Skip to main content

Full text of "Whom we shall welcome; report"

See other formats








"The bosom of America is 

open to receive not only 

the Opulent and Respectable 

Stranger, but the oppressed 

and persecuted of all 

Nations And Religions; 

whom we shall wellcome 

to a participation of all 

our rights and previleges, 

if by decency and propriety 

of conduct they appear to 

merit the enjoyment." 

Geo. Washington, Dec. 2, 1783, New York, The 
Writings of George Washington; from the Original 
Manuscript Sources; 1745-1799. Editor, John C. 
Fitzpatrick, United States Government Printing Office, 
Washington, 1938, Vol. XXVII, June 11, 1783, to 
November 28, 1784, page 254. 




0ifi && 



Philip B. Perlman, Chairman 

Earl G. Harrison, Vice Chairman 

Thomas G. Finucane 

Adrian S. Fisher 

Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson 

Msgr. John O'Grady 

Clarence E. Pickett 

Harry N. Rosenfield, Executive Director 

For sale by tbe Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office 
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 75 cents (paper cover) 

Letter of Transmittal 

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 

washington, d. c. 

January 1, 1953. 

Dear Mr. President : 

The President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 
submits to you its report pursuant to your request of September 4, 
1952, and Executive Order No. 10392. 

We believe that the separately printed record of hearings held by 
the Commission provides information of permanent value to the 
executive and legislative branches of the Government. The work 
could not have been done without the wholehearted cooperation of 
many indivduals, organizations, and institutions interested in the 

The Commission hopes that its study and recommendations will 
contribute to public understanding of this vital matter, and assist the 
Congress in the consideration of legislation to improve the immigra- 
tion and naturalization laws and policies of the United States. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Thomas G. Finucane 
Adrian S. Fisher 
Thaddeus F. Gullixson 
Msgr. John O'Grady 
Clarence E. Pickett 
Earl G. Harrison 

Vice Chairman 

Philip B. Perlman 


Harry N. Rosenfield 

Executive Director 

The President 
The mite House 
Washington, D. C. 




We Hold These Truths . . . xn 

What We Believe xiv 


Chapter 1 — The Commission's Hearings 3 

Schedule of Hearings 3 

Nation-wide Interest 5 

Leaders Speak 6 

Recent Immigration 8 

Moving Toward Agreement 9 

National Leaders 11 

Pros and Cons 12 

General Consensus 13 

National Origins Quota System 14 

Other Action Needed 15 

Administration of the Law 16 

Criticism of the Law ■ 17 

Concl usion 18 


Chapter 2 — Immigration and the American Economy 23 

America — A Land of Immigrants 23 

Quota Restrictions Ignored the Continuing Need for Immigration. 29 

The United States N eeds More Immigration — 32 

Manpower in an Expanding Economy 32 

National Defense — Lack of Manpower Reserves 35 

Unemployment 36 

Women in the Labor Force 36 

Underemployment in Agriculture 36 

Young Workers 37 

Population Structure 37 

Growing Older 37 

More Women Than Men 39 

Absorptive Capacity 41 

The United States is Not Overpopulated 41 

The United States Can Absorb More Than the Present 

Maximum Quota 42 

Chapter 3 — Immigration and Our Foreign Policy 45 

Lessons of History 45 

Responsibilities of Leadership 46 

Immigration Is Part of Foreign Policy 47 

Programs of Action 50 

Discriminatory Immigration Laws 52 

Asia 53 

Caribbean Area 54 

Africa 55 

Europe 55 


Chapter 3 — Immigration and Our Foreign Policy — Continued p age 

National Origins Law Thwarts Refugee and Escapee Programs. _ 56 

Refugees, Expellees, Displaced Persons. 56 

Escapees from Iron Curtain Countries 58 

Rigid Immigration Law Prevents Meeting Special Needs 61 

Europe 61 

Asia 63 

The Remedy 65 

Temporary Visitors 66 

Conclusions 70 


Chapter 4 — The Annual Immigration Quota , 75 

The Commission's Recommendations 77 

The United States Can Absorb 250,000 Quota Immigrants Annu- 

ally.... _ 78 

Chapter 5 — The National Origins System — Background 83 

Colonial Period. 83 

Early 19th Century 85 

Through World War I 85 

Since World War I 86 

Present Law 88 

A Discriminatory Law 88 

Chapter 6 — The National Origins Systems — Assumptions 91 

Assumptions Behind the National Origins_System 91 

The Theory of Superior Races 91 

The Theory of Economic Harm 94 

The Theory of Inferior Personal Qualities 95 

Assimilation of Immigrants 96 

Chapter 7 — The National Origins System — Operation 99 

The Quotas 99 

Results of the National Origins System 101 

It Reduced Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. 101 

It Reduced the Immigration of Orientals 102 

Effects of the National Origins System 103 

Unused Quotas 103 

Waiting Lists 103 

Reduction of Quotas through Special Legislation 105 

Failure of the National Origins System 105 

Racial and National Pattern of Immigrants 105 

Congressional Recognition of Failure 107 

Conclusions 108 

Chapter 8 — The National Origins System — Suggestions to the Com- 
mission 111 

Proposals Concerning a Total Annual Quota 111 

Proposals to Retain National Origins System 112 

Proposals to Abolish National Origins System 115 

Chapter 9 — A Unified Quota System — The Commission's Recom- 
mendation 117 

Numerical Limitation on Quota Immigrants 118 

A Unified Quota System — Allocation of Visas Within Annual 

Maximum 118 

The Right of Asylum 118 

Reunion of Families 119 



Chapter 9 — A Unified Quota System, Recommendations — Continued 

A Unified Quota System, Allocation — Continued; Page 

Needs in the United States 119 

Special Needs in the Free World 120 

General Immigration 121 

Other Aspects of Immigration Policy 122 

Nonquota Immigrants 122 

Restrictions Upon Immigration 123 


Chapter 10 — The Administrative Agency 127 

Present Administration of Immigration Activities 127 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of 

Justice 127 

Foreign Service, Department of State 128 

Board of Immigration Appeals, Department of Justice 129 

Unnecessary Duplication of Functions 131 

Feasibility of Consolidating Functions 134 

Operation of Proposed System 135 

Proposed Administration of Immigration and Naturalization 136 

Nature of Functions 136 

Location of Functions 138 

Independent Agency 140 

Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 141 

Chapter 11 — Fair Hearing and Procedure 145 

The Commission Recommends 145 

Review of Consular Decisions 146 

Present System 146 

Precedents for Review of Consular Action 148 

Recommendations 152 

Fair Hearing and Procedure in Exclusion and Deportation 152 

Current Hearing Procedures 152 

The Issues 154 

Past Studies of Immigration Procedures 155 

The Administrative Procedure Act 158 

The Issues Reconsidered 160 

Recommendations 164 

Judicial Review 167 

Deportation Orders 168 

Exclusion Orders 170 

Denial of Visa 170 

Bail 171 


Chapter 12 — The Admission of Aliens 175 

The Development of Qualitative Exclusions 176 

General Criticisms 177 

Excessive or Irrational Penalties 177 

Excessively Broad Catch-Ails 178 

Lack of Sufficient Discretion to Cope with Hardships 178 

Returning Lawful Residents 179 

Aliens Returning to Irregular Domicile in the United States. . 180 

Temporary Visitors 182 

Aliens from United States Possessions 183 

Obsolete Requirements 184 

• • 



Chapter 12 — The Admission of Aliens — Continued Page 

Specific Categories 185 

Subversives 185 

Criminals and Other Groups 185 

False Representation in Applying for Entry. . 189 

Economic Qualifications 190 

Chapter 13 — The Deportation of Aliens 193 

Deportation as an Aspect of Exclusion 196 

Technical Violations 196 

Statute of Limitations 197 

Residents Who Have Been Temporarily Absent Abroad — 

The Reentry Doctrine i 199 

Deportation as Punishment 200 

Differences in Treatment of Aliens and Citizens 201 

Wrongdoers Produced by Our Society 201 

Excessive Penalties 202 

Retroactive Penalties 202 

Specific Categories 203 

Subversives 203 

Violators of Criminal Statutes 203 

Violation of Registration Requirements 205 

Narcotic Drug Addicts 206 

Aliens Who Become a Charge on the Community 206 

Chapter 14 — Relief in Deportation Cases 207 

Voluntary Departure 207 

Adjustment to Permanent Residence Status 209 

Preexamination 209 

Suspension of Deportation 211 

Special Legislation 215 

Chapter 15 — Security Protections 217 

Security Screening Process 218 

Spies and Saboteurs 220 

Present Members and Affiliates of Subversive Organizations 222 

Former Membership or Affiliation With Subversive Organi- 
zations 226 

Exclusion Without Hearing 228 

Nonimmigrants 231 

Chapter 16 — Citizenship 235 

Second Class Citizenship 236 

Conduct Subsequent to Naturalization 236 

Residence in a Foreign Country 238 

Dual Nationality at Birth 240 

Birth in Territories or Possessions 241 

Statelessness 241 

Service in Foreign Armed Forces 242 

Voting in Foreign Political Election 243 

Disruption of Family Unity 244 

Birth Outside the United States to American Citizen Parents. 244 

Alien Spouses of Citizens 244 

Alien Children of Citizens 245 

Handicaps to Acquiring and Maintaining Citizenship 245 

Definition of Good Moral Character 246 

Requirement of Continuous Residen ce 247 

• •• 


Chapter 16 — Citizenship — Continued 

Handicaps to Acquiring and Maintaining Citizenship — Continued Page 

Naturalization of Aliens With Military Service 247 

Denaturalization for Concealment or Misrepresentation 248 

Absence of Statute of Limitations 249 

Loss of Derivative Rights 249 

Naturalization Procedures 250 

Procedure in Court 250 

Neighborhood Invest igation 25 1 

Judicial Proceedings to Establish Citizenship 252 

Chapter 17 — Additional Matters for Consideration 255 

The Role of Voluntary Agencies 255 

Investigation 256 

Migrant Labor 257 

Procedural Problems 257 

Legal Problems 258 

Business Problems 258 



Additional Views of Adrian S. Fisher 269 

Order Creating the Commission 271 

The President's Veto Message 275 

•Commission's Hearings — List of Witnesses 285 


INDEX 305 



The President of the United States established the President's 
Commission on Immigration and Naturalization on September 4, 

1952, and required it to make a final report not later than January 1, 

1953. He directed the Commission "to study and evaluate the immi- 
gration and naturalization policies of the United States" and to make 
recommendations "for such legislative, administrative, or other action 
as in its opinion may be desirable in the interest of the economy, 
security, and responsibilities of this country." 

This Eeport is the result of the Commission's study, and contains 
the recommendations for an immigration policy best suited, in its 
judgment, to the interests, needs, and security of the United States. 
The Commission's functions under the Executive Order are now com- 
pleted, and it ceases to exist 30 days after this Report is submitted 
to the President. 

It is noteworthy that all the major religious faiths of America 
urged the President to appoint a commission for this general pur- 
pose. The General Board of the National Council of the Churches 
of Christ in the United States of America issued a statement to this 
effect in March 1952. In August 1952, the American Council of 
Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service, through its Committee on 
Displaced Persons and Refugees, urged the creation of a commis- 
sion to study the basic assumptions of our immigration policy. Its 
statement was signed by representatives of the War Relief Services 
of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the Church World 
Service of the National Council of the Churches of Christ, the United 
Service for New Americans, and the National Lutheran Council. 
And in September 1952, the General Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church urged the appointment of a commission to study 
the need for emergency refugee legislation and "to review our perma- 
nent immigration policy and its basic assumptions." 

It became evident during the debate in Congress and public dis- 
cussions after the passage June 27, 1952, of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952 (generally known as the McCarran-Walter 
Act) over the President's veto, that the new legislation does not ade- 
quately solve immigration and naturalization problems, and that the 
codification it contains fails to embody principles worthy of this 

Immigration and nationality law in the United States should per- 


form two functions. First, it should regulate the admission and nat- 
uralization of aliens in the best interests of the United States. Sec- 
ond, it should properly reflect the traditions and fundamental ideals 
of the American people in determining "whom we shall welcome to a 
participation of all our rights and privileges." 

This Report discusses the manner in which the law presently regu- 
lates the admission and naturalization of aliens, recommends revisions, 
and explains why the Commission believes these revisions better serve 
the welfare and security of the United States. 

As a separate document, the Judiciary Committee of the House 
of Representatives has published the extensive record of the 30 sessions 
of hearings held by the Commission in 11 cities in various sections 
of the country. The record shows what a substantial and representa- 
tive cross section of the American people believe to be the best immi- 
gration policy for this country. 

It is appropriate to examine the second function of immigration 
policy, the reflection of American traditions and ideals. The Com- 
mission would state them as follows : 

We Hold These Truths 


1. America was founded upon the principle that all men are 
created equal, that differences of race, color, religion, or national 
origin should not be used to deny equal treatment or equal oppor- 

Americans have regarded such doctrines as self-evident since the 
Declaration of Independence. 

The immigration law is a key to whether Americans today believe in 
the essential worth and dignity of the individual human being. It is 
a clue to whether we really believe that all people are entitled to those 
"unalienable rights" for the preservation of which our nation was 
created. It indicates the degree of American humanitarianism. It is 
a gauge of our faithfulness to the high moral and spiritual principles 
of our founding f athers — to whom people, as the children of God, were 
the most important resources of a free nation. 

2. America historically has been the haven for the oppressed of 
other lands. 

The immigration law is an index of the extent of our acceptance of 
the principle that tyranny is forever abhorrent and that its victims 
should always find asylum in the land of the free. It tests whether we 
continue to believe that the home of the brave should offer a promise 
of opportunity to people courageous enough to leave their ancestral 
homelands, to search for liberty. It is a measure of our fidelity 
to the doctrine upon which this country was founded, the right 


of free men to freedom of movement. The immigration law discloses 
whether Americans still concur in George Washington's challenge: 
". . . to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." 

3. American national unity has been achieved without national 

The immigration law demonstrates whether we abide by the prin- 
ciple that the individual should be free of regimentation. It attests 
whether we still respect differences of opinion and the right to dis- 
agree with the prevailing ideas of the majority, and whether we still 
welcome new knowledge, new ideas, and new people. It reveals the 
strength or weakness of our convictions that democracy is the best 
philosophy and form of government. 

4. Americans have believed in fair treatment for all. 

The immigration law is a yardstick of our approval of fair play. 
It is a challenge to the tradition that American law and its adminis- 
tration must be reasonable, fair, and humane. It betokens the cur- 
rent status of the doctrine of equal justice for all, immigrant or native. 

5. America's philosophy has always been one of faith in our 
future and belief in progress. 

The immigration law indicates our outlook on the future of Amer- 
ica. Those who have faith in a dynamic, expanding, and strong 
American economy see immigration not only as a part of our heritage 
but also as essential to our future. On the other hand, those who re- 
gard the future of America in terms of a static economy and a maxi- 
mum population, view immigration with alarm. 

6. American foreign policy seeks peace and freedom, mutual 
understanding and a high standard of living for ourselves and our 
world neighbors. 

The immigration law is an image in which other nations see us. It 
tells them how we really feel about them and their problems, and not 
how we say we do. It is also an expression of the sincerity of our con- 
fidence in ourselves and our institutions. An immigration law which 
reflects fear and insecurity makes a hollow mockery of confident world 
leadership. Immigration policy is an important and revealing aspect 
of our foreign policy. 

No doubt our ideals have not been honored in America at every 
moment and in every respect. But they have certainly governed our 
thought and actions over the 175 years of the nation's life. They will 
continue to do so. The Commission believes that these traditions and 
ideals should be basic to our immigration laws. Insofar as our immi- 
gration policy violates these American traditions and ideals, it weak- 
ens the foundations of our liberty and undermines our security and 


well being. It also damages our position of leadership and destroys 
the esteem and good reputation the United States has earned in the 

Other considerations must also condition our immigration laws, 
such as the protection and preservation of our security against the 
dangerous and the diseased. The Commission emphasizes that one 
of its major concerns in applying these principles has been the neces- 
sity for the immigration law to safeguard the welfare and security of 
the United States. However, it is convinced that a full regard for 
protecting our national security does not require a hostile attitude 
toward immigration; on the contrary, it believes that full security 
can be achieved only with a positive immigration policy based not 
on fears but on faith in people and in the future of a democratic and 
free United States. 

What We Believe 

The Commission believes that immigration has given strength to 
this country not only in manpower, new industries, inventiveness, ? id 
prosperity, but also in new ideas and new culture. Immigrants have 
supplied a continuous flow of creative abilities and ideas that have 
enriched our nation. 

The Commission believes that an outstanding characteristic of the 
United States is its great cultural diversity within an overriding na- 
tional unity. The American story proves, if proof were needed, that 
such differences do not mean the existence of superior and inferior 

The Commission believes that it is contrary to the American spirit 
to view every alien with suspicion and hostility. The Commission is 
convinced that the American people will not knowingly tolerate immi- 
gration laws that reflect distrust, discrimination, and dangerous isola- 
tionism. The Commission believes that the American people are en- 
titled to a positive, not a negative immigration policy, and that they 
desire a law geared to the forward-looking objectives of a great world 

The Commission believes that although immigrants need the United 
States, it is also true that the United States needs immigrants, not 
only for its domestic or foreign benefit, but also to retain, reinvigorate 
and strengthen the American spirit. 

The Commission believes that we cannot be true to the democratic 
faith of our own Declaration of Independence in the equality of all 
men, and at the same time pass immigration laws which discriminate 
among people because of national origin, race, color, or creed. We 
cannot continue to bask in the glory of an ancient and honorable tradi- 
tion of providing haven to the oppressed, and belie that tradition by 


ignoble and ungenerous immigration laws. We cannot develop an 
effective foreign policy if our immigration laws negate our role of 
world leadership. We cannot defend civil rights in principle, and 
deny them in our immigration laws and practice. We cannot boast of 
our magnificent system of law, and enact immigration legislation 
which violates decent principles of legal protection. 

Nor can we ourselves really believe, or persuade others to think that 
we believe, that the United States is a dynamic, expanding, and pros- 
perous country if our immigration law is based upon a fear of catas- 
trophe rather than a promise and hope for greater days ahead. 

The Commission believes that our present immigration laws — 

flout fundamental American traditions and ideals, 
display a lack of faith in America's future, 
damage American prestige and position among other nations, 
ignore the lessons of the American way of life. 

The Commission believes that laws which fail to reflect the Ameri- 
can spirit must sooner or later disappear from the statute books. 

/he Commission believes that our present immigration law 
should be completely rewritten. 


Part I 



250653 0—53 2 


Chapter 1 

The Commission's 

Immediately after the President issued Executive Order No. 10392 
dated September 4, 1952, and his public statement of the same date, 
naming the chairman and members of the Commission and defining 
its duties and powers, work of organization began. It became evi- 
dent that if the Commission was to comply with the directive to make 
a final report not later than January 1, 1953, steps had to be taken 
promptly to gather the necessary information in different sections 
of the country. It was obviously impossible to arrange for large 
numbers of people to go to Washington, to express their views orally 
and Jn writing, based upon experience and knowledge of the opera- 
tion of immigration and naturalization laws, regulations and policies. 
The Commission decided to visit key places throughout the country, 
and hold public hearings at which any interested person could appear 
and make a statement. 

In order to assure attendance of persons especially qualified to dis- 
cuss existing laws and policies, and those about to become effective, 
the Commission invited individuals and agencies, with information 
relevant to the economic, social and other implications of past, cur- 
rent and future immigration laws and policies of the nation. This 
was done by specific invitations and public announcements. In addi- 
tion to those invited, all who requested to be heard were scheduled 
within the time available. 

At the time the Commission began its work, the laws on the subject 
enacted prior to the Eighty-second Congress were still in effect. The 
codification embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 
1952, Public Law 414, 66 Stat. 163 (McCarran- Walter Act, June 27, 
1952), had been passed over the President's veto, but was not to take 
effect, except provisions relating to the establishment of a joint con- 
gressional committee, until December 24, 1952. 


The task of communicating with individuals and organizations 
throughout the country, and of arranging a schedule of hearings was 
a difficult one, achieved under great pressure because of the immedi- 
ate necessity of equipping working quarters and selecting a competent 

staff and because of the limited time for the project. The Commis- 
sion carried out the following schedule of hearings : New York, Sep- 
tember 30 and October 1 ; Boston, October 2 ; Cleveland, October 6 ; 
Detroit, October 7 ; Chicago, October 8 and 9 ; St. Paul, October 10 ; 
St. Louis, October 11; San Francisco, October 14; Los Angeles, Oc- 
tober 15; Atlanta, October 17; and Washington, D. C, October 27, 
28, and 29. This added up to 15 days of hearings in eleven different 
cities from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. Invitations to appear 
before the Commission were also issued to persons and organizations, 
public and private, in other cities and areas in the same section of 
the country in which each of the hearings was held. The Appendix to 
this Report contains the names of people who testified, and the or- 
ganizations represented, at the Commission's hearings, or who sub- 
mitted statements to the Commission. In addition, the Commission 
held a number of executive conferences with Federal officials entrusted 
with the administration of immigration and security programs of the 
United States. 

The Commission made a studied effort to obtain statements on the 
subject, oral and written, from all points of view. In view of the fact 
that a Presidential campaign was then in progress, the Commission 
refrained from inviting anyone who was a candidate for Federal 
office, the sole exception being in the case of Congressman Francis E. 
Walter, cosponsor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 
Senator Pat McCarran and members of the staff of the Senate Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary were also invited. However, whenever any 
member of the House of Representatives or Senate of the United 
States requested leave to appear, the request was granted. 

Considering the brief notice and opportunity for preparation, the 
wealth of material submitted to the Commission, much of it of great 
importance and permanent value, is almost incredible. Fortunately, 
through the cooperation of Congressman Emanuel Celler, of New 
York, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives, it has been possible to print a record of the hearings, 
containing the statements made during the hearings and those sub- 
mitted subsequently. Because of its length, the record of hearings 
could not be included in this Report. It contains oral testimony on 
the subject given by some 400 persons and written statements by 
approximately 234 others, or a total of 634 statements, some express- 
ing the views of individuals, others made in official capacities on 
behalf of agencies of the Federal, State, and municipal governments, 
and others on behalf of many religious, welfare, political, and other 
private organizations. It comprises some 2,100 pages, and may be 
obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. 

In beginning the task assigned to it by the President, the Commis- 


sion was confronted by certain facts having an important bearing on 
the feasibility of efforts at this time to evaluate the national policies 
with respect to immigration and naturalization. They may be stated 
as follows : 

1. The passage by both branches of Congress of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act of 1952, and its repassage by more than a two- 
thirds vote in each House over the President's veto message, which 
gave forceful expression to criticisms of particular provisions of the 

2. The failure of the Eighty-second Congress to take action with 
respect to S. 3109 (introduced by Senator Hendrickson) or H. R. 7376 
(introduced by Congressman Celler) providing for the issuance dur- 
ing a period of 3 years of 300,000 special nonquota immigration visas 
to certain refugees, persons of German ethnic origin, and natives of 
Italy, Greece, and the Netherlands. These bills were drafted to com- 
ply with a message urging such legislation sent by President Truman 
to Congress, March 24, 1952. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 codifies for the first 
time the many pieces of immigration legislation enacted since 1917, 
and to that extent supplies a document long needed. In addition, 
however, to the reenactment of existing provisions, some of which had 
been the subject of controversy, the new law contains revisions and 
amendments suggested during the legislative hearings and by the 
staffs of the Congressional Committees. Some of these changes lib- 
eralized the immigration laws, but many of the others resulted in new 
restrictions, both in substantive law and in administrative procedures. 
The President's veto message, and the subsequent debates on the floor 
of the Senate and House, had the effect of arousing more general 
interest in the subject than had been previously shown. The appoint- 
ment of this Commission, and the announcement of its plan to go to 
the country for information as to the effect of immigration laws, pro- 
cedures, and policies on the economic, social, and other aspects of life 
in the United States gave opportunity for expression to an increasing 
public concern. 


The Commission was to find, as it moved from city to city and from 
region to region, that religious, welfare, and other organizations had 
begun to hold discussions not only within their own membership but 
with each other on important features of the act of 1952, in an attempt 
to crystallize their views on the question as to whether the new law 
is adequate to meet the grave and complex problems involved. Re- 
newed consideration of such matters seemed to be prompted by a 

belief that the United States had not yet fulfilled its obligations to 
suffering humanity : that the displaced-persons program, under which 
nearly 400,000 persons had been brought to the United States from 
Europe had been a great success, but that existing emergencies abroad 
demanded further efforts in behalf of refugees, expellees, escapees, 
remaining displaced persons, relatives of those who had reached safety 
in the United States, and other categories of people whose living con- 
ditions and constant dangers are a reproach to our civilization. 

At first there was a disposition by some to postpone any effort to 
arrive at conclusions on long-range immigration policies — especially 
in view of the enactment of the act of 1952, and the fact that there 
was no practical experience under its administration — and to con- 
centrate on legislation to meet the emergency situation, such as pro- 
posed in the President's Message of March 24, 1952. This attitude 
gave way to suggestions by representatives of the largest and most 
important organizations for a new and different set of permanent 
policies. And this attitude was buttressed by the view that the basic 
principles of the act of 1952 are the same as those that existed in the 
legislation it superseded, and that, therefore, no additional experience 
with such legislation was needed in order to provide sufficient basis 
for informed opinions. 

In addition, members of State Displaced Persons Commissions or 
Committees and their staffs, and the officials of various religious and 
welfare organizations had been engaged, over a period of years, in 
assisting in the reception, resettlement, and supervision of the nearly 
400,000 persons who were brought to the United States under the 
displaced-persons program. Their knowledge of the current results 
of that project, derived through their contact with these immigrants, 
was made available to this Commission. The Governors of 36 States 
appointed State Displaced Persons Commissions or Committees and 
many of these agencies are still active as this report is being prepared, 
although their activities at present are reduced largely to problems 
incident to supervising or recording the results of the integration of 
the newcomers into life in the United States. 


The New York sessions set the tone of the hearings. It became 
evident at once that religious, civic and welfare organizations of na- 
tional and even world-wide importance were tremendously interested 
in the subject matter, and in the task assigned to the Commission. 
They welcomed the opportunity to be heard, to record their views, and 
to cooperate in any effort to arrive at common understandings and a 
common program for consideration by the Commission, by the Presi- 
dent, and eventually by the Congress. 

The very first person to appear before the Commission was the 
Director of Field Operations for the Refugee Service of the World 
Council of Churches with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. He 
had returned but two days before from Europe, and during the year 
had visited and studied refugee problems in the Middle East and Far 
East. The Council is made up of the Protestant and Orthodox 
churches of the world, some 160 major denominations. He was fol- 
lowed in New York and elsewhere by representatives of Protestant, 
Catholic, and Jewish charitable and humanitarian organizations ; by 
scholars who had done research in population problems and in re- 
lated fields; by scientists, educators and those engaged in various 
phases of social work ; by public officials whose experience and knowl- 
edge enabled them to speak with authority ; by representatives of agri- 
culture, business and labor ; by professors of law and political science ; 
by lawyers specializing in immigration cases; by representatives of 
various nationality groups whose roots lay in southern and eastern 
Europe, and in Asiatic countries, or closer at home, in the West 
Indies; by representatives of organizations especially interested in 
foreign affairs; by representatives of various sectarian and non- 
sectarian bodies engaged in activities concerned directly and indi- 
rectly with immigration ; by representatives of various types of educa- 
tional institutions, such as universities and art museums; by repre- 
sentatives or members of political parties, and organizations interested 
in political and social and economic issues ; by representatives of busi- 
ness enterprises with interests abroad and whose operations are affected 
by immigration laws; and by representatives of veterans, patriotic and 
civic organizations and others especially interested in questions related 
to the protection of American freedoms, liberties and privileges. Some 
appeared as individuals, and others were authorized to speak for 
groups and organizations, public and private. All interests in the 
United States affected by the provisions and administration of im- 
migration laws were given an opportunity to record their views on 
the problem assigned to the Commission for study and report. 

The Commission was surprised to learn of the widespread and rather 
determined opposition to the act of 1952. This is all the more amazing 
in light of its recent passage over the President's veto, and especially 
because it had not even taken effect at the time of the hearings. In 
addition, it is fair to say that approval of the new law was voiced by 
comparatively few, and that in practically all such instances the 
favorable opinions were not supported by factual information. 

The dominant theme of those who appeared to testify or file state- 
ments was criticism of the act of 1952. Some objected to specific 
aspects, but most witnesses opposed the basic theories of the new 


Perhaps the most eloquent pleas to the Commission for recommenda- 
tions for changes in the law were made by those who came fortified 
and inspired by actual experience with the displaced-persons program. 
It should not be understood that enthusiasm for displaced persons 
was unanimous in all sections of the country, or that no instances were 
mentioned of displaced persons who either were unappreciative of the 
efforts in their behalf or were mentally or physically unable to make 
a rapid adjustment to conditions in this country. There were, of 
course, a number of such instances. It was stated, for example, that 
some who were believed to be farmers, and who were resettled in farm- 
ing communities, did not possess the necessary qualifications, and even- 
tually drifted to the large cities, where they had opportunities to locate 
among people of the same nationality groups. And there were other 
criticisms. But the weight of testimony made it clear that, by reason 
of the displaced-persons program, the United States was enabled to 
make a substantial contribution to the cause of humanity, at the same 
time gaining for itself a large group of capable, hard-working, intel- 
ligent and honest people, whose prompt integration into the economic 
fabric of the nation is proving an asset of incalculable value. 

Alono- with those ready for work on the farms and in the factories 
came many possessing special skills, and those trained in the arts and 
sciences. These were the people who had come from camps in Europe, 
or from other temporary quarters in which they had been enabled to 
exist until some permanent arrangement could be made. These were 
the victims of the wars and the aftermath of wars, uprooted from their 
homes and tossed back and forth as the armies fought and diplomats 
wrangled. These were the refugees from slavery and death, the 
expellees from the land of birth or home, the escapees from the other 
side of the Iron Curtain, the people robbed of all they owned, the 
survivors of once happy families, tortured in body and spirit, and set 
adrift or herded together to await either death or whatever form of 
rescue may be provided by such of the free peoples as have the means 
and the will to respond to the call of despairing human beings. Those 
who were brought to this country were among those who had survived 
the severest hardships. They came, most of them strong and brave, to 
begin life in a new and strange world. 

The story of their willingness to accept whatever fate has in store, 
and the almost overnight success attained by many in the United 
States, makes one of the most remarkable pages of current history. 
Handicapped by d fferences in language and customs, and even dress; 
by many other difficulties inherent in such a transition, they neverthe- 
less have progressed as a group far beyond the expectations of those 
who advocated the passage of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. 


They have been absorbed by agriculture and by industry ; they are in 
colleges and universities, engaged in teaching or research ; an astound- 
ing proportion of the younger men are already in the armed services 
of this country, and the economic success of these people considered 
together is proved by the fact that, according to the Displaced Persons 
Commission, those who came under the displaced persons program, 
from October 1948 to August 1952, at a cost to the Federal Govern- 
ment of some $19,000,000 have already paid in Federal income taxes 
alone more than three times that sum. That progress is slower for 
some, on account of age and other circumstances, is evidenced by 
the narrative told the Commission by a minister in a midwest 
church, the present janitor of which was formerly the head of 
the educational system of an entire country in eastern Europe. But 
this displaced person, the author of books on educational subjects in 
his native land, does not seem discouraged, and doubtless will event- 
ually find an occupation better suited to his abilities. 

It is possible to begin to evaluate, not only what has been done for 
these people, but what they have done within a short space of time 
for the people of our country. And such information is relevant to 
any consideration of the problem of future immigration. The dis- 
placed persons program brought to the United States: Armenians, 
Czechoslovakians, Estonians, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians. Latvians, 
Lithuanians, Poles, Russian refugees, Ukrainians, ethnic Germans, 
nationals of the Balkans, and others. Individuals and representa- 
tives of organizations drawn into the project testified to their admi- 
ration for the ability and energy of the immigrants, and for the 
rapidly acquired devotion and loyalty to this country. It is not too 
much to say that the knowledge and experience gained by contact 
with the newcomers have served to break down barriers among our 
own people. 


The Commission learned that the necessity for exchanging infor- 
mation resulting from actual experiences with resettlement of these 
immigrants was the moving force through which divergent views were 
being debated and adjusted. The nation's greatest and most power- 
ful groups in welfare activities were reaching agreements on vital 
issues within their own organizations, and with each other. 

Indisputable evidence of this was given by the circumstance that 
leading Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish organizations criticized the 
act of 1952 for similar reasons; and that, in some places, a single 
representative was authorized to speak for many lay and religious 
organizations of different denominations. For example, at the Boston 
hearings, a single representative from New Haven, Conn., testified on 

behalf of the New Haven Council of Protestant Churches; the New 
Haven Jewish Community Council; the Italian- American War Vet- 
erans; the New Haven branch of the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People, and the Italian newspaper "New 

During the Cleveland hearings a delegation of three persons from 
Pittsburgh appeared. Two of them, including a Lutheran clergyman, 
spoke for the American Service Institute of Allegheny County, Pa. ; 
the social and civic agencies in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County; 
the American-Bulgarian League; Catholic Slovak Brotherhood; 
Council of Jewish Women; Croatian Fraternal Union; Federation 
of Jewish Philanthropies and United Jewish Fund; Greater Bene- 
ficial Union of Pittsburgh; Jewish Family and Children's Service; 
Lutheran Service Society ; Serb National Federation ; Verhovay Asso- 
ciation; and the Jewish Community Relations Council. Another 
witness at the Cleveland hearings was a person from Cincinnati who 
brought letters from the Director of the Catholic Charities of Cin- 
cinnati, and from the Executive Secretary of the Council of Churches 
of Greater Cincinnati, and who appeared on behalf of those organi- 
zations and the Citizenship Council of Cincinnati, the Church Fed- 
eration, and the Jewish Community Council of Cincinnati. One 
person came to the Cleveland hearing from Buffalo, N. Y., authorized 
to speak for eight different organizations : The Board of Community 
Relations of the City of Buffalo ; Council of Social Agencies ; Diocesan 
Resettlement Committee of Catholic Charities; Labor Committee to 
Combat Intolerance ; Anti-Defamation League ; Council of Churches ; 
Jewish Federation for Social Service ; and the International Institute. 

To the hearing in St. Paul came a Methodist minister from Austin, 
Minn., authorized to speak for his own group and for the Jewish 
group in that community, and also the packing house labor union 
there. In Atlanta, Ga., the Commission heard from the chaplain 
and head of the Department of Religion at the University of Georgia, 
Athens, Ga., who presented a statement on behalf of seven reli- 
gious leaders in Athens — five Protestant, one Catholic, and one Jew- 
ish. To the same hearing came the Director of the Archdiocesan 
Resettlement Bureau, of New Orleans, La., who was also a member 
of the State Committee on Displaced Persons and the New Orleans 
Resettlement Committee. He submitted a joint statement of views 
opposing basic policies of the immigration law, signed by six repre- 
sentatives of "broad segments of religious and social life in metro- 
politan New Orleans," including the Minister of the First Unitarian 
Church ; the chairman of the Department of Civil Affairs of the New 
Orleans Council of Churches ; the president of the New Orleans Min- 
isterial Union; the president of the New Orleans section of the 


National Coancil of Jewish Women; a representative of the Catholic 
Committee of the South ; and the Director of the Archdiocesan Reset- 
tlement Bureau. 

These are some of the instances indicating increasing unity of study 
and thought throughout the country on problems relating to immi- 
gration and naturalization. They indicate a trend of the greatest 
possible importance toward the growth of cooperation and good will 
among the people of the United States. 


The record discloses other highly interesting developments. For 
example, a group of ten of the foremost executives of Protestant or- 
ganizations of many denominations, appeared at the Washington hear- 
ings to urge the Commission to recommend the adoption of new im- 
migration policies. The group made a joint presentation of views, 
with the Director of Immigration Services, Department of Church 
World Service, National Council of Churches of Christ, as the chief 
spokesman, and with supporting statements from those who accom- 
panied him. Among them were the Executive Director of the Depart- 
ment of International Good Will and other officials of the National 
Council of Churches of Christ ; the Executive Secretary of the Com- 
mittee on Displaced Persons of the Presbyterian Church ; the Director 
of the Department of Mutual Aid, Brethren Service Commission; and 
the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public 
Affairs, representing the Baptist World Alliance which includes the 
Southern Baptist Convention, not a constituent of the National Coun- 
cil. The impressive statements made by these and others, including 
a representative of the National Lutheran Council, followed those of 
similar authority and importance made there and at the preceding 
hearings throughout the country. At the Washington hearings the 
Commission also heard the Executive Director of the War Relief 
Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the Director of 
the Bureau of Immigration of the National Catholic Welfare Con- 
ference, and leading figures of various Jewish organizations devoted 
to activities on behalf of immigrants. 

Testimony was also presented by Cabinet officers, other leading pub- 
lic officials, important representatives of agriculture, business, and 
labor, spokesmen for bar associations and for various national scien- 
tific, welfare, civic, patriotic, veterans, and other interested organiza- 
tions. The thoughtful and informed opinions voiced by those with 
personal experience in the matter, and by leaders in professional 
fields, interested, for a variety of reasons, in the impact of the immi- 
gration and naturalization laws and regulations on the economic, 
social, and cultural life of the United States, as well as the effect on 


our relationships in the family of nations, convinced the Commission 
of the necessity for sweeping changes in immigration policies. 


It seems clear that those who took part in the discussions before 
the Commission, or who submitted written views, represented a large 
segment of public opinion. And it is equally clear that by far the 
greater number of those who expressed views to the Commission are 
in agreement that the Act of 1952 is not based upon sound funda- 
mental principles, and that, although it did work some improvements, 
the Act continued and enlarged many existing discriminations, and 
inaugurated new and serious inequities. 

The sentiment for prompt legislative action was expressed by a 
leading Protestant official in these words : 

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. 

Comparatively few of the organizations and individuals appear- 
ing before the Commission were in favor of the act of 1952. How- 
ever well-intentioned, the statements of approval were generally with- 
out documentation of any sort, and were seemingly the result either 
of special benefits conferred by that law or of emotion and deep-rooted 
fears and prejudices. Some, admitting we are a nation of immigrants, 
expressed the opinion that we had not yet properly digested or inte- 
grated many of the later arrivals into our way of life; that immigra- 
tion should now be kept at a minimum or eliminated; that eventually 
the country would not be able to support an increase in population 
due to immigration ; that increases in the number of immigrants now 
authorized would invite unemployment, multiply the hazards to 
security, have an adverse effect on the national economy, and be pro- 
ductive of other evils and dangers. And there were those who think 
that, although discriminations against southern and eastern Euro- 
peans might be eliminated, immigration should be largely limited to 
Europeans, on the ground that this nation owes its cultural, social 
and economic concepts and traditions to European civilization; and 
that people of other races and religions cannot be assimilated in any 
helpful degree. 

This does not mean, of course, that no arguments in favor of the 
act of 1952, supported by objective study of relevant facts, exist. The 
fact that the law was enacted by more than a two-thirds vote in both 
houses of Congress over the President's veto would negate such an 
idea. But it is also true that no arguments sufficient to meet the over- 
whelming weight of evidence against the desirability of much of 
the act of 1952 were given to the Commission. Likewise, the number 
of those who appeared in opposition to the act of 1952, and who rep- 


resented organizations with vast memberships adding up to many 
tens of millions, was large enough to warrant the conclusion that 
they, and not the others, accurately expressed the sentiments of the 
American people. 


It should be emphasized again that those who oppose the act of 
1952 do not entirely agree on all their reasons, nor on what should be 
substituted in its place. Some individuals and groups are especially 
interested in particular provisions which they find detrimental, and 
have concentrated their attention on those, to the exclusion of others. 
It is possible, however, to enumerate certain basic policies urged by 
practically all of those opposed to the act of 1952, as shown by the 
statements, oral and written, made to the Commission. 

They may be summarized as follows : 

( 1 ) The national origins quota system should be abolished. 

(2) There should be an over-all maximum of annual quota immi- 
gration to this country. The determination of the total number of 
quota immigrants permitted to enter during any year should reflect 
the needs and capacity for absorption of the United States. That 
number, under present conditions, should be approximately 

(3) The allocations within this annual quota should be designed 
to meet emergency situations of great hardship abroad, such as 
continued distress and suffering among refugees, expellees, 
escapees, displaced persons and other victims of communism and 
other forms of totalitarianism, overpopulation, and the special and 
general needs of the United States. 

These are the most important of the proposed policies and pro- 
visions affecting the sources and amount of immigration, resulting 
from the information submitted to the Commission. There is a strong 
and ever-increasing sentiment against the continuation of a quota 
system based on national origins. The arguments against it generally, 
and as it is written into the act of 1952, are that it embodies principles 
inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights 
of the Constitution of the United States, and the institutions of gov- 
ernment which have made our nation strong and great and the hope 
of free peoples everywhere. Moreover, it is argued, the national 
origins quota system is based on unsound theories, long since proved 
invalid — fallacies that are becoming more and more dangerous 
in a troubled world where colonial empires are rapidly disappear- 
ing and national pride is strengthening into demands for national 


The national origins quota system is criticized on the ground that 
it is based on a concept of biologically distinct races, and also on the 
theory that some races are superior to others. The act of 1952, it was 
said, promotes a claim of Nordic supremacy, discriminates in favor of 
the nations of Western and Northern Europe, especially Great Britain 
and Ireland, and against the nations of Southern and Eastern Europe, 
the Near East, and Asia. It was argued that laws which deny the in- 
herent dignity and worth of the individual, which deny the equality 
of man, and which embody discriminations based on race, creed, color, 
and national origin have no place on our statute books, and are a 
denial of all we profess to be and believe. Such laws, it was contended, 
are detrimental to our foreign policies, are the source of much antago- 
nism and bitterness against us, impair our relationships with other 
nations, and leave us prey to damaging propaganda by those who 
promote an ideology that would substitute a police state for individ- 
ual freedoms. 


The national origins quota system purports to fix immigration 
quotas on the basis of the national origins of our population. But the 
act does not do this. It uses the national origins of the population of 
1920, not of 1950. It excludes from consideration Negroes, American 
Indians and other non-white people. Thus, it fails to take into ac- 
count the national origins of the current population. 

Complaint was made that the assignment of quotas on such a basis 
disregarded the fact that the nations receiving the largest quotas did 
not use them. Although the permissible total quota was approximately 
154,000 annually, during the last 20 years an average of but 54,095 
quota numbers were used annually. Immigration fell to a trickle 
during World War II, and this helped to bring down the 20-year 
average. But in the other years during that period, the national 
origins quota system alone has held normal immigration to a figure 
ranging annually from one-third to a little over one-half of the total 

It was argued to the Commission that if it was thought in 1924, 
when the quota system was enacted, that approximately 154,000 
immigrants annually was a reasonable amount, such a total is un- 
realistic today, in view of the changed conditions, our greatly ex- 
panded economy, and our need for additional manpower. Many of the 
witnesses urged the Commission as a minimum to recommend legis- 
lation under which unused quotas would be redistributed to the na- 
tions with long waiting lists. Practically all who favored changes in 
existing laws asked that action be taken to cancel the "mortgages" 
on annual quotas — the provision in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, 


as amended, under which the displaced persons already admitted are 
charged against 50 percent of future quotas, in one instance to the 
year 2274. 

The Commission was repeatedly told that the national origins 
quota system is the product of fear — fear of strange people, languages 
and customs, and unfounded belief that people of western and north- 
ern Europe and their descendants make better citizens than immi- 
grants from other areas. The proud record of immigrants from those 
other areas, in time of peace as well as war, was cited as proof that 
the United States has nothing to fear from the repeal of policies 
which have been harmful at home, and which have created enemies 
abroad. The burden of the discussion on this phase of the problem 
was to the effect that we can no longer afford to indulge ourselves in 
policies based on mistaken theories, themselves inconsistent with the 
principles we preach. 

Great emphasis was placed, in opposition to the national origins 
system, on the fact that it is inflexible and does not allow room for 
consideration of the conditions under which more than 10 million 
persons, refugees, expellees, escapees, and displaced persons of various 
categories, are living in the Europe of today. It was agreed that 
the United States alone cannot solve this problem. But many insisted 
that some additional action is imperative, and promptly, to encourage 
other nations in a position to help, and to give some hope to desperate 
human beings, innocent victims of totalitarian lust for power. 


Earnest pleas have been made to the Commission to recommend 
special programs for the reception and care, as well as immigration, 
of escapees — those who break through the Iron Curtain and reach 
what for them is the promised land. Unfortunately, in too many 
instances the promise is found to be illusory, the Commission was told. 
No adequate provision for them has yet been made. The failure of 
the free nations adequately to care for those who risk their lives for 
freedom is a powerful propaganda weapon in the hands of the Com- 

There was unanimous agreement that as to all immigrants, no mat- 
ter what their race or creed or color or national origin, stringent secu- 
rity measures should be enforced. Precautions against the admission 
of subversives, criminals, or other undesirables were favored as were 
safeguards on health and other such grounds. 

Powerful appeals were made to the Commission for recommenda- 
tions for prompt action to relieve the distress caused by overpopu- 
lation, and by great numbers of refugees, expellees, escapees, and 
others who live in and out of camps, without hope and without pros- 


pects for the future, unless rescued through the mercy of their more 
fortunate fellow men. It was suggested that provision should be made 
to accept a maximum of 100,000 of such persons annually, at least for 
a period of 3 years, and that this number should be included in an 
over-all maximum of 250,000 annually for a like period of time. 

The Commission was asked to recommend that admissions be per- 
mitted on a family basis, to avoid situations where the breadwinners 
on this side of the ocean are unable to bring their closest relatives 
to join them, and are separated indefinitely. The heartbreak caused 
by these separations, and the resulting futility of efforts to restore 
well ordered family life, is incalculable, besides increasing instead 
of lessening the burden on the nations in whose economic strength 
we have a stake. 

The Commission heard much discussion as to the size of the over- 
all annual quota. Various figures were suggested, and, in order to 
obtain a documented basis for a recommendation, the Commission 
sought advice from scientists, from public officials, from census ex- 
perts, from those experienced in labor, agricultural and industrial 
fields, and from others whose knowledge and experience would shed 
light on the subject. The result is set forth in the record of hearings. 

The attention of the Commission was directed to the provisions 
of the act of 1952 for the determination of quota areas within the 
Asia-Pacific triangle, and for the limitation of quotas assigned to 
colonies or other dependent areas of a governing country. These pro- 
visions, it was suggested, have the effect of deliberately discriminating 
on account of race and color to such an extent as practically to deny 
all immigration, except for a token amount, to the people in the 
areas described. The Commission was told for example, that the 
Jamaicans, formerly within the quota assigned to Great Britain, are 
restricted by the device of treating colonies separately, to a quota of 
100 annually, instead of the approximately 1,000 who have been arriv- 
ing annually, a reduction of 90 percent. The Japanese and Chinese, 
in whose behalf the naturalization laws were liberalized, are also given 
a negligible quota. 

The Commission was told that the new law is a mixture of discrim- 
inations based on nationality, and on race irrespective of nationality, 
and on geography irrespective of any other factor. Persons of as 
much as one-half Asiatic blood are charged by the 1952 act to the 
Asiatic country of either of their parents, without regard to the fact 
that they may have been born and bred elsewhere. 


Many of those who had experience with, or who had studied, the 
administrative features of current laws and regulations, criticised the 


requirement that visa applications be processed through the officials 
of two different departments. The original application is made 
abroad to the appropriate consular officer of the State Department. 
If he rejects the application, there is no appeal. If the consul grants 
a visa, and the immigrant comes to this country, he is met at the port 
of entry by an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
of the Department of Justice. The Justice Department is not bound 
by any action taken by the State Department, and the applicant, after 
making the long and expensive journey to America, may be refused 
entry, although possessed of a valid visa. This has happened, and is 
partly responsible for the argument that it is inefficient and wasteful 
for the United States to have two separate agencies, with like duties 
and responsibilities, engaged in the same operation, one at the gates 
to this country and the other in foreign countries. 

It was suggested that all immigration matters be combined in one 
agency of government, so that when an applicant receives a visa he will 
be assured of admission, except for intervening causes. The Hoover 
Commission took note of this situation, and recommended that all 
authority over immigration, including the issuance of visas, be cen- 
tered in one agency, and proposed that the agency be the Department 
of Justice. Most of those who appeared before the Commission had 
no definite views as to whether the consolidation, if made, should be 
in the Justice Department, or the State Department, or in a separate 
administrative agency. There was sentiment against leaving the ad- 
ministration of immigration affairs in the Justice Department, on the 
ground that that Department is essentially a litigating and prose- 
cuting agency, and that there is no particular reason why the ad- 
ministrative functions should remain there. Before its transfer to 
Justice, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was attached to 
the Labor Department, and the officials there believe it should be re- 
turned. Still others urge that an independent agency should be es- 
tablished to administer all immigration laws. 


Many other objections to the act of 1952 were submitted to the Com- 
mission. Witnesses objected to the unreviewable discretion of minor 
officials to deny visas. The Commission was told that the prohibi- 
tions of the 1952 act apply with great severity to those who may have 
been convicted overseas of political offenses under the very system that 
challenges all the free peoples of the world. 

There was insistent condemnation of the provisions enlarging, un- 
reasonably it was said, the grounds for exclusion and deportation, and 
heavy criticism of retroactive provisions under which deportation 
is authorized against long-time residents for actions which may have 


250653 O— 53 3 

been entirely innocent and inoffensive at the time they were taken. 
Some urged that there should be no deportation except for illegal 
entry, on the ground that deportation was banishment and the effect 
upon family and dependents was grossly unfair — a punishment of 
severity frequently far in excess of the crime. 

Much concern was expressed about changes brought about by the 
1952 act in the naturalization law. There was widespread attack 
against provisions discriminating between native and naturalized 
citizens and making "second class citizens" of the latter. Objection 
was voiced to the enlargement of grounds for denaturalization and to 
their retroactive effect. It was contended that if any naturalized citi- 
zen commits an offense, except for fraud in obtaining citizenship, he 
should be punished in the same way as a native-born citizen and not be 
subjected to loss of citizenship and deportation. Strong representa- 
tions were made to the Commission that the punishment of exile, for 
aliens and naturalized citizens, was a relic of the feudal ages. 

Others urged upon the Commission considerations of fair procedure, 
fair hearings, and proper administrative and judicial review. 

Representatives of important business enterprises protested against 
provisions which they felt unduly and unreasonably affected the effi- 
cient conduct of their business in the United States and in foreign 

The Attorney General pointed out that, from the standpoint of 
effective administration, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 
requires amendment and clarification, and further that a number of 
the sections are ambiguous and otherwise defective. One of the sec- 
tions, a reenactment of previous law, has been declared invalid by a 
Federal district court. Some of the Attorney General's objections 
go to the act as a whole, because of its bad arrangement and inferior 
draftsmanship. Other officials cited specific sections containing in- 
consistencies, the effect of some of which is to place unnecessary and 
costly burdens on the administrative agency, and make the act difficult 
of interpretation and enforcement. Some professors of law informed 
the Commission that they had great difficulty in understanding the 
language of the act of 1952. 


This summarizes many, but not all, of the complaints against the 
act of 1952 submitted to the Commission during the course of the 
hearings, and in written statements filed subsequently. The recent 
immigration legislation was described by those in opposition as the 
product of isolationism, of baseless fears and prejudices, and a shame- 
ful retreat from the principles embodied in the organic laws of our 


nation. It was pictured as an arrogant, brazen instrument of dis- 
crimination based on race, creed, color, and national origin — a return 
to approval of ex post facto offenses and punishments — weapons of 
tyranny which liberty-loving peoples have fought since the dawn of 

The consensus was to the effect that the Immigration and Na- 
tionality Act of 1952 injures our people at home, causes much re- 
sentment against us abroad, and impairs our position among the 
free nations, great and small, whose friendship and understanding 
is necessary if we are to meet and overcome the totalitarian menace. 

The gist of the appeal to the Commission was for a fresh look at 
the problem, with the hope for legislation based on humanitarian 
principles, designed to fulfill our duties and obligations to suffering 
mankind, and adequate for our needs and for our security. 


Part II 


Chapter 2 

Immigration and the 
American Economy 

In the President's Executive Order establishing the Commission, 
one of the three major areas of consideration set out by the President 

the admission of immigrants into this country in the light of our present and 
prospective economic and social conditions and of other pertinent considera- 

This concern led the Commission to inquire into the historic con- 
tribution of immigration to the American economy, to consider the 
extent to which manpower needs are being met under a policy of 
severe restrictions on immigration, and to consider the possible ad- 
vantages of immigration to a growing peacetime economy, to national 
defense, and to a creative civilization. 


In a short period of human history the people of the United States 
built this country from a wilderness to one of the most powerful and 
prosperous nations in the world. The people who built America were 
40 million immigrants who have come since the Mayflower, and their 
descendants. We are still a vigorous and growing nation, and the 
economic, social and other benefits available to us, the descendants of 
immigrant forebears, are constantly expanding. 

Our remarkable national development testifies to the wisdom of our 
early and continuing belief in immigration. One of the causes of the 
American Revolution, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, 
was the fact that England hindered free immigration into the colonies. 

Our growth as a nation has been achieved, in large measure, through 
the genius and industry of immigrants of every race and from every 
quarter of the world. The story of their pursuit of happiness is the 
saga of America. Their brains and their brawn helped to settle our 
land, to advance our agriculture, to build our industries, to develop 
our commerce, to produce new inventions and, in general, to make 
us the leading nation that we now are. 

Immigration brought wealth to the United States, many billions 
of dollars. The immigrants did not bring this wealth in their 


baggage — many arrived penniless and in debt — but in their skills, their 
trades, and their willingness to work. In his testimony to the Com- 
mission, Dr. Louis I. Dublin, statistician and second vice president of 
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., pointed out that a young adult 
immigrant of 18 years today is worth to the Nation at least $10,000, 
since that is what it costs to raise the average American. The average 
net worth of such a person to the economy of the United States falls 
between $30,000 and $80,000, depending on his potential earning 
power. Throughout our history immigrants have in this way 
represented additional wealth to our country. 

Scarcely one aspect of our American economy, culture, or develop- 
ment can be discussed without reference to the fundamental contri- 
bution of immigrants. No roster of leading Americans in business, 
science, arts, and the professions could be complete without the names 
of many immigrants. In our history the following aliens may be men- 
tioned, among many, who became outstanding industrialists : Andrew 
Carnegie (Scot), in the steel industry; John Jacob Astor (German), 
in the fur trade; Michael Cudahy (Irish), of the meat-packing in- 
dustry; the DuPonts (French), of the munitions and chemical in- 
dustry; Charles L. Fleischmann (Hungarian), of the yeast business; 
David Sarnoff (Russian), of the radio industry; and William S. 
Knudsen (Danish), of the automobile industry. 

Immigrant scientists and inventors are likewise too numerous to 
list in detail. Among those whose genius has benefited the United 
States are Albert Einstein (German), in physics; Michael Pupin 
(Serbian), in electricity: Enrico Fermi (Italian), in atomic research: 
John Ericsson (Swedish), who invented the ironclad ship and the 
screw propeller; Giusseppe Bellanca (Italian), and Igor Sikorsky 
(Russian), who made outstanding contributions to airplane develop- 
ment; John A. Udden (Swedish), who was responsible for opening 
the Texas oil fields; Lucas P. Kyrides (Greek), industrial chemistry; 
David Thomas (Welsh), who invented the hot blast furnace; Alex- 
ander Graham Bell (Scot), who invented the telephone; Conrad 
Huber (Russian), who invented the flashlight; and Otto Mergen- 
thaler (German), who invented the linotype machine. 

Many of our leading musicians, actors, motion-picture producers, 
and others in the arts are foreign-born. Law, medicine, education, 
literature, research, organized labor, and journalism are only a few 
other of the innumerable fields benefited by outstanding immigants. 
Any such list can only be a sample of how much immigrants have en- 
riched the America which granted them hospitality and welcome. 

The encouragement of immigration was part of the tradition of the 
United States and one of the reasons why it became a great and power- 
ful nation. Immigration to the United States has come from virtu- 


ally every corner of the globe. The greater part of it, however, came 
from Europe. It is especially interesting to note that the major im- 
pulses to come to the United States from the various countries of Eu- 
rope were passing phenomena, rising at certain stages of the economic 
or political life in their homelands, and then subsiding. The sources 
of American immigration shifted with the changing of needs, both 
in the United States and in the countries of origin. Each generation, 
even each decade, brought a changing pattern of immigration. 

Table I portrays the changes in the dominant countries of the origin 
of immigration to America. The earliest mass migrations were drawn 
from the English, Scots, and Scot-Irish people of the British Isles. 
Colonial immigration of such Britons was supplanted in numbers in 
the period 1820-60 by migration from Ireland, but the most acute 
migration fever had passed in Ireland by the end of the 1850's. 
Immigration from west and southwest Germany became important 
in this period, and with the opening up of eastern Germany total 
German immigration was the dominant stream from 1860 to 1890. 
In these years Scandinavia vied with Ireland in numbers of immi- 
grants. But the crest of this "new" migration from Germany and 
Scandinavia was passed in the 1880's and gave way to another "new" 
migration dominated by immigrants from Italy, Austria-Hungary, 
and Russia. 

The emigration fever spread across the European continent from 
west to east and from north to south. Thus up to 1890 Italian migra- 
tion to America came largely from the more economically advanced 
north of Italy. After 1890 Italian migration came increasingly from 
the south. The main founts of immigration from Austria were 
in chronological sequence — first, the more developed Bohemia ; second, 
the relatively backward Carinthia and Tyrol; and then, after 1900, 
Galicia (especially Poles and Jews). Only in the last stages did 
the movement include substantial numbers of Ukrainians from remote 
eastern Galicia. 

Migration from Hungary and other east European countries was 
first composed of the minorities most in touch with the West. The 
distinctive feature of the emigration from Russia which was the last 
major country of European emigration was its non-Russian ethnic 
character. Emigration from Russia was firstly made up of peoples 
culturally most closely in contact with the West, that is, the Jews of 
the towns, the Baltic peoples, the Poles, and, finally, the Ukrainians. 

Thus, by the time of the first World War, the area of Europe 
from which migrants were drawn had spread to include almost the 
whole of the continent. The sources of heaviest migration have 
moved across Europe in a widened circle from the center of first 
migration in northwest Europe to the latest in southern and south- 
eastern Europe. 


Table 1. — Leading Sources of Immigration at Different Periods of 

United States History 







Country and area 


Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

1. Ireland 

Germany (mainly west and southwest Germany). 

1820-30 (Palatinate— Rhine hinterland). 

1830-40 Weser hinterland. 

1840-50 Elbe hinterland (Westphalia, etc.). 

Germany (mainly eastern Germany) 




North (up to 1890). 

South (1890-). 

2. Austria-H ungary__ 

Bohemia, Carinthia, Tyrol (up to 1900). 
Galicia, Hungary (1900-). 

3. Russia (chiefly non-ethnic Russians: Jews, Baltic 

peoples, Poles, Ukrainians). 

1 . Canada 

2. Mexico 

3. Italy (1921-24). 

4. Germany. 

1. Germany (primarily refugees). 

2. Canada. 

Period of 
largest vol- 
ume of im- 







In the 145 years of unrestricted immigration into the United States, 
from 1776 to 1921, immigrants generally came when and where they 
were needed. There is no evidence that their arrival caused either 
unemployment or impoverishment. The contrary view was generally 
held by the founding fathers. James Madison, at the Constitutional 
Convention of 1787, said : "That part of America which has encour- 
aged them [the foreigners] has advanced most rapidly in population, 
agriculture, and the 'arts'." Whether immigration was cause or effect, 
it is true today, as it was in Revolutionary times, that the richest re- 
gions are those with the highest proportion of recent immigrants. The 
Commission found a striking correspondence between per capita in- 
come and percent of population foreign born, as illustrated by Figure 1. 
The per capita incomes are highest in regions with a high percentage of 
recent foreign stock, lowest where immigrants are few. Immigrants 
went to the regions where there was demand for labor as expressed 
in high wages. In turn their industry, their skills and their enterprise 
were major factors in the economic development that has made these 
regions prosperous. 

Immigration has made a positive contribution to our economic 
life. Reliable evidence indicates that immigration neither contributes 
to nor aggravates unemployment. A careful study by the late Profes- 
sor Harry Jerome, Migration and the Business Cycle, prepared for 
the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1926, discovered a 


clear correlation between immigration and economic conditions in the 
United States. In the period of unrestricted immigration, the volume 
of immigration rose during prosperity but rapidly disappeared in 
times of depression when it would have contributed to unemployment. 


Percent Foreign Born 
10 5 

Per Capita Income 












Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 

Figure 1. 

The relation of immigrants and employment is presented in Figure 
2, which shows that, in general, immigrants came when they were 
needed and stayed away when they were not. Before quota restrictions 
were imposed, immigration was large in periods of full employment, 
small in times of unemployment. 




£> c 
























£ vi~ 



-itc #1- 




^^^^ ~ /' 




^^^ § 












\ - 















-*-— . 







* « • 


II — 


2 ^"5. 





O K 

— A 

•i • 

£ 8 


Wfc E 

■ ^^^— _^_ 



3 .2 







a: < — ^2* 

> a 

u a 


* XZ-J 

c -a 


_f ~* 


— — 





H 2 

— <* 







* s 



5 E 

S " 



y : 


2 ^ 





to -t 




6 a 




i ; 


s * 


f J 

It 1 

^ <r 

h O 


r* ^> 

E = 




i ^o^"^""** 


«< — > 

S D ' 


\| < 



U V 
3 *• 


■> c 


O G 

°c c 

3 < 




5 C 




3 C 




> C 



* u 

\ c 





The great depression of the 1930's began almost a decade after the 
passage of restrictive immigration legislation. The unemployment 
of the 1930's therefore could hardly be attributed to immigration. On 
the contrary, a number of distinguished economists believe the restric- 
tion of immigration to have been one cause of the depression. Through- 
out American history rapid increase of population had provided a con- 
stantly expanding market for our products. The decline in population 
growth incident to reduction of immigration and to the declining birth 
rate in the 1920's removed one factor contributing to our expanding 

During the depression, quota restrictions were of no significance — 
even the small quotas for Southern and Eastern Europe were unfilled. 
As in the earlier periods, with or without quotas and restrictive 
devices, prospective immigrants had no incentive or desire to come to 
this country in time of depression. In fact, in the depression years 
from 1931 through 1936, a total of 240,000 more aliens left than were 
admitted. The Commission finds no evidence that immigration either 
caused or aggravated the depression. 

Historically speaking, therefore, immigration has supplied much 
of the brain and sinew, the human resources that have created our 
nation. It has come when and where manpower was in demand to 
build up America and to raise its standard of living, but it has not, 
of itself, caused depression and unemployment. The new immi- 
grant has helped to enrich the native descendants of earlier immi- 



In reviewing the history of debates on the problem of immigration, 
the Commission was impressed by the fact that those opposing im- 
migration appear to have been influenced in this view by a pessimistic 
outlook regarding the future economic growth of the United States. 
The nation was barely founded before a Congressman rose to say on 
the floor of the House of Representatives in 1797 that while a liberal 
immigration policy was satisfactory when the country was new and 
unsettled, now that the United States had reached maturity and was 
fully populated, further immigration should be stopped. 

However, such views have continued throughout our history. In 
1921, the Immigration Committee of the House of Representatives 
again recommended complete termination of all immigration. By the 
1920's there was widespread fear that the country could not profitably 
absorb immigration in the volume received before World War I. The 
territorial frontier was gone. The country was "filled up" in the 


sense that good agricultural land was almost fully occupied and under 
cultivation. The economy was rapidly becoming industrialized, a 
"mature" economy was emerging, and therefore, it was argued, 
immigration had to be drastically curtailed. 

With the 1921 Quota Act, originally designed for a 1-year emergency, 
there began a wholly new departure in American law : a limitation on 
the number of immigrants that could be admitted into the United 
States. The Immigration Act of 1924 not only carried into permanent 
law the concept of a limitation on numbers, but also initiated the 
formula of selection on the basis of race and nationality. The Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act of 1952 continued and strengthened the 
same principles. 

The onset of the depression in 1929 seemed to validate the views 
of those who feared that economic maturity meant the end of economic 
growth in the United States. This did not prove to be the case. 

Our economy has expanded by leaps and bounds. Our gross national 
product in 1924 of $140 billion (in 1951 dollars) grew to $329 billion 
in 1951; foreign exports of goods expanded from $6i/ 2 billion (1951 
dollars) in 1924 to $15 billion in 1951; manufacturing production 
increased by 140 percent, and agricultural output by 51 percent between 
1924 and 1951. Our farmers had an average per capita income from 
farming of only $302 in 1924 (in terms of 1951 purchasing power), 
which rose to $760 per capita in 1951. These are but a few examples 
of growth since the 1920's, and of the dynamic nature of our economy. 

This economic expansion required an expanding labor force. The 
demands were met, as in the past, partly through natural growth and 
partly from migration. The labor force increased from 41.2 million 
in 1920 to 66 million in 1951. When the normal sources of European 
immigration were substantially cut off by our legislation of the 1920's, 
our industries had to seek other sources of labor. This they found 
in three ways: (1) by enormous migration from our own rural areas 
in the United States; (2) by increased immigration from Puerto Rico, 
the West Indies, and the nonquota countries of the Western Hem- 
isphere; and (3) by special legislation providing for temporary 
immigration from neighboring countries. 

During World War II, and after, many hundreds of thousands of 
workers were drawn from the farms to man the factories and other 
establishments of our urban centers. Since 1940 over one and a half 
million southern Negroes moved to the cities of the North and West to 
fill the manpower shortages. The Negro population of the North and 
West more than doubled through this migration. But this was not 
enough. This source of manpower had to be supplemented by some 
200,000 Puerto Ricans, and other West Indians. Quite aside from 
the movements of native white people in the United States, there 
were nearly 2 million total migrants who moved into the northern and 


western States from these internal sources in the decade 1940-50, and 
the movement continues unabated. 

During the same period there was a net foreign immigration of 
one and a half million people that went chiefly to the industrial areas 
of the country. Thus, the total migration to the North and West 
from the South and from abroad during the forties was at least as 
large as the net immigration in the decade 1890-1900, the third largest 
decade of European immigration in our history. In other words, 
the northern cities continued to need immigrants but had to get them 
mainly from elsewhere than Europe. 

But even this was not enough to meet the demands of our growing 
economy. Congress also found it necessary to enact special immigra- 
tion legislation admitting certain groups of immigrants temporarily 
to meet the manpower shortages, both in agricultural and nonagri- 
cultural employment. 

As a result of acute labor shortages in agriculture during World 
War II, special programs for recruitment of seasonal and temporary 
workers from Western Hemisphere countries were undertaken by 
intergovernmental agreements. Large numbers of aliens were in- 
volved in these programs, both during the war and after. The great- 
est number of Mexican farm workers legally in the United States 
for this purpose at any one time during World War II was 67,860 
around August 1, 1944. As many as 21,000 Jamaicans and 6,000 
Bahamans, as well as small numbers of Canadians and other North 
Americans, entered the United States under similar programs from 
time to time during this period. After the war, and under a law 
enacted in 1948, this recruitment of immigrant agricultural work- 
ers was continued on a peacetime basis. During the year 1951, some 
191,000 Mexican nationals were admitted temporarily for agricultural 
work. Even this movement of immigrants, authorized by Congress, 
is overshadowed by the illegal entry each year of over half million 
Mexican "wetbacks." 

Specific agricultural activities have sometimes received explicit 
Congressional exemption from restrictive immigration provisions. 
Two enactments have authorized the granting of special quota im- 
migration visas to skilled sheepherders, to be charged against future 
quotas. Under 1950 legislation, 250 were permitted to enter, of whom 
125 were admitted during the fiscal year 1951. Another statute in 
1952 authorized the admission of 500 more sheepherders. 

In the original 1948 Displaced Persons Act, Congress provided 
a 40 percent preference for agricultural labor, a further indication of 
Congressional recognition of immigration as a potential source of agri- 
cultural manpower. 

During the war a manpower gap also appeared in the nonagricul- 
tural occupations. A total of 135,283 Mexican nationals worked on 


railroads in the United States from May 1943 to August 1945. More 
might have been used, but the Mexican government imposed a maxi- 
mum ceiling of 75,000 who could be permitted in this country at any 
particular time. During the fiscal year 1951 some 10,000 Canadian 
woodsmen were permitted entry into Maine, Vermont, New Hamp- 
shire, and New York to fill a need for manpower not otherwise avail- 

Another example of the use of immigration to meet labor shortages 
can be seen in the United States Department of Labor's certifications 
for waiver of the contract labor provisions of the pre-1952 immigra- 
tion act. Such waivers were based on the unavailability of similar 
domestic labor. In the 7-year period from 1946 to 1952 there were 
11,028 certifications, in addition to Canadian woodsmen. These cer- 
tifications covered a total of 448 different occupations, many of which 
appeared year after year in this 7-year period. 

In the light of this experience under the restrictive limitations on 
immigration under the laws in effect since 1924, the Commission finds 
that immigration continues to be what it has always been in our his- 
tory, a source of necessary manpower. Despite the efforts to change 
this situation by shutting off immigration from its customary sources, 
the American economy still continues to demand some form of 
immigration to meet the manpower demands of a growing and vig- 
orous nation. 


The United States needs more manpower. We need it to meet cur- 
rent labor shortages. We need it to meet the demands of an expand- 
ing civilian as well as military economy. And we need it to meet the 
requirements of national defense and security. Immigration is a 
normal and historic source of additional manpower. 

Manpower in an Expanding Economy 

During the Commission's hearings there was convincing testimony 
for the need of additional workers in almost every section of the United 
States both in industry and agriculture. Labor unions, industry, 
economists, public officials, religious leaders, job placement officials, 
civic workers, and others, all testified that there were labor shortages 
ranging from temporary to permanent, from reasonably necessary 
to critical. 

Agriculture. — A need for more agricultural labor was voiced from 
many quarters. Knox T. Hutchinson, Assistant Secretary of Agricul- 
ture, testifying for the United States Department of Agriculture, told 
the Commission that "we have a great need for farm manpower." 
He advised the Commission as follows : 


Our goals and sights for the future must encourage progressively higher levels 
of agricultural output. * * * there are within this picture of future food 
and fibre requirements, both the need and absorptive capacity of American agri- 
culture for some augmentation of the supply of labor which a carefully liberalized 
policy of immigration would make available. 

The Department of Agriculture pointed out that, although our 
population has been increasing, there has been a decline of almost 
two million farm workers in the last 40 years, from 1910 to 1950, and 
that a further decline of another one million and a quarter can be 
expected by 1975. In 1951 our farm employment was 300,000 under 
1950, and 700,000 under 1949. It is estimated that by the end of 
1952 we may average 250,000 fewer than in 1951. These declines 
in farm workers took place despite the importation of farm labor 
from Mexico, the British West Indies and Canada for seasonal farm 
work. The Department of Agriculture warned that if the present 
rate and trend continue, by 1975 only 10 percent of our population 
will be farm population. 

The United States Department of Agriculture also informed the 
Commission of the results of its survey of current agricultural man- 
power. Reports of farm manpower difficulties came from all sections 
of the United States. Almost one-third of the States report that the 
greatest difficulty is in the short supply of regular year-round hands. 
Farm shortages were especially serious in dairy, livestock, poultry, 
sheep ranches and some other types of farming. The Department of 
Agriculture indicated that permanent immigration could be a source 
of regular farm workers and would contribute "to meeting the needs 
of the moderate-size commercial family farm that required year-round 
hired labor." Through immigration "an important contribution can 
be made to our agricultural economy," it asserted. 

Major farm organizations presented similar views. The National 
Grange declared in a statement to the Commission that 

* * * It has been increasingly difficult for farm operators to find competent 
and reliable hired men and if the present trend away from the farm continues 
the American people might have to reduce the quality and level of their present 
diet. This would be undesirable from the standpoint of the American people 
as a whole, and also from the standpoint of farmers who need and can use extra 
labor if it is of a high quality * * * 

The National Farmers Union testified that it "believes that this 
Nation could readily welcome and assimilate more than 154,000 immi- 
grants each year." 

The Commission noted, however, that those who urged the need 
for more people to meet manpower shortages, have also insisted that 
if immigration is to help meet this need, there must be careful selec- 
tion of competent farmer immigrants if they are to meet the rather 
specialized requirements of American agriculture. 

250653 0—53- 


In connection with the needs of agricultural manpower it is impor- 
tant to note that a basic change is taking place in our agricultural 
economy. In some cases due to labor shortages, in other instances 
because of economy of operations and greater profit yield, farming 
is becoming mechanized. To the degree that mechanization and tech- 
nological advances are applied to farming, experience has shown the 
possibility of a greater agricultural output with less manpower. 

This factor has variable application in different areas of the country 
and to different kinds of farming. It seems to have reached its 
greatest development on the wide grain fields of the Great Plains, 
with an increasing size of the farm and an industrialization of agri- 
culture. In such areas and for such farming, the Commission heard 
far less of need for more manpower. 

On the other hand, as has been indicated, the Commission's hearings 
disclosed a consistent and responsible claim of labor shortages for 
dairy, vegetable, livestock, poultry, and other such farming. 

The Commission found that the agricultural manpower situation 
was spotty. In some areas there is a surplus of agricultural labor as 
judged by wage rates, per capita output, and other measures of under- 
employment. In some areas there is a relative balance of supply and 
demand. But in many other areas of the country, there is both a need 
for agricultural labor and a demand that it be satisfied through 

Industry — The need for manpower is more general and acute in 
nonagricultural occupations, as evidenced by the fact that these occu- 
pations have attracted many hundreds of thousands of workers from 
farming in the past few years. The Commission received convincing 
testimony that the country is enjoying a condition of full employment 
with ample opportunities and needs for additional workers in many 

The New York State Industrial Commissioner, Edward Corsi, tes- 
tified that "We are suffering from a very great labor shortage in this 
State both on the farm and in the factory." He stated that there are 
350,366 unfilled nonagricultural jobs, and 4,500 unfilled farm jobs in 
New York State alone. 

The Commission found that witnesses were convinced of the con- 
tinued needs for more manpower in the future. The Secretary of 
Labor of the United States, Maurice J. Tobin, testified as follows: 

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 gauge our immigration policies accordingly. 

The United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Ewan Clague, 
testified in a similar vein : 

Although we cannot rule out the strong possibility of short-term fluctuations 
in employment conditions, we may confidently look forward to a continued up- 


trend in our Nation's manpower needs. * * * This sustained demand for 
manpower for national defense will be superimposed on our expanding normal 
peacetime requirements. 

He also pointed out that despite the continuing need for more man- 
power the immediate future labor supply may well be declining. This 
is due to the fact that the number in the age group which would nor- 
mally provide the main addition to the nation's work force during the 
next decade has actually declined. In 1950 there were two million 
fewer young people in the age group 10 to 19 years than in 1940, or a 
decrease of 8 percent. As a result, the annual inflow of young workers 
into the labor force is currently at the low T est point in many years, and 
will continue low until the larger numbers of children born after 1940 
reach working age. 

Thus, the best evidence available to the Commission shows that the 
United States will continue to need more manpower both in agricul- 
ture and in industry. Our expanding economy needs an expanding 
labor force ; the needs of our industries especially have proved to be 
and are likely to continue to be enormous. 

In view of the shortages of young adults over the next few years, the 
American economy will have to look, even more than in the recent past, 
to other than domestic sources of labor supply. 

The Commission's study brings it to the conviction not only that 
the United States needs more manpower, but that the United States 
needs more immigration to fill this demand. 


Our potential needs for immigration should not be judged in terms 
of peacetime civilian requirements alone. We must also consider our 
human resources for our national defense and security. This con- 
sideration is quite aside from the significance of immigration in terms 
of the current ideological war between the forces of totalitarianism 
and the forces of democracy. The significance of immigration in the 
latter connection will be considered in Chapter 3. 

Our present manpower position in relation to potential enemies has 
drastically changed since World War II. In that war we and our 
allies had an impressive superiority in numbers over the smaller pop- 
ulations of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Today the situation is re- 
versed. It is our potential enemies that have a preponderance of 
manpower and it is we that would have to husband our manpower 
resources in a general war. 

The United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics testified before 
the Commission that the facts of our population growth and structure 

* * * 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 considera- 
tion of our situation, including immigration policies, recognize this paramount 

Expert testimony to the Commission revealed that the labor force of 
the Soviet Union, estimated to be some 108 million in 1951, very sub- 
stantially exceeds ours, which is given by the Bureau of the Census as 
66 million in 1951. In addition, the Soviet labor force will increase 
much more rapidly than ours owing to the high birth rates in Russia 
before World War II. 

The strain of war on our manpower would be greater than during 
World War II, not only because of greater need, but also because the 
possibilities for rapid expansion of the labor force are much more 
limited than in 1941. For one thing, we are working longer hours; 
the average workweek in manufacturing was 41.5 hours in October 
1951, as compared with 39.4 hours in October 1940. At the outbreak of 
World War II we had major reserves that are now either unavailable or 
available in much smaller quantities : (a) the unemployed, (b) women 
not now in the labor force, (<?) underemployment in agriculture, and 
(d) young workers. 


In April 1940, at the time of the decennial census, there were 
8.360,000 unemployed. By October 1941 some of this reserve had been 
absorbed in defense effort but there remained 3,840,000 unemployed. 
Today the reserve is almost nonexistent. The number of unemployed 
has sunk to 1,284,000 which is little more than that involved in the 
normal job turn-over. Today we have almost full employment, and 
no substantial reserve with which to meet a sudden crisis demanding 
both military and industrial manpower. 

Women in the Labor Force 

A substantial part of manpower needs in World War II were met 
by bringing some live million additional women into the labor force. 
In October 1952 there were 1.5 million more women in the labor 
force than at the peak of war employment in 1944 and the percentage 
of all women who held jobs was almost as high. In other words we 
are now using the potential female labor force almost as fully as we 
did at the height of World War II, a fact all the more remarkable 
since the "baby boonr' of the past few years has greatly increased 
the number of young mothers who must stay home to care for small 
children. The potential labor reserves among women not in the labor 
force are thus much smaller than in 1941. 

Underemployment in Agriculture 

A careful study on Underemployment of Rural Families, prepared 
for the Joint Committee on the Economic Report in the Eighty- 


second Congress, arrived at the conclusion that there were 2 million 
underemployed farm operator families in 1945, located primarily on 
small, unproductive farms in the southeastern States. Seven years 
ago these families included a potential addition to the labor force 
equivalent to 2V 2 million workers. 

As indicated, this underemployment in agriculture provided a par- 
tial substitute for immigration in meeting the war and postwar needs 
of industry. Due to mechanization and more efficient farming meth- 
ods, additional farm workers are being freed in some areas for other 
employment ; but experience shows that they do not become available 
to meet agricultural manpower shortages in other parts of the coun- 
try. Potential further gains to the industrial labor force are becoming 
more limited, however, as the farm population declines and the re- 
serves are progressively tapped by movement from the farms to the 
cities. It is a question how much further we could go in wartime with- 
out crippling essential agricultural production. 

Young Workers 

Young adults are the most flexible part of our labor force, whether 
in terms of geographical mobility or in terms of training for new 
jobs. This section of the labor force is of crucial importance from 
the standpoint of defense, whether it is employed in the armed forces 
or to provide a fluid labor force adaptable to rapidly changing needs. 
However, our supply of young people is smaller and shrinking, owing 
to the low birth rates of the depression years. The number of young 
people of the forthcoming military ages is declining in the United 
States. In the 10-year period between 1940 and 1950, there was a 
drop of 2 million people in the age group 10 to 19 years of age. This 
and other basic changes in our population structure are adversely 
affecting human resources at a time when security needs are increasing. 


Certain unfavorable trends in our population structure may ad- 
versely affect our national welfare and security. 

Growing Older 

The American population is growing older. Since 1900 the median 
age has risen from 23 to over 30. Several factors have caused this 
aging of our people in the last 50 years — we live longer, we have fewer 
children, and our restrictive immigration policies have cut off a for- 
mer plentiful source of young adults. Not only has the restriction 
of immigration reduced the number of immigrants but in addition 
its preferences and categories favor older persons. 


Normal immigration is heavily concentrated in the young adult 
ages. Prior to immigration restrictions, over three-fourths of our 
immigrants were in the highly productive age group 16-44, and they 
were particularly concentrated in the age group 16-29. As a result 
immigration brought us more producers than consumers, and more 
workers than dependents. It brought us a ready-made labor force 
that cost us nothing in terms of rearing and education. Because of 
this concentration in the young adult ages, even a comparatively small 
increase in immigration could bring about an important increase in 
the young labor force. 

This fact is illustrated even by the recent displaced persons pro- 
gram in which a special effort was made to move whole families. The 
roughly 400,000 persons admitted were a young and growing addi- 
tion to our population. Over half (51 percent) were in the prime 
working ages of 20-44, as compared with only 37 percent in the United 
States population as a whole. Less than a fifth (19 percent) were 
over 45 as compared with 28 percent in the total United States popu- 

An aging population means that we have more older people, re- 
tired persons and disabled, who must be supported by persons in the 
working ages. As the average age of a population goes up the burden 
of old-age dependency grows, and the taxes necessary to support the 
aged increase. At the same time the labor force is more and more 
made up of older workers who lack the adaptability required to meet 
many essential economic needs. Finally, the "baby boom" of the last 
few years has meant a great increase in child dependency at a time 
when our young labor force is shrinking, thus further increasing the 
burden on the people in the working ages. These developments 
would not be serious in a peacetime economy as productive as ours. 
The older worker and older citizen has much to contribute to the na- 
tion in stability, judgment, and experience. But, the effect of our 
present dearth of young adults is of serious consequences to our na- 
tional defense and security. Changes in the age structure of the 
United States are shown in Figure 3. 

In the next few years the United States will have a deficit of young 
men and women, chiefly as a result of the low birth rate in the depres- 
sion decade of 1930-1940. Without more immigration only 20 percent 
of the United States population in 1955 will be in the ages 15-29. 
Larger immigration would tend to fill this important gap in our 
population structure. In 1925-1929, the last period of "normal" 
immigration in the United States, 55 percent of the immigrants were 
in the ages 15-29. 

The crucial age group for military service, the people in the age 
bracket of 18-24, is declining and will be declining during the next 


few years. The number of men annually reaching the military age of 
18 is now 200,000 less than in 1940. The number of men available for 
induction and military service under present laws will be com- 
paratively low during most of the decade. 



7 5 
and over 


N AGES 15-29 

♦Estimated by U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Figure S. 

If we will let it, immigration in the next few years could provide 
a valuable supplement to this shrinking manpower at the critical 
ages of prime military importance. 

More Women Than Men 

During our entire history, until 1944, the United States had more 
men than women. This is no longer true. In 1900, there were 105 
men to every 100 women. By 1944, the balance had changed ; and by 
1950, there were only 98 men to every 100 women. By 1950, we had 
1,030,000 more women than men. Much of this excess is in the nor- 


mal marriageable ages of 20-44 where we have 900,000 more women 

than men. 

Eestrictive immigration laws have played a major part in this 
fundamental change in our population. Since 1820, immigration has 
contributed a very high percentage of men to this country. In the 
period of free immigration from 1820 to 1921, there were 150 men 
to 100 women among those admitted to the United States. This same 
pattern of more men than women prevailed among persons admitted 
under the displaced persons program, even though there was a con- 
scious and deliberate effort to move families as a whole. Under the 
Displaced Persons Act, over 119 men were admitted for each 100 


The effects of restrictive immigration are evident in the following 
table which shows the percentages of male and female immigrants 
in the five decades of this century : 

Table 2. — Proportion of Males and of Females Among Immigrants: 





1901 10 - - ----- __ 

69. 8 

30. 2 


1921 30 .-.- __- 


1931 40 



The effects of restrictions in the 1921 and 1924 quota acts were al- 
ready observable in the twenties. When the restrictive national ori- 
gins quota law took effect in 1929, the number of men entering the 
United States as immigrants dropped very considerably below the 
number of women. This was due to the fact that small quotas tend to 
be filled by wives and relatives of earlier immigrants, who have quota 
preferences, as opposed to new male immigrants who predominate in 
normal overseas immigration. Whereas previously as much as two- 
thirds of the immigrants were men, now as much as two-thirds are 


Thus, immigration played an important part, prior to the restric- 
tive Act of 1924, which went into effect in 1929, in maintaining a nu- K 
merical superiority of men over women in the United States. Since 
1929, it has contributed to a changed pattern. 

The changing sex ratios in our population and the growing surplus 
of women can have serious repercussions. The effect upon our labor 
force, upon the number of wage earners supporting families, and 
upon our available military reserves, is obvious. The social and moral 


effects of reduced marriage possibilities for American women can be of 
the greatest significance. 

A renewal: of a more substantial volume of normal immigration 
would tend to redress this growing imbalance in the American popu- 
lation. Larger immigration would tend to fill gaps in our popula- 
tion structure. 


The Commission does not believe that it is advisable to base our 
immigration policy wholly on the specific needs of the United States 
for more manpower. Other considerations are equally if not pri- 
marily compelling, such as our humanitarian traditions, our foreign 
policy, our security needs. However, our manpower needs do have 
important relevance to what American immigration policy ought 
to be, and the Commission's studies indicate that our present immi- 
gration policies are a serious barrier to the fulfillment of those 

The restriction of immigration in the 1920's was due largely to a 
pessimistic view of America's future. 

The Commission's belief, from the testimony at its hearings and 
from other information available to it, is that the United States now 
has and will continue to have a dynamic, expanding, and flexible econ- 
omy needing more people, and will be fully capable of absorbing a 
reasonable increase in our present maximum immigration quota. In 
the past, immigration gave us our most important resource, our people. 
There is every indication that we have not reached, nor are we likely 
in the foreseeable future to reach, the point at which new immigration 
will no longer contribute to our further growth, strength, and 

The United States Is Not Over populated 

We are now a nation of 157,000,000 people. The productive capacity 
of our country is rising rapidly today, perhaps as rapidly as at any 
time in our history. Our average level of living is the highest in the 
world, higher than it has ever been before, and it is moving forward 
despite the effects of war, of a massive defense effort, and of our con- 
tinued population growth. This is not a picture of overpopulation. 

A report of the Immigration Section of the Commonwealth Club of 
San Francisco stated as follows : 

* * * During the past six decades production has increased by nearly eight 
times. We nearly doubled our annual production every two decades. In other 
words, our production has risen nearly 100 percent in 20 years, whereas our popu- 
lation has risen only about 20 percent. Our production growth has always ex- 
ceeded our population growth. 


And the future looks bright. Our resources and our food produc- 
tion are adequate to meet any reasonable increase in population. 
All indications are that our material standards will continue to rise. 
The President's Materials Policy Commission reached its conclusion 
as to the adequacy of our national resources in the light of an antici- 
pated population increase of 27 percent from 1950 to 1975, a doubling 
of the gross national product in that twenty-five year period, a de- 
crease of 15 percent in hours worked, and an increase in the material 
standard of life. These assumptions would mean, for example, a 62i/> 
percent rise in the number of passenger cars in use, an increase of 
from 621/2 percent to 87 i/ 2 percent in the number of telephones in use, 
and other increases in like measure. 

As for the nation's ability to feed its population, there is no reason- 
able doubt that, in the foreseeable future, we can have food for all our 
people. The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture testifying before the 
Commission said : "I have no fear that the American population will 
run short of food." Separate studies by the Department of Agricul- 
ture, the Land Grant Colleges, and the President's Materials Policy 
Commission, all indicate that with the full use of the best known and 
already proven farm practices, farm production can be raised suffi- 
ciently to meet all demands likely to be made by the American popula- 
tion of 1975. Therefore, on the basis of reliable evidence, the Com- 
mission has no misgivings of the ability of the American farmer to 
provide in the foreseeable future an adequate food supply for a well- 
fed nation. 

The United States Can Absorb More Than the Present Maximum 

Ours is a healthy and, at present, a rapidly growing population. 
Since the war's end in 1945 we have already added 17 million people, 
nine-tenths as a result of the excess of births over deaths, only one- 
tenth from immigration. 

Estimates of future population, by the United States Bureau of the 
Census, suggest continued growth, although not necessarily at the 
present rates. The medium estimate indicates a United States popu- 
lation of 171 million in 1960 and 190 million in 1975, assuming im- 
migration at the present levels and a considerable drop-off from the 
present "baby boom." Of the 14 million prospective growth between 
1952 and 1960, less than one-eighth would be due to foreign immigra- 
tion in its present volume. The population is growing at a rate of over 
21/2 million per year. Obviously in this circumstance the effect of 
immigration under a quota ceiling of either 154,000 or 250,000 will be 
a minor factor in the general population growth. 

Other countries have shown that a far higher proportion of im- 
migrants can be absorbed. Australia, whose total population is about 


that of New York City, has been absorbing immigration at an average 
of 134,000 per year. This is a rate of immigration in relation to popu- 
lation twenty times that provided by our present quota ceilings. 

In Chapter 4 the Commission recommends a maximum ceiling 
of some 250,000 quota immigrants each year, based upon one-sixth 
of 1 percent of the 1950 population of the United States. The 
evidence before the Commission indicates that such figure is well 
within the present safe limits of absorption into the American 
economy, for the foreseeable future. 

The attitude of organized labor is significant in this regard. In 
testimony before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturali- 
zation in 1946, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) 
stated : 

Naturally, a labor organization representing six million American workers 
would not be inclined to support measures which would threaten the job security 
of its own members. However, the CIO realizes from past experience that 
immigration is automatically checked in periods of unemployment while it rises 
in periods of prosperity ; that in the past, immigrants have contributed in in- 
numerable ways to the wealth and well-being of this country ; that a large 
proportion of immigrants are not potential job seekers but women and children ; 
that new blood in industry, agriculture, business, and the professions, enriches 
our national life ; and that the best and most enlightened thought on this subject 
opposes arbitrary, prejudiced, and superficial legislation to curtail immigration 
into the United States. 

During legislative discussions on the Displaced Persons Act, labor 
leaders indicated that an annual immigration of 250,000 could have 
no adverse effect on our economy : 

The late William Green, then President of the American Federation 
of Labor ( AFL) , testified : 

We do not believe that the admission of as small a number as 400,000 over a 
period of 4 years [in addition to the quota's 154,000 annually] will seriously 
affect our employment or unemployment problem * * * 

The late Philip Murray, then President of the CIO, presented a 
statement which said in part : 

Let me say for the record that we in the CIO can find absolutely no basis 
in fact or reason for the fear that admitting 100,000 immigrants a year for four 
years [in addition to the quota's 154,000] would jeopardize the jobs of American 
citizens. * * * I do not think it is the true friends of labor who will argue 
that our economy cannot stand the addition of less than one-tenth of one percent 
of the number of our population annually for four years without creating un- 

A factor that must be borne in mind is that our immigration I tws 
have a built-in brake, so to speak, which can protect the United States 
against such difficulties. The provision which authorizes the denial 
of a visa to a person likely to become a public charge has in past ex- 
perience, particularly in the depression of the 1930's, proved to be an 


effective protective device in this regard. Furthermore, the experience 
of the Displaced Persons Commission indicates that a sensitive re- 
settlement program could bring 400,000 people into the United States, 
keep them out of areas of labor surplus and direct or route them to 
areas of labor shortages. In February 1950, that Commission reported 
as follows : 

The impact of displaced persons on aggregate unemployment in this country 
has been insignificant. Even in critical unemployment areas displaced persons 
have been a negligible factor in the degree of unemployment. 

Normal experience has shown that only about half of the immigrants 
coming to the United States go into the labor force. Since the total 
population grew two-thirds between 1920 and 1950, an increase of 
immigration from 154,000 to 250,000 per year could scarcely present 
serious problems of absorption. On the other hand, it could (1) 
provide by 1960 an addition of 500,000 to 1,000,000 in our manpower of 
military age; (2) relieve special manpower shortages of importance 
both for the needs of defense and of an expanding peacetime economy ; 
and (3) continue to supply us with the talents and skills from abroad 
that have so strengthened and enriched our civilization. 


Chapter 3 

Immigration and our 
Foreign Policy 

In the Executive Order which established it, the Commission was 
given the task of considering : 

* * * 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, and the need for authority to meet emergency conditions such as 
the present overpopulation of parts of Western Europe and the serious refugee 
and escapee problems in such areas. 


None can truthfully say that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 
was a direct result of the Immigration Act of 1924. However, respon- 
sible experts have assured the Commission that the Japanese exclusion 
clause of the 1924 Immigration Act contributed to the growth of the 
rationalistic, militaristic, and anti- American movement in Japan 
which culminated in war against the United States. 

While the 1924 bill was under consideration, the Japanese Ambas- 
sador pointed out that the exclusion clause would be a serious blow to 
Japanese self-esteem. His counselor of embassy warned that it would 
undercut the pro-democratic forces in Japan and strengthen the mili- 
tarists. Secretary of State Hughes urged Congress not to "affront a 
friendly nation" by placing a legislative stigma upon its people. But 
the bill became law — and the consequences predicted for it came to 
pass. Ultra-nationalist and militarist elements in Japan gained 
strength and fervor in their efforts to whip up hatred of America and 
to spread the doctrine of "Asia for the Asiatics." 

One of Hitler's excuses for taking Czechoslovakia and attacking 
Poland was the need for "living space" for Germany's growing popu- 
lation. Mussolini used Italy's overpopulation to excuse his attack on 
Ethiopia. The Japanese Government attempted to justify its inva- 
sion of Manchuria on similar grounds. Without in any way justifying 
the wrong done, the Commission believes these examples demonstrate 
the vital role that migration or lack of migration plays in world affairs. 

American immigration law, unfortunately, has not always been 
formulated with an eye to its effects on our international relationships. 
But there have been instances of recognition, particularly in recent 


years. The repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, in 1943, and the repeal 
in 1946 of exclusion directed against India, in favor of quotas for both 
countries, were themselves implementations of foreign policy. The 
repeal of Japanese exclusion in 1952 further demonstrated a growing 
American realization that immigration policy can be a positive as 
well as a negative factor in foreign policy. 

The present nonquota status of immigrants from the Western 
Hemisphere is another recognition of the foreign policy aspects of 
immigration law. Theoretically and practically, the national origins 
formula could have been applied to these nations, too. But here our 
"good neighbor" policy and considerations of hemispheric foreign 
relations seem to have prevailed. 

The Displaced Persons Act is another recent recognition of the 
relationship between immigration and international stability. 

Our whole national history illustrates a point which has only re- 
cently come to be recognized in its own light : American immigration 
policy and law must be formulated in awareness of their inter- 
national impact and must be designed to advance our foreign policy. 


Our present immigration policy dates from the period following 
the first world war. That was only some 30 years ago, but it was a 
different era of world and of American history. Then the United 
States was seeking to avoid the international responsibilities which 
its power and stature placed upon it. Our present immigration laws 
are rooted in the period of America's blindest isolationism. 

Today the United States is in a different position. For good or 
ill, this country now occupies a position of leadership among the 
nations of the free world. We cannot avoid the responsibilities that 
fall on the shoulders of a leader. The United States can never again 
turn its back on the facts of international relations. 

Although the United States is a world leader, its leadership is effec- 
tive in only part of the world. This means, among other things, that 
our responsibilities toward those peoples who share our outlook are 
sharper and clearer. In the struggle against communist totalitarian- 
ism today — as against other totalitarianisms yesterday — it is obvious 
that for our own well-being we must have genuine friends and firm 

In this situation, any action the United States takes or fails to take 
inevitably affects the partnership we speak of as the community of 
free nations. And because it affects the partnership, it. also reacts 
upon our own position of leadership. This is especially true in con- 
nection with actions which relate directly to the nationals of other 


This is not to say that our immigration laws should be determined 
by what other countries or people want. But it is to say that what 
the United States itself should want in its immigration laws should be 
tremendously affected, in our own welfare and security, by the effect 
such laws have on foreign countries and peoples. The responsibili- 
ties of leadership include and require "a decent respect to the opinions 
of mankind." 


If any view presented to the Commission can be said to be substan- 
tially unanimous, it is that our immigration law is part of our for- 
eign policy. It came to the Commission from diplomats, business- 
men, scholars, clergymen, labor and farm leaders, civic leaders, club 
women — in fact, from almost every walk of life. 

Officials dealing with American foreign policy feel this very strong- 
ly, as is shown in their testimony before the Commission. The Secre- 
tary of State of the United States, Dean Acheson, advised: 

Immigration, like most important facets of our national life in these times, is 
closely linked with our foreign policy and objectives. * * * 

Our immigration policy with respect to particular national or racial groups, 
will inevitably be taken as an indication of our general attitude toward them, 
especially as an indication of our appraisal of their standing in the world. It 
will, therefore, shape their attitude toward us and toward many of our other 

The Director of Mutual Security, W. Averell Harriman, stated : 

The kind of immigration policy we adopt is a factor in the world struggle 
between democracy and totalitarianism. 

William H. Draper, United States Special Representative in Europe 
and formerly Undersecretary of the Army, stated to the Commission : 

Whether we like it or not, we are part of the world, and we can no longer 
disassociate ourselves from wbat happens elsewhere * * * 

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. 

The Psychological Strategy Board's consultant, Edward M. O'Con- 
nor, told the Commission of his conviction that 

* * * our immigration law, together with its enlightened administration, is 
a fundamental instrument in the conduct of our relations with other nations 
and * * * must at all times, and particularly in times of international crisis, 
be geared to a dynamic, purposeful, and farsighted policy of world leadership. 

Similar concern for the relationship between immigration and for- 
eign affairs was expressed by outstanding private citizens. Russell 
W. Davenport, former editor of the magazine Fortune, testified : 



Nothing perhaps has affected the world standing of the United States so 
deeply, in so many ways, over so long a period as its immigration policy. The 
United States has always stood forth before the nations as a haven of refuge 
from tyranny and disorder, and this fact has profoundly affected the traditions 
of our country and of our free way of life. Moreover, as we look toward the 
future, our immigration policy appears to become more important, rather than 
less. We are a symbol of freedom and the world looks to us to define in con- 
crete ways how freedom can be achieved. Our immigration policy is vital to 
that definition. 

Miss Anna Lord Straus, past president of the League of Women 
Voters and former member of the American Delegation to the United 
Nations General Assembly, stated to the Commission : 

I had the opportunity to learn something of that when I was over in Paris at 
the General Assembly at meetings with representatives formerly from countries 
that are behind the iron curtain, who were living in Paris. We had discussions 
at that time as to what the United States might do to be more helpful, * * * 

In these discussions which were very frequent, very frank, and quite unfavor- 
able to some of the actions of the United States, there was an underlying friend- 
liness to us, but a difficulty in being able to interpret to their people our coun- 
try, and time and time again it was an immigration problem that was at the 
root of it, because, as they kept saying, "no matter what you say, if you don't 
act according to your professions of faith and your statements, they will dis- 
count entirely what you say", and the immigration question came up very fre- 
quently in quite a variety of discussions that I had with those people. 

Mrs. Z. W. Schroeder, of the General Federation of Women's Clubs 
declared : 

* * * I would like to particularly add emphasis as to the question of the co- 
relationship between immigration laws and restrictions in our entire foreign 
policy * * * So, my plea is this : Your immigration laws in this country, our 
immigration laws, should be a flexible instrument of our foreign policy. 

J. D. Zellerbach, San Francisco industrialist, wrote the Commission : 

My strong conviction is that the present immigration laws are in direct con- 
flict with United States philosophy and policy on foreign affairs and are un- 
realistic in facing up to world conditions. 

The President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, A. B. Kline, 
wrote to the Commission : 

United States immigration policy should be made to serve and support the 
over-all national policy on international relations. 

The late Philip Murray, president of the C. I. O., stated to the Com- 
mission, through Alan Haywood, executive vice president : 

Our immigration policy is a part of our over-all national policy. For us, at 
the very time when we are striving to build a mutual security system in coopera- 
tion with our allies abroad, to make our immigration and naturalization laws 
ever more virulently isolationist and antif oreign, not only makes very little sense : 
it embarrasses us in the pursuit of the wider objectives of our foreign policy. 
Both our national interest and the deep humanitarianism which has always 
characterized Americans as a nation require that we reverse this trend of the 


last 2 years, and establish a new policy on immigration and naturalization 
which will be consistent with twentieth century conditions and ideals. 

Many of the country's religious leaders expressed the same view 
that American immigration law is as much a part of our foreign 
policy as a foreign treaty. The National Council of Churches of 
Christ, in a resolution (of March 1952) presented to the Commission, 
stated : 

We believe it is of the utmost importance that legislation be enacted that 
Will conform with our democratic tradition and with our heritage as a de- 
fender of human rights. The adoption by Congress of enlightened immigration 
and naturalization laws would add immeasurably to the moral stature of the 
United States and would hearten those nations with which we are associated 
in a common effort to establish the conditions of a just and durable peace. 

In discussing this resolution, Mrs. Mildred McAfee Horton, officer of 
the National Council of Churches of Christ, and formerly President 
of Wellesley College and Director of the WAVES, stated : 

Our [immigration] policies (or their administration) have alienated us from 
parts of the world whose good will is important. * * * 

I want the Commission to know that there are people — and many of them — who 
are more afraid of losing the friendship of our friends and potential friends 
than we are of the threats of our enemies. There are people — and many of them — 
who believe that America is safest when she generalizes the principles she 
accepts for herself and takes seriously the idea that "all men are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rights" including "life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness." Immigration and naturalization policies which thwart 
those rights for the rest of the world will not permanently strengthen or safe- 
guard the United States of America. 

Dr. Paul C. Empie, Executive Director of the National Lutheran 
Council, called the Commission's attention to the fact that 

* * * the new immigration law is not geared to current world needs, but 
rather is related to historical circumstances of many decades past * * * the 
refusal to open our doors [to refugees] would be a staggering blow to the strength 
of our moral leadership in the current ideological world struggle. 

The Missouri Synod-Lutheran Church was represented at one of 
the Commission's hearings by Reverend Werner Kuntz, who said : 

Some of the things which I read in Public Law 414 seem more akin to the 
superiority complex that was spawned out of the foulness of Naziism than to 
the humanitarian attitude which our fathers taught us. It is not the kind of 
thinking that one should expect of a nation that has been thrust into a position 
of world leadership and whose example can shape a better destiny for a dis- 
ordered world. 

The Archbishop of Boston, The Most Rev. Richard J. Cushing, 
submitted a statement to the Commission which included the fol- 
lowing observations : 

The above indicated discriminatory and undemocratic features of the Mc- 
Carran-Walter Law are to my mind a grave potential threat to our domestic 
development and our international leadership. 

250653 O — 53- 


Monsignor Edward E. Swanstrom, Executive Director of War 
Relief Services, National Catholic Welfare Conference, testified as 
follows : 

* * * 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 keeping with the position of world leadership which 
the United States enjoys today. It is foolhardy to lose sight of the fact that 
our immigration policy has a foreign, as well as domestic, impact. Our immi- 
gration 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 dif- 
ficult to measure. 

In light of these considerations, I think it is most fortunate that the creation 
of your commission has given us an opportunity to reassess our entire immigra- 
tion and naturalization structure and policy * * * We have today an 
American policy on immigration which is completely outmoded, out of harmony 
with our ideas and actions, and completely at variance with the foreign policy 
which we are pursuing in accordance with such ideals * * * 

Bruce M. Mohler, Director of the Bureau of Immigration of the Na- 
tional Catholic Welfare Conference, urged that — 

The immigration and nationality law of the United States should reflect, or at 
least be adaptable to, the foreign policy of the country. 

Eabbi Abba Hillel Silver, of Cleveland, Ohio, stated before the 
Commission : 

Racial discrimination creates disunity at home and resentment abroad. It 
interferes with our foreign relations and the role of international leadership 
wbich destiny has thrust upon us in recent years. It is one of the fundamentals 
of our political philosophy and an essential part of our foreign policy to treat 
all peoples alike, regardless of race or origin. We stand committed to the 
principle of fundamental human rights for all men alike. * * * We cannot 
press for international acceptance of these principles and at the same time of- 
fend nations and races by discriminating against them in our own immigration 

Lester Gutterman, speaking for the American Jewish Committee 
and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, declared that 

* * * our immigration policies and practices are of vital importance in pre- 
serving the health of our democratic American society, and play a major role 
in our country's leadership in the maintenance of a stable world order. 

It is significant that during 1952 the Governments of Canada, the 
United Kingdom, and the Philippine Republic have, through diplo- 
matic channels, called attention to certain irritating inequities and 
administrative complexities of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
of 1952. 


Testimony before the Commission that America's immigration 
policy is inextricably bound up in our foreign relations is fully cor- 


roborated by the actions of our Government. Through the United 
Nations, through other international organs, and through programs of 
its own, the United States has participated — often as a leader — in 
every important postwar attack upon the problems of international 
population pressure, migration, and resettlement. 

Almost every part of the United Nations organization comes into 
contact, in one way or another, with some aspect of the problem of 
people moving across borders. In most instances that contact is 
limited or incidental. In quite a number, however, it is direct and 
even exclusive. 

UNRRA, from 1944 to mid- 1947, had a displaced persons program 
to which the United States contributed some $58 million — not count- 
ing the supplies and transportation granted by the Army. From 1947 
to January 1952, the International Refugee Organization (IRO) 
which was solely concerned with refugees, received $237 million, 
nearly 60 percent of its budget, from the United States. The United 
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is getting about $250,000 
from the United States in 1952-53, and is seeking to raise more funds. 
Congress has authorized in the Mutual Security Act of 1952 up to $50 
million for Arab refugees in the Near East and up to $45 million for 
Korean relief — both to be administered by UN organizations. 

The Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (for- 
merly the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Move- 
ment of Migrants from Europe) formed in 1951 by 15 governments at 
the instance of the United States, and now comprising 20 countries, 
has received nearly $20 million in the last two years from this country. 
The Organization for European Economic Cooperation — the Euro- 
pean coordinating agency for the Marshall Plan and later for the 
Mutual Security Agency — is concerned with migration as a method 
of balancing manpower needs for higher production. So also is the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), whose concern with 
manpower is more pressing as an aspect of Western defense. 

Independently, the United States operated a 4-year program that 
brought nearly 400,000 displaced persons to this country. A total 
of about $19 million of United States appropriated funds went into 
this program. For the President's Escapee Program, to assist Iron 
Curtain refugees, $4.3 million in appropriations and $1.9 million in 
counterpart funds have been made available. 

The leading role the United States has played in most of these 
activities, and our financial support, give conclusive proof that this 
country recognizes the importance of relieving population and refugee 
pressures and of facilitating the movement of persons. In practice, 
however, we are faced with the fact that our immigration laws are 
discriminatory, obsolete, and fail to measure up to the needs of our 
foreign policy. 



American immigration policies have frustrated and handicapped 
the aims and programs of American foreign policy throughout the 
period since 1924. The interference is acute today. The contra- 
dictions are sharper now in part because the 1952 law is more restrictive 
than before. The major factor, however, is the new circumstance of 
American leadership in the world rivalry between democratic free- 
dom and Communist tyranny. 

The major disruptive influence in our immigration law is the 
racial and national discrimination caused by the national origins 
system. Eef erence has been made to Japan's reaction to the exclusion 
act of 1924 and the generally held view among informed people that 
our discriminatory immigration law was a contributory factor to 
Japan's attack upon the United States in World War II. However, 
even now, with the removal of all outright oriental exclusions, the 
evil seeds of our former policy remain. 

It seems quite likely that current Chinese attitudes reflect to some 
extent the damage done earlier. Certainly Japanese propaganda dur- 
ing the war, both in China and in the rest of Southeast Asia was 
effective, particularly among intellectuals who were sensitive to the 
immigration law's implication of racial inferiority. There is every 
reason to expect that the Chinese Communists will continue to exploit 
the antiforeignism latent in most of Southeastern Asia for decades, 
implanted there in some part by the Oriental exclusion features of 
past American immigration law. 

An example of Communist efforts to use our immigration laws to 
encourage this anti-Americanism is Radio Moscow programs beamed 
to south and east Asia, in which the Communists have called attention 
to the color line drawn in United States immigration law. Such a pro- 
gram, on July 5, 1952 (in Korean) contained the following paragraphs : 

The United States Congress on June 27 passed the "McCarran- Walter Bill," 
which calls for drastic discrimination and restrictions against the nations of 
China, India, Southeast Asia, and other Asiatic countries, who enter or reside 
in the United States. 

The nature of the new law was thoroughly unmasked by the Congressmen 
in their debates on the bill. They stressed that the new immigration-restriction 
bill is very similar to the Nazi theory of racial superiority. The McCarran- 
Walter law places those nationals of Asian countries who enter or immigrate 
into the United States in a far more inferior category. It is too well known 
how the American Government authorities have treated Chinese, Korean, or 
Indian nations. 

The McCarran-Walter law, which has been adopted by the United States 
Congress, provides further discrimination and restrictions on foreign nationals 
who enter the United States. However, the law is only one of many things which 
show the contempt of the American ruling circles, and which spread racial 
prejudice among the people of the United States against the Asian people. 


A large number of witnesses in the Commission's hearings stressed 
the continuing harm to our foreign relations caused by the discrimi- 
nations of the national origins law against the nonwhite people of the 
world who constitute between two-thirds and three-fourths of the 
world's population. 


The Secretary of State advised the Commission that : 

The lifting of the bar of exclusion caused deep gratification in Asia when the 
[1952] Act was passed, but the racial discrimination apparent in the triangle 
provision can be expected to keep alive some feelings of resentment * * * the 
combination of very small quotas for Asia and the Asia-Pacific triangle provisions 
still furnish ground for Asian suspicion of United States motives. 

This testimony was corroborated by that of a recent eyewitness. 
Philip M. Hauser, Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago 
and former Acting Director of the United States Bureau of the Census, 
made the following observations to the Commission : 

The existence of such legislation as the present quota system in the statute 
books of the United States is to be particularly deplored in view of the position 
of world leadership which the United States has assumed in the almost three 
decades which have elapsed since the passing of the Immigration Act of 1924. 
It embodies a vicious and self-incriminating doctrine inconsistent with our 
position as a leader in the cause of world freedom and democracy. It is among 
the greatest barriers to our gaining the confidence and trust of many of the 
peoples of the world. I can document this assertion with what I have seen and 
heard in my own experience in many parts of the world. 

Less than 3 weeks ago I returned from my fourth trip aboard. It was an ex- 
tended trip of over 14 months, most of which I spent in the Orient, and during 
which I completely circumnavigated the globe. I can assure this Commission 
that Public Law 414 is well known to the peoples of the world and that it is not 
favorably known. It does untold damage to the United States in creating atti- 
tudes of distrust and hostility. For example, I have on a number of occasions 
been embarrassed by Asiatic people who have questioned me about the quota 
system, as one aspect of what they regard as our racial and ethnic prejudices. 
Few discussions of world or United States problems failed to elicit some ques- 
tion about United States racial prejudices in policy or deed and some mani- 
festation of puzzlement about, or hostility to, it. It is absurd to think that 
we can retain our position as the world leader in the fight for freedom and 
democracy with the peoples whom we explicitly and openly brand in our legis- 
lation as undesirable and inferior. 

Furthermore, in reenacting the quota system of 1924 into the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952, we have unwittingly placed into the hands of the ruth- 
less, adroit, and unscrupulous propagandists of the U. S. S. R., a major weapon 
with which to attack us. As a resident of Southeastern Asia for about a year, 
I had occasion to listen to Radio Moscow and to read the local news reports of 
the activities of Russian agents and propagandists. In this critical area, the 
fate of which may well determine the fate of the world, the U. S. S. R. is skill- 
fully and continuously making the most of our ethnic and racist doctrines as 
promulgated in Public Law 414. 


I have heard on numerous occasions the propaganda blasts of Radio Moscow. 
Much of its content was so distorted, fabricated, and patently absurd that I am 
sure it fooled nobody — except possibly its perpetrators. Some of it, however, 
met high standards of effective propaganda technique, particularly that which, 
in even small part, could be documented as in the case of their on-the-whole 
wild and exaggerated depictions of our racial and ethnic prejudices and ani- 
mosities. I am sure it was not the intention of the drafters of Public Law 414, 
or of the Congress, to place a powerful weapon into the hands of the U. S. S. R. 
in their propaganda war against the United States. But I can assure the mem- 
bers of this Commission that its enactment has had just such an effect. 

Caribbean Area 

As a result of the 1952 act, we have suffered a serious deterioration 
of our foreign relations in the Caribbean, an area close to America, 
close to the Panama Canal and the site of important wartime bases. 
The provision, which gives each colonial area of the West Indies a 
limited quota within the motherland's quota, a new device to limit 
such immigration to 100 a colony, has been keenly felt in those colonies 
as a racial discrimination, since the population of all of them is pre- 
dominantly Negro. 

This situation is serious enough to have led the Secretary of State 
to discuss it at some length in his statement to the Commission : 

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 only part of the Western 
Hemisphere subject to quotas has always been an unpleasant irritant to these 
colonial peoples. In the case of the British West Indies, the large and always 
undersubscribed British 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 British West Indies in any one year. Henceforth, however, no more 
than 800 (100 for each of the 8 British territories) may enter each year. Al- 
ready, months before the effective date of the Act, various British West Indian 
legislatures have passed resolutions denouncing these provisions. This is even 
less to be wondered at when it is remembered that Cuba, Haiti, and the Domin- 
ican Republic, all near neighbors of the British territories and equally parts of 
the Caribbean area, have nonquota status like the rest of the Western Hemisphere. 
Prominent West Indian leaders and newspapers have protested the obvious 
discrimination, and both West Indian and British government officials have 
informally brought the seriousness of the matter to the Department's attention. 
Further, the United States members of the Caribbean Commission (a body 
formed by Executive Agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, 
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 as to the work of the Department in its relations to the Commission. 

This view was substantiated by the testimony from another eye- 
witness, Walter White, Secretary of the National Association for the 


Advancement of Colored People, who declared : 

I encountered in the West Indies this summer many examples of anger mixed 
with shock at both the sharp reduction of immigration from certain West Indian 
islands and the racial implications of that action. * * * I submit that the 
McCarran- Walter Act, because of its racial implications against colored peoples 
from Asia, the Caribbean, and other areas, may well prove equally harmful to the 
United States not only in Asia but in Latin America. 

The Secretary of State summed it up thus : 

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 economic dislocations that weaken those neighbors whom 
we need as strong partners and who can furnish us with sites for military bases 
and strategic raw materials. 


Another problem may be in Africa. The Secretary of State raised 
this issue in his statement : 

Other colonial areas that will be of increasing importance to the West are 
those in Africa. Although there has 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 discrimination. * * * 

Again, one of the chief problems now facing the United States Information 
offices in Africa is how to combat the anti-American racial propaganda published 
in local nationalist papers. 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. 


The Secretary of State sees the same situation in Europe : 

In Europe, the difficulties facing us result in part from the national origins 
quota system which is based squarely on the theory that the best Americans are 
those of particular national or racial origins. This theory, always derogatory to 
our friends, is increasingly at variance with our protestations of equality and 
with our efforts to work fruitfully with all peoples. Especially where it strikes 
countries like Italy and Greece, which are much concerned with emigration as 
a solution to their population problems, it has engendered soreness and doubt 
that inhibit progress toward mutual trust. 

Similar statements have been made to the Commission over and 
over again by informed and observant witnesses. The facts available 
to the Commission bear out the general conclusion that the United 
States incurs resentment abroad because of the nationality and race 
discriminations of our immigration law. The most obvious indica- 
tions of this general resentment can be seen in the countries hit hard- 
est, such as Italy and Greece. The national origins system has been 
a constant source of irritation in these and other countries and a 
smoldering cause of official and unofficial disaffection toward the 
United States. Resentment has been growing more bitter in recent 


years ; although the United States talks much in Europe about uni- 
fication and the lowering of barriers, about equality and the mutual 
interest of the United States and Western Europe, at the same time 
it continues and further restricts its own immigration laws. 

The Commission does not wish to leave the impression that failure 
to remove discrimination from our immigration laws will necessarily 
hamper the conduct of affairs at the diplomatic level. There is no evi- 
dence that it has done so in the past. However, the weight of evi- 
dence is that fundamental relations between the United States and 
certain other countries are definitely impaired by our present immi- 
gration laws. 



Among the great humanitarian problems facing the world today are 
the care and future of the refugees, expellees, escapees, and remaining 
displaced persons who constitute "unfinished business" in the after- 
math of World War II. 

Refugees, Expellees, Displaced Persons 

There are today some 10,000,000 refugees and expellees of German 
ethnic origin in West Germany. Over 600,000 persons of Italian 
ethnic origin are in Italy and Trieste — refugees from Italy's former 
territories or other areas lost as a result of the war. Greece has 
some 40,000 to 45,000 refugees of Greek and foreign nationality from 
the countries of Southeast Europe. 

The number of refugees in West Germany is increasing by some 
15,000 arrivals monthly from East Germany, exclusive of the escapees 
of other than German ethnic background. This situation is especially 
critical in West Berlin. The flow of refugees also still continues into 
Trieste, mostly from Yugoslavia. 

After the conclusion of operations under the Displaced Persons 
Act, some 7,500 displaced persons still remained as likely eligibles 
for a visa when all visas were exhausted on December 31, 1951. 

In the Far East the situation of 15,000 Chinese intellectuals in 
Hong Kong and of 7,500 European refugees in Communist China is 
particularly desperate. 

The refugee situation is potentially explosive. Western Germany 
is an example of this situation. The refugees constitute 20 percent 
of its population. One-third of the total unemployed in Germany 
in the spring of 1952 were refugees ; over 340,000 expellees still lived 
in mass camps. Only 30 percent of the expellees then had permanent 


Over a year ago the United Nations High Commissioner for Kef ugees 
stated : 

The refugee population in Germany shows increasing inclination towards 
political adventure. The younger generation of the refugee populations faces 
the future with little confidence in the effectiveness of democracy and its 
capacity to solve their problems. 

Discussing the work of the International Refugee Organization, a 
subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in 1949 
reported : 

Because of economic unrest and instability throughout Europe and Asia, the 
presence of refugees is generally a disturbing factor, both economically and 
politically. Accordingly, the problem is clearly one of international concern. 

A great deal of international effort has gone into various attempts 
to solve the refugee problem. The United States, as we have seen, 
has participated actively in most of them, and has contributed a 
substantial part of the funds for all of them. With such conclusive 
evidence at hand, it seems superfluous here to labor the proposition 
that solution of the refugee question has been and continues to be of 
the greatest importance to this country. 

Attention can be more usefully directed to the question of whether 
the United States has done enough in accepting refugees as well as 
in planning, administering, and paying for the programs. The 
same Senate committee report quoted above contains this significant 
conclusion : 

The accomplishment of its [the International Refugee Organization's] mission 
has been substantially hampered by the failure of the nations of the world to 
assume their full responsibility for the solution of the displaced persons and 
refugees problems created by World War II. * * * 

With respect to the United States, the problem is particularly acute ... If 
our Government is to maintain leadership in this vital matter, it must carry 
out its declared policy by effective measures aimed at liberalizing the admis- 
sion of displaced persons. 

Until the nations of the world, including the United States, are ready and 
willing to meet these problems — in the only manner in which they can be met — 
by eliminating certain restrictions with respect to immigration, this problem will 
never be solved. 

This conclusion is as true today as when first announced by the Senate 
committee in 1949. 

The basic need for the refugee-expellee-escapee-displaced person 
problem is opportunity to migrate to another country. This does 
not mean that all of the 10,000,000 German refugees want or need 
to emigrate. Most of them are finding homes in Germany. However, 
the chance to emigrate is vitally necessary for some of these and other 
refugees, both as a real and as a psychological safety valve in a situa- 
tion of tension and frustration. Needless to say this is not a problem