name. They will refer to him and say "You have lost your 
citizenship." We have so many grounds of expatriation that I feel 
we don't need to do that. A democracy such as ours might well 
examine and reexamine its expatriation laws to see if they are really 
fair and to be sure that they are treating all citizens justly. 

Here I might say that the basic theory is to frame a law as some- 
thing like this, so as to get the individual bad man, and people like 
that, and in the meantime you hurt thousands of good people. 

Frankly, I think the way section 242 is drafted in this regard it was 
intended to suspend and limit the right of habeas corpus while a 
deportation proceeding was pending against an alien, because you 
have to go into court and make a conclusive showing that the Attorney 
General is proceeding with difficulty or you can't get your right 
granted. Suppose it takes the Attorney General 2 years to get his 
papers from abroad; is an alien to be kept in detention during that 
period of time? 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wasserman. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Chairman, at the request of the previous wit- 
ness, I request permission to introduce into the record a statement 
submitted by Mr. Allen E. Throop, the chairman of the committee 
on administrative law, of the Association of the Bar of the City of 
New York, for the inclusion in the record, in which the committee on 
administrative law has resolved to urge upon this Commission that 
entry into this country by an alien entrant holding an immigration 
visa for permanent residence should not be denied for security reasons 
except after a hearing. 

The Chair3ian. That may be inserted in the record. 

(The statement follows :) 

Statement Submitted by Allen E. Throop, Chairman of the Committee on 
Administrative Law, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 

Committee on Administrative Law, 
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 

New York, N. Y., October 23, 1952. 
President's Commission on Immigration and Natltralization, 
Washington, D. G. 

(Attention: Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, Executive Director.) 
Dear Sirs : The committee on administrative law of the Association of the 
Bar of the City of New York has resolved to urge upon your Commission that 
entry into this country by an alien entrant holding an immigration visa for 
permanent residence should not be denied for security reasons except after a 
hearing. The hearing, which might be private, should be before a board of at 
least three members. The entrant should be informed of the charges against 


liim in such detail as the boaixl, in its discretion, should determine could be 
niiido without endangering the security of the country. The resolution of the 
coniniitt(>e, a copy of which is attached, was adopted upon the recommendation 
of a subcommittee consisting of Edward J". Ennis, Arthur K. Garfinkel, and 
Carl S. Stern, chairman. 

The committee, in making this reconunendation, is mindful of the case of 
Knnuff r. ^liautihncsKy (33S U. S. .'loT), which held that constitutionally an 
alien entrant is not entitled to a hearing but that, on the other hand, a resident, 
as a matter of due process, is entitled to a hearing in a deportation proceeding 
(Japanese Inuuigrunt Cane (ISO U. S. 86) ). The intermediate question whether 
a resident returning to our shores is entitled to a hearing has just been argued 
at this term of the Supreme Court, in the case of Chew v. Colding (No. 2.3). 

The committee believes that as a matter of legislative policy, the right to a 
hearing such as that specified aliove should be accorded to any person who, 
on having obtained an immigration visa, has bi-oken with his old environment 
with the intention of coming to the United States. It is true that, for a new 
entrant, the stakes may not be so great as in the case of a returning resident ; 
but where a person comes in on a permanent visa, he may have Imrned all his 
bridges to seek a new life with us. Accordingly, we believe that the Congress 
.sho'uld give recognition to the extreme dislocation, confusion, and hardship suf- 
fered by a person who, having received the qualified approval of an immigra- 
tion visa, is turned back when he reaches our shores. 

In an attempt to improve the administration process and to protect against 
the arl)itrary action of administrative ofHcials, the Congress, through the adop- 
tion of the Administrative Procedure Act, has set up generally substantial safe- 
guards to insure that administrative hearings are fairly conducted. In the 
case of an alien entrant, the risks of abuse as a result of the complete elimina- 
tion of such safeguai'ds are magnified. In the first place, entrants facing the 
immigration authorities and all the strangeness of a new land, are usually in 
a pretty helpless situaticm (cf. Jackson, J. in Wofig Yang Sung v. McGrath (.339 
U. S. 33, at p. 46) ). In the second place, if there need be no hearing at which 
an entrant is informed, even in a general way, of the charges by reason of 
which it is proposed to exclude him, opportunity is afforded to "the malevolent, 
the misinformed, the meddlesome, and the corrupt to play the role of informer 
undetected and uncorrected" (dissenting opinion of .Jackson, .1., concurred in 
l)y Black and Frankfurter. ,T. J., in Knauff v. ShaugltncHsy (.338 U. S. 537, 551) ). 
Finally, reported cases have brought out that confidential "information," when 
exposed to the light, has all too frequently been found inadequate to support 

The committee is not unaware of the security considerations that call for a 
strict scrutiny of persons entering the country. It has attempted, however, in 
the resolution that was adopted, to suggest a procedure that would protect 
our country while at the same time giving an alien entrant at least some benefit 
of those traditions of fair play which lie at the root of the American concept 
of due process. 

Resiiectfully sulnnitted. 

Committee on Administrative Law, 
Allen E. Throop, Chairman. 

Copy of Resolution Adopted ry Committee on Administrative Law of the 
Association of the Bar of the City of New York on Octorer 9, 1952 

Resolved, That the chairman of the committee or any member of the sub- 
committee on procedure under the Immigration Act be authorized to state to the 
President's Special Commission on Immigration and Naturalization that it is 
the recommendation of this committee that entry into this country by any alien 
entrant who is the holder of a permanent visa should not he denied except after 
a hearing, which may be private, before a hearing bt»ard of three members or 
more, at which the alien entrant is advised of whatever charge or charges exist 
against him by reason of which it is proposed that entry be denied to him, in- 
formation as to the natui-e of such charge to be in such detail as such board 
in its discretion shall determine can be made without endangering the security 
of the United States of America. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Shislikin here? 



Mr. Shishkin. I am Boris Shislikin, and I am appearing on behalf 
of the American Federation of Labor. I was Director of the European 
Labor Division of the Economic Cooperation Administration for a 
period of ahnost 3 years, until spring of last year. 

The Chairman. Were you located in France? 

Mr. Shishkin. Well, my responsibility was that for entire AA^estern 
Europe. Our headquarters was in Paris. I also might say that in 
the course of my duties there I had the occasion to serve as a niember 
of the United States delegations to the three-power Paris Conference 
and the two ILO conferences on migration, all dealing with the ques- 
tions of European migration during the period 1949-51. 

With your permission, I should like to read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. We shall be pleased to hear it. 

Mr. Shishkin. The American Federation of Labor welcomes and 
appreciates this opportunity to present its views and to assist the 
President's Commission in its stucly of the immigration and naturali- 
zation policies of the United States. 

In undertaking its work, the Commission has assumed a high degree 
of responsibility. It is difficult enough at any time to assess the wis- 
dom, the validity, and the soundness of legislative and administrative 
policies dealing with immigration derived from one and three-quarters 
centuries of growth of the American Republic. It is even more diffi- 
cult to do so today, when the world has been divided by the totalitarian 
domination of hundreds of millions of people by Communist dictator- 
ship and when sovereign independent nations are under the immediate 
threat of Communist encroachment. 

Public Law 414 of the Eighty-second Congress, entitled "ImmigTa- 
tion and Nationality Act of 1952," and better known as the McCarran- 
Walter Act, will become law at the end of this year. Although this 
law, which replaces all previous congressional enactments dealing 
with immigration and naturalization, contains some obvious improve- 
ments over the past practice, in many respects it falls shamefully short 
of the essential requirements of sound public policy. The President's 
Commission has been charged with the duty to inquire not only into 
the shortcomings of this new enactment but also into the kinds of 
immigration and naturalization policies required to meet the Nation's 
current needs as well as the problems that lie ahead. 

We submit that at this time the Commission efforts should be con- 
fined to two important and necessary tasks. First, the Commission 
should develop concrete recommendations for temporary and emer- 
gency measures which the United States must take if it is to live up 
to the responsibilities of our Nation's leadership of the free world. 

Second, the Commission should bring out corrective recommenda- 
tions which would help Congress eliminate the provisions of Public 
Law 414 which are inequitable and unjust and which are inconsistent 
with our national policy and the spirit of our Constitution. 

Emergency problems must be met first : We do not believe that it is 
timely or appropriate for the Commission to undertake at this time 
the formulation and recommendation of a long-term permanent im- 


migration policy. We must be realistic. Today Europe is cut asunder 
by the iron curtain. Nations in the east, as well as the west, have 
become Soviet satellites under the control of and in forced allegiance 
to the Kremlin. Over these nations and over Russia there extends a 
single rule whose avowed purpose is to destroy the independence of 
every free nation and, above all, to destroy the American system. 

How can we attempt to formulate a fundamental long-term immi- 
gration policy in the midst of this division and struggle between the 
free world and the enslaved Communist world ? How can we resolve 
the far-reaching problems of justice and equity among people of dif- 
ferent lands at the time when the totalitarian threat of communism 
is aiming at our very existence on one side, while the totalitarian 
Fascist and neo-Fascist oppression is emerging in new forms to 
endanger and nullify freedom on the other ? 

We have the choice of either developing a set of theoretical rules on 
the assumption that all is well with the world; that the world will 
indefinitely remain at peace, and that our immigration legislation can 
be carried out under the conditions of normalcy. If we choose to do 
this, we cannot escape the realization that such an assumption is 
unrealistic and inherently false. The conditions in the world of today 
are far from normal. The emergency thrust upon us by the Kremlin 
must be dealt with first. The danger to us and to our way of life is 
present and real. We can neither ignore it nor subordinate our laws to 
abstract considerations. 

Our immediate and urgent task is to fulfill our duty and to make 
effective our leadership in the struggle to make the world free. What 
we need to do without delay is to place on the statute books temporary 
and emergency legislation designed to meet squarely the temporary 
and emergency conditions which prevail now. 

There are millions of men and women who have escaped from the 
totalitarian rule. Many of them have found livelihood and shelter 
elsewhere, but there are thousands among them who can and must be 
provided with refuge and an opportunity for useful employment and 
creative life here in the United States. Refugees and escapees from 
behind the iron curtain include many who have risked their lives to 
regain freedom, and who are resolved to work for freedom, for the 
democratic way of life, and for its advancement. Our immediate 
consideration should be turned to the immediate solution of this emer- 
gency problem. 

The American Federation of Labor has supported the enactment 
of the Celler-Hendrickson bills (H. R. 7376 and S. 3109) to authorize 
the issuance of 300,000 special nonquota immigration visas over a 3- 
year period to political and religious refugees from communism and 
to persons of German ethnic origin as well as natives of Italy, Greece, 
and the Netherlands. 

We must recognize and deal with the problem of political refugees 
in Western Europe to the full extent consistent with our stability and 
national interest. We in the United States could not even attempt to 
resolve the entire problem created by these displaced populations, 
but we must assume our share of the responsibility in the cooperative 
effort with other free nations to devise an effective solution for it. 

The Celler bill, in addition to dealing with the mass concentration 
of refugees in Western Germany, also recognizes the pressing problem 
created by the presence of surplus population in Italy, Greece, and in 


the Netherlands. Under the terms of this bill, we can provide at least 
a small measure of relief to the surplus population pressures in these 
countries. By early enactment of such a measure into law, we would 
recognize the acute political problems created by the presence of the 
danger areas of unemployed and inactive population in these countries 
of Western Europe. We can do more by providing in addition in- 
creased assistance to a cooperative program of migration from these 
countries to other areas, thus forming a pattern of cooperation among 
free nations to meet human needs. We strongly recommend that this 
Commission formulate specific proposals for temporary and emer- 
gency legislation to carry out the purposes and objectives of the 
Celler-Hendrickson bill of 1952. 

America's capacity to absorb immigi'ation : There is general agree- 
ment today that immigration for permanent residence in the United 
States must be limited. Our people have attained a high standard 
of living, comparing favorably with any country in the world. Com- 
pare, for example, the per capita income in the United States with 
that of the countries of Western Europe since the war. To avoid 
overstating the case, I submit the figures for 1949, the only postwar 
year in which the United States experienced a mild recession in its 
economic activity, comparing per capita incomes here and in western 
European countries, as compiled by the Statistical Office of the United 
Nations. Shown in table I, these figures indicate that in Switzerland, 
the country with the highest income standard in Europe, per capita 
income was only about 60 percent that of the United States. Per 
capita income in Great Britain was only a little over one-half of ours; 
in France it was about one-third of ours ; in Italy, a bit less than one- 
sixth; and in Greece, less than one-eleventh of our annual income per 

Table II provides a similar comparison of the per capita consump- 
tion expenditures in 1950-51 between the United States and European 
NATO countries. Although they are, of course, subject to adjustments 
and interpretation regarding the differences in customs and the way 
of life, these figures show dramatically the disparity between the 
standard of income and living attained in the United States and that 
in other countries of the west. 

Clearly, such a disparity would in itself act as a magnet and would, 
without limits and safeguards, attract immigration vastly beyond our 
country's capacity to absorb it. But economic considerations are not 
alone in attracting migration to our shores. Our freedom, our oppor- 
tunities, our institutions serve as a further and powerful attraction. 

How much immigration is good for ns in the United States? At 
one extreme we find those who would shut the gates of immigration 
totally and tightly. This is an untenable position to take for a nation 
which was built and developed by immigrants. At the other extreme 
are those who argue that tlie more immigrants the stronger and 
healthier the country. This, too, could be dismissed as an untenable 
position, had it not been advocated from time to time by reputable 

Surprisingly, this argument was advanced yesterday before this 
Commission by Mr. Louis H. Bean, of the Department of Agriculture, 
a well-known and distinguished statistician. Mr. Bean's thesis seems 
to be that, if the immigration restrictions of the past 25 years did 
not exist, we would have some 17,000,000 more people in this country, 


$35,000,000,000 more in national income, and $15,000,000,000 more in 
wages. He even argues that unrestricted immigration would have 
shortened the duration of the World War, although it is not clear 
whether he means that this woidd have been the case because the men 
in Hitler's armies would have been fighting on our side. 

While Mr. Bean's statement is long on statistics, it is short on eco- 
nomics. It seems unbelievable how such a dynamic argument could 
be stated in such static terms. His conclusion seems so obvious to 
Mr. Bean that he doesn't bother to ask what would happen under such 
a flood of immigration to wage levels, volume of unemployment pro- 
ductivity, or capital formation, to mention just a few factors, and to 
the balance among such factors, at any point in our experience during 
the past 25 years. 

The problem of the relationship between population growth and 
immigration on the one hand and economic expansion on the other 
has been examined by other distinguished but less hasty scholars than 
Mr. Bean, To name one. Prof. Alvin H. Hansen, in his Full Recovery 
or Stagnation (New York, 10-10), considered the difference between 
our nineteenth-century experience, when a large flow of immigration 
into an undeveloped economy did provide a stimulus to rapid capital 
expansion, and the recent decades. While he points out that a declin- 
ing rate of population growth is likely to curtail investment outlets, 
he stresses that "there are good reasons why this country could not, 
without endangering her own security, loosen her immigration re- 
strictions." Apart from the problem of assimilation, there are also 
those of equilibrium necessary to sustain full employment, as well as 
the problems of structural organization of our economic activity. 

Dr. Julius Isaac, in his thoughtful study, Economics of Migration 
(New York, 1017), considers the relationship between immigration 
and economic decline and states : 

Population growth (through immigration or through natural increase) is 
undoubtedly a major factor in keeping an economy in full employment by pro- 
viding opportunities for capital widenin.ii'. It is, however, more questionable 
whetiier the mere addition of new people is likely to have the same effect after 
dislocations have actually occurred. The normal type of immigrant, the un- 
skilled worker without funds, will not substantially increase the aggregate 
effective demand for consumers' goods until he has found employment, and it 
is not easy to see why his mere existence should lead entrepreneurs to take a 
more optimistic view of the profitability of new capital investment, and so 
induce a resinnption of investment activity and increased employment. 

It is true that, if the immigrants are assisted by public funds, they will create 
an additional demand for consumers' goods, including durable consumers' goods 
such as houses. Their inunigration is therefore likely to have a favorable effect 
on employment and investment activities. But the immigrants constitute not 
only additional demand for but also additional supply of labor. They would 
reduce unemployment only if the number of new openings were larger than the 
number of new immigrants seeking employment. Other forms of public spend- 
ing — for instance, schemes for the clearance of slums or an increase in the 
expenditure on assisting the unemployed^may have the same stimulating effect 
on emi)loyment ; these measures would then be a more efficient means of reducing 
unemployment, since they do not imply an increase in the labor supply 
(pp. 221^222). 

Not only are there differences in the ability of the country to absorb 
a sui)ply of innnigrants in periods of relative labor shortages, as com- 
pared with periods of unemjiloyment, but there are also fundamental 
considerations arising out of a given flow of income distribution. It 
is absurd to argue, as Mr. Bean seems to, that all w^e need in order to 
build more houses is a greater number of people who need housing. 


After years of a chronic shortage of housing, we are still experiencing 
an acute lack of adequate housing facilities within the financial reach 
of nearly a third of our population. Uncontrolled immigration would 
greatly aggravate our critical housing problem. 

These and other limiting factors need to be taken into account. We 
should also consider the sharp increase in our rate of population 
registered in recent years. There is no simple answer to the question 
of how many immigrants the United States economy can properly 
assimilate and absorb in a given year, without creating serious dis- 
locations in our structure of population, employment, and wages. At 
best, we can only say that, under the prevailing economic conditions, 
a total annual rate of normal as well as emergency immigration of 
between 200,000 and 250,000 a year would not be excessive or lead to 
serious dislocations. 

In considering oversea immigration, we should also bear in mind 
that our house is far from being in order here on the North American 
Continent, Illegal entrants or ''wetbacks" continue to come into our 
country by the thousands, with the Immigration Service and the De- 
partment of Labor helpless in their inability to enforce the law because 
Congress has failed to appropriate the necessary funds on the grounds 
of "economy." A full-fledged program to deal with these migrants 
should be put in force and effect. 

Nor can we overlook the responsibility we have toward our own 
American citizens in Puerto Kico. Assisted flow of these workers 
from the island to the continent is not an immigration problem, but 
it calls for positive measures in order to safeguard the welfare of 
these Americans, protect their standards, assure them employment 
opportunities, and prevent their exploitation. 

These are the essential prerequisites to a sound immigration pro- 

Requirements of a sound immigration policy : In considering the 
nature of necessary and proper limitations to be placed on immigra- 
tion, a realistic account must be taken of the policy objective involved. 
First of all, we must be guided by the considerations of our own 
national interest and our national security. In this connection, we 
must make sure that the volume and character of immigration does 
not adversely affect employment of workers in the United States, and 
does not impair or undermine the established standards of wages and 
working conditions. Second, due consideration must be given to the 
welfare and human rights of the immigrants. Arbitrary administra- 
tion of both admission and naturalization laws must be prevented and 
clear safeguards must be placed to prevent exploitation of immigrants 
added to our labor force. Third, we must fulfill our share of re- 
sponsibility in meeting the political pressures as well as population 
pressures in the countries of emigration and thus contribute to the 
fundamental objectives of our foreign policy. 

Let me now turn to some of the specific considerations which we 
wish this Commission to take into account. 

Contract labor: One of the most wicked and vicious aspects of im- 
properly regulated immigration is the existence of contract labor. 
Essentially, this is an arrangement whereby an immigrant who lands 
on our shores is already bound by a prior contract with an employer 
exacting from the immigrant adherence to specific conditions of em- 
ployment in advance of his arrival. 

25356—52 102 


As far back as 1864, a Republican administration enacted the con- 
tract-labor law whicli authorized the importation of workers under 
terms no different from the bonded servitude of colonial days. Al- 
though that law was soon repealed, the practice of importing contract 
labor continued and expanded without legal authorities. Companies 
were organized to supply employers with immigrant labor under con- 
tract to man factory machines, to build railroads and highways, and 
to work on farms. Those who profited by the system advocated it 
and defended it as did before slave owners who tried to justify slave 
trade as a means of raising Negroes from barbarism to Christianity. 
They now wrapped themselves in a lofty purpose of using contract 
labor to bring the poor of Europe to the land of opportunity. 

Widespread abuses of the contract system have given us one of the 
darkest chapters of human oppression and involuntary servitude in 
the land of the free. By 1885, Congress passed its first tentative 
prohibition against importation of laborers under contract, and a few 
years later made this prohibition more complete and secure. This was 
further reinforced by the Immigration Act of 1917, which in section 
3 specifically provided for the exclusion of contract laborers, under 
which terms are included persons "induced, assisted, encouraged, or 
solicited to migrate to this country by offers or promise of employ- 
ment, whether such offers or promises are true or false, or in conse- 
quence of agereements, oral, written, or printed, express or implied, 
to perform labor in this country of any kind, skilled or unskilled." 

The McCarran-Walter Act repeals this restriction. Its effect is 
to give sanction to assisted immigrations, as well as to the importation 
of contract labor. This failure of the new law is not overcome by 
the provision of section 212 (a). Public Law 414, which calls for the 
exclusion of aliens. There is no such provision in the Immigration 
and Nationality Act of 1952. Instead, there is a provision (sec. 212 
(a). Public Law 414), providing for the exclusion of "aliens seeking 
to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or 
unskilled labor, if the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified 
to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General that (A) suf- 
ficient w^orkers in the United States who are able, willing, and qualified 
are available at the time (of application for a visa and admission to 
the United States) and place (to which the alien is destined) to per- 
form such skilled or unskilled labor, or (B) the employment of such 
aliens will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the 
workers in the United States similarly employed." We ask for the 
enactment of legislation which would continue in effect the require- 
ment contained in the previous law that entrance to this country should 
not be conditioned on performance of labor for anyone and that any 
worker entering this country should be free to work anywhere. 

These principles are fundamental to a free America. It is our moral 
responsibility to assure a minimum protection and the guaranty of 
basic rights to those who by their own choice adopt this country as 
their homeland. Moreover, the protection of immigrant w^orkers 
against exploitation is essential to protect American workers against 
substandard competition by unscrupulous employers of immigrant 
workers. We therefore recommend that the immigration law be 
amended to include a specific prohibition against the admission of 
. contract laborers. 


The purpose of the new provision in the 1952 law is to protect 
American workers from the threat of either unemployment or low 
wages resulting from importation into this country of foreign workers, 
primarily from the Western Hemisphere. We note that the Secre- 
tary of Labor has testified before this Commission that the Depart- 
ment has encountered considerable difficulty in attempting to work 
out procedures for administering this provision. 

Whether or not this provision is effective in protecting American 
workers, the omission of a prohibition against admitting contract 
labor from the 1952 act withdraws a very necessary protection from 
immigrant workers. We do not believe, however, that this safeguard 
is either sufficient or administratively feasible. 

We have had current and recent experience with this kind of abuse, 
even under the Displaced Persons Act. I, myself, have had first-hand 
knowledge of cases in which recruiting agents from Mississippi have 
come into Western Germany 2 years ago and actually have exacted 
written agreements from prospective migrants who would qualify 
under the terms of that act, in order to place them in employment on 
Mississippi farms under conditions of virtual peonage under the terms 
of those advance agreements that were negotiated with them. So 
that it seems to me we have had current experience and direct respon- 
sibility for placing safeguards against one of the worst abuses about 
which every American is thoroughly informed who knows American 

Need for statutory standards : A serious problem has developed in 
the administration of immigration laws which will, no doubt, be in- 
tensified when Public Law 414 of 1952 goes into effect. To consider 
just one aspect of it, the new law establishes a number of grounds 
for exclusion of aliens from immigration to this country. It would be 
beyond the scope of this statement to examine each of these grounds 
one by one. Many of them seem perfectly proper. Others are stated 
in such general terms that there is reason to wonder whether their 
interpretation by administrative officers may not result in considerable 

The danger that this will occur seems particularly likely in view 
of the fact that the act fails to establish proper safeguards or stand- 
ards for the administration of these provisions. It allows far too 
much discretion especially to consular officials as well as to the Attor- 
ney General and his subordinates for determining in particular cases 
whether aliens are, or are not, within the excludable classes established 
by the act. 

Before I give one or two examples of this problem, Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to add a word to indicate that we ought to have a pretty 
clear appreciation of what we are confronted with in this kind of 
situation and to whom did the Congress delegate this authority. Con- 
sider the consular officers. They are people who are often newly 
recruited into the service, who are often starting at the bottom of the 
ladder, who are almost universally greatly underpaid, who are given 
tremendous responsibility which they themselves attempt to exercise 
in posts of secondary and tertiary significance; but in the large posts 
are administered with participation of the alien employees, of neces- 
sity, because of the restrictions upon the budgets of those offices. So 
you have an open field for the vilest, most widespread abuse of dis- 


cretioiiary power if the complete and final responsibility for the kind 
of recommendation that is made is left in the hands of the consular 
officer. We need to raise our standards of consular service; we need 
to improve the conditions of the employment ; we need to take notice 
of the fact that w^e have a great number of devoted, loyal, and selfless 
employees who have been working way into tlie night dealing with 
the human problem and have made a tremendous contribution to it. 
But we also have a great deal of disparity in the standards of the 
officers that are employed there, and I think we liave got to deal with 
these things in concrete terms. To whom is the Attorney General 
delegating the final authority in many of these cases ? Who is going 
to decide here in Washington or elsewhere in the United States? 

Section 221 (g), for example, gives to the consular officer complete 
discretion to refuse a visa to an alien whom he believes is ineligible to 
be admitted to this country. In other words, the consular official has 
the authority to interpret all of the complicated and often vague pro- 
visions of the law relating to the exclusion of aliens. Then, on his 
own authority, and with no provision for appeal by the prospective 
immigrant, he may exclude an alien whom be believes to be excludable 
or undesirable. If the alien is able to obtain a visa from the consular 
official, the Attorne}^ General, or in practice the subordinate officials 
of the Immigration Service, have the same discretionary power to 
exclude the alien, again with no avenue for appeal. 

To prevent abuse, the act should therefore be amended so as to 
establish as precise standards as possible for the guidance of officials 
administering these provisions and a proper appeal procedure for 
the protection of the prospective immigrant. 

There is another provision, however, which deserves special com- 
ment. Section 212 (a) (10) provides for exclusion of aliens who 
have been convicted of two or more oifenses "other than purely po- 
litical offenses" regardless of whether the offenses involved moral 
turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences imposed were 5 years 
or more. 

A realistic distinction should be made between the justice meted 
out by totalitarian courts and those which accord with the basic 
criteria of the law of our own land. In a totalitarian country, such 
as Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, individuals are arrested and 
jailed every day for all types of minor violations of the existing laws, 
or for no violation at all, even though such persons, even under the 
totalitarian law, are guilty of no political offenses. A worker who 
is late to work in the Soviet Union may be thrown into jail. This is 
no political offense and should obviously be no grounds for exclusion 
from admission to this country. There are many other similar exam- 
ples. The 1952 law, in effect, accepts Nazi and Communist laws and 
the decisions of Nazi and Communist ])olice officials and courts as the 
basis for excluding refugees from totalitarian countries from admis- 
sion to this country. There can be no justification for such a pro- 
vision. The law should be changed so that tlie principles of our 
own law and our own system of government should be the criteria 
used in determining whether to admit or exclude aliens. 

Full protection of the law must be assured: In a number of its 
provisions, Public Law 414 seems to pursue the theory that the safe- 
guards of our Constitution are applicable only to native-born Ameri- 
cans. Such is not the case; constitutional protection extends to all 


residents of the United States. It is particularly important to make 
sure that the full force of the due process requirements of the Con- 
stitution be applied to all cases involving naturalization, revocation 
of citizenship, and deportation. American citizenship is indeed a 
high prize and confers the rights, privileges, and immunities of which 
no one should be deprived witliout full recourse to the courts. The 
checks and balances system of our Government which accords the full 
measure of constitutional responsibility to our judiciary cannot be 
made inoperative in cases involving citizenship. 

For example, section 241 (d) of the 1952 law provides new grounds 
for deportation applicable to aliens. Immigrants who entered the 
United States in a perfectly legal manner in accordance with the 
laws in effect at the time of their entrance may now be considered 
to come within the scope of the new provisions relating to deportation 
of aliens. This provision for retroactive application of the new law 
violates the constitutional provision against ex post facto laws. 

The 1952 law also establishes a constant threat to the security of 
aliens admitted to this country by removing the 5-year statute of 
limitation which was provided for in the previous law. This means 
that at any time, long after admission to this country and regardless 
of whether he was admitted lawfully under the laws then existing, 
an immigrant may be deported if the Attorney General finds that 
he falls under any of the categories of deportable aliens. 

Section 241 (a) (8) permits deportation of aliens who have become 
a public charge "from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen 
after entry." This puts a burden of proof on the alien which would 
usually be very difficult for him to sustain. Instead, the Attorney 
General should have the responsibility for affirmatively showing that 
the alien has become a public charge from causes which arose before 

A particularly objectionable feature of the new law is that it 
eliminates a wide area of court protection from aliens who are to 
be deported. For example, section 235 (c) permits an alien to be 
excluded or deported "in the discretion of the Attorney General" 
solely on the basis of undisclosed "information of a confidential na- 
ture" if the Attorney General believes that the disclosure of such 
information "would be prejudicial to the public interest, safety, or 
security." This means that an alien could be excluded or deported 
without ever knowing the basis for such action and, therefore, with- 
out having an opportunity properly to defend his own case. WHiile 
there may be some few occasions when it is necessary not to disclose 
confidential information, this provision is too broad and gives too 
much discretion to the Attorney General. 

Section 242 (b) provides that deportation proceedings are "the 
sole and exclusive procedure for determining the deportability of an 
alien," and further provides that "the decision of the Attorney Gen- 
eral shall be final." There is no provision for appeals to the courts 
from the decision of the Attorney General. This becomes particularly 
important because section 241 (a) (1) provides that all grounds for 
exclusion of aliens are also grounds for deportation. In addition, 
since interpretation of grounds for exclusion are entirely within 
the discretion of the Attorney General, in effect he also has complete 
discretion in determining grounds for deportation. 


The grounds for suspension of deportation are narrowed under 
the 1952 law. Under the 1917 law, deportation could be suspended 
if it would result in "serious economic detriment to a spouse, parent, 
or child of the alien." The 1952 law (sec. 244 (a) (2)) permits 
suspension of deportation only where there would be "exceptional and 
extremely unusual hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or 
child." This would make it much more difficult to secure suspension 
of deportation in meritorious cases. 

Another particularly important provision regarding suspension of 
deportation would restrict suspension of deportation to countries be- 
hind the iron curtain to those cases where the Attorney General be- 
lieves the alien would be subject to "physical persecution." In view of 
the completely arbitrary character of the way in which laws are ad- 
ministered in Communist countries, it seems very unlikely that the 
Attorney General could know whether or not a deported alien would 
be subject to physical persecution. In addition, the deported alien 
might be subject to other persecution which is not physical. lie might 
be denied an opportunity for employment or housing or even sub- 
jected to mental torture which would, in effect, result in persecution 
although not necessarily physical persecution. 

Effective security measures are needed : Historically and tradition- 
ally, the policy of the United States has been to extend political asylum 
to those seeking to escape political oppression and persecution. This 
right of asylum must continue to be extended. We must clearly recog- 
nize, however, that the absolute arbitrary power is now in the hands of 
the new inheritors of political reaction — the totalitarian dictatois. 
To the maximum extent consistent with our national interest, we must 
seek to extend the asylum to those who have fled the political oppres- 
sion of totalitarian dictatorship. 

At the same time, we must recognize the need of guarding our coun- 
try and our system as effectively as we can against political infiltra- 
tion, subversion, and espionage. This must be accomplished with 
special measures to meet the special kind of a threat to our institutions^ 
but it must also be done with meticulous attention to equity and jus- 
tice. Our way of life — the free way of life — holds a promise of hope 
for all people. In the fulfillment of the promise of freedom lies our 
greatest strength in safeguarding our system against subversion and 
infiltration. Yet, in doing so, we must always preserve the funda- 
mental democratic ideal on which rests the whole structure of human 

Conclusion : A sound immigration policy at the present time is one 
which recognizes squarely the present world emergency and should be 
designed to meet it. It should give prior consideration to the immedi- 
ate realities of the threat of communism to the security and freedom 
of ourselves and our allies. It must be limited by the necessity to 
safeguard our American standard of living and the standard of in- 
come. Consistent with the fundamental and overriding public interest 
in maintaining the safety, security, and prosperity of the United 
States, our immigration policy should be at present directed to the 
primary purpose of extending to those eager for our free life, without 
regard to race, creed, or color, the opportunity of becoming 


(The tables referred to and statement of the position of the position 
of the American Federation of Labor on H. E,. 7376 follow:) 

Tadle I. — Comparative per capita incomes, 19^9 , 

United States $1, 453 

Switzerland 849 

Sweden 780 

Great Britain 773 

Denmarli 689 

Norway 587 

Belgium 582 

Netherlands 502 

France 482 

Source : Statistical Office of the U. N. 

Iceland $476 

Ireland 420 

Western Germany 31i0 

Portugal 250 

Italy 235 

Austria 216 

Greece 128 

Turkey 125 

Table II. — Per capita consumption expenditures in European NATO countries 
plus Germany, and the United States, 1950-51 

[In current prices] 


United States 

Average, NATO plus Germany 



United Kingdom 










Note. — Precise comparisons of the levels of consumption expenditures and gross national product be- 
tween the European countries and the United States are not possible. The conversion into dolhrs has 
been made on the basis of ofTicial foreign exchange rates, and the purchasing power of the dolli^r is appreciably 
higher in most European countries than in the United States. Adjustments to make the figures com- 
parable cannot now be made. 

Source: The Mutual Secui-ity Agency. 

Excerpts From Statement of Walter J. Mason, Member, National Legislative 
Committee, American Federation of Labor 

The American Federation of Labor supports the purposes of H. R. 7376 under 
which the immigration of an additional 300,000 persons from Europe over a 
period of 3 years would be authorized. 

This bill is a very important one from the standpoint of strengthening the 
free world in the continuing fight against the tyranny of Communist totali- 
tarianism. The passage of this legislation would be most helpful to the cause 
of democracy in our show-down struggle with Soviet tyranny in Europe and 

For humanitarian as well as practical reasons, the American Federation of 
Labor gave its wholehearted support to the Displaced Persons Act. For similar 
reasons, the American Federation of Labor is now favoring the approval of the 
Celler bill. 

Large numbers of anti-Communist refugees have fled from Soviet tyranny in 
Eastern Europe. These people abhor totalitarian slavery. They have risked 
their lives to escape from the Communists. These refugees are now in Western 
Europe. Their presence has created a grave situation in parts of Western 
Europe which were already afflicted by overpopulation. 


The ontry of 300,000 additional immitrrants over a period of 3 years, with 
the safeguards provided in the proposed lesislsition, can be handled by the United 
States witliout difficulty. This program would be in the best interests of our 

Naturally, the American Federation of Labor would be deeply concerned if the 
proposed legislation were to jeopardize the well-l>eing of our own people. But 
M-e can see no such possibility under the terms of the Celler bill. 

America has not been injured but, on the contrary, lias been substantially 
strengthened by the immigrants who have come into the country under the Dis- 
placed Persons Act. Thus, we can speak from experience, and we do so speak 
when we say that legislation such as H. R. 7.37fi, while it has its humanitarian 
aspects, is very practical and would be unquestionably beneficial to the United 
States. The number of immigrants — .300,000 spread over a 3-year period — is 
not excessive. There can be no question of our ability to absorb this number 
without difficulty. 

The American Federation of Labor is opposed to lowering our immigration 
barriers so that anyone and everyone who desires to come into the United 
States may do so. Tliei-e must be limits and there nmst be safeguards. Fol- 
lowers of the Communist ideology or other forms of totalitarianism are not 
welcome in our countx'y. 

We believe that the Celler bill, as now written, would effectively screen out 
enemies of our countr.v and those who would be a burden, instead of making 
constructive contrilmtions. The bill contains the very essential protection that 
no visa shall be issued to any Communist or to any person who advances or up- 
hf)lds the principles of any political system or philosophy contrary to the United 
States or to our form of Government. 

For these reasons, after careful consideration of H. R. 7376 the American 
Federation of Labor gives its endorsement to this measiu'e. We believe that it 
Avill be helpful not only from a purely domestic standpoint, lint in the context 
of what the United States and the North Atlantic nations allied with us are 
striving to achieve in Europe at the present time. 

We recommend the passage of this bill at the present session. This legisla- 
tion is in the best interests of the Nation at the present time. These anti- 
Communist refugees who have fled from Soviet tyranny have shown that they 
have faith in the promises of democracy. Let us demonstrate to them and to 
the many millions who are still in Communist chains that their faith in the 
])romises of democracy is not misplaced. 

On liehalf of the American Federation of Labor, I therefore, urge the com- 
mittee to recommend the enactment of H. R. 7376, the Special Migration Act 
of 1952. 

The Chairman. Thank yoii very much, Mr. Shishkin. 

Mr. RosENFiELD. Mr. Shishkin, do I understand tlie A. F. of L's 
position to be something as folloAvs : That tlie A. F. of L. is vifrorously 
opposed to unrestricted immifrration ; that it re<jards a total annual 
immigration of somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 as not being 
excessive or likely to lead to serious dislocations; and that our im- 
migration policy should have no regard to race, creed, or color? 

Mr, Shishkin. That is correct. 

Mr. RosENFirxD. Now, what is the policv of the A. F. of L. in con- 
nection with the allocation within this ceiling of 200,000 to 250.000? 
Is that intended to be without regard to race, creed, national origin or 

Mr. Shishkin. Well, the American Federation of Labor is devoted 
to the principle and policv which a]^plies universally and applies to 
this problem as well as it does to the others. I don't want to leave any 
doubt in anybody's mind on that score. We support our national 
])olicy and the public policy of the United States which applies 
equitably to everyone without regard to race, color, creed, or national 
origin. The figure which I placed before you — and it squares with 
the position taken in the congressional committees, where the federa- 


tion was represented — is intended to give a realistic appraisal of the 
absorptive caj^acity at this time of our economy as we know it today. 
That limit may become larger if we develop labor shortages; that 
limit may become lower if we develop substantial unemployment. 

As for the allocation of immigration among the different countries, 
I thought that I pointed out just as clearly as I could that we feel 
that a long-term permanent solution, which would bring up to date 
and modify the concepts laid down 25 years ago, is not a timely or a 
useful immediate exercise. The timely and the useful thing to do 
is to take into account and give priorities to the kinds of considerations 
which are practical, which are realistic, and which are in accord with 
our basic policy considerations and guiding policies. We have got 
to ta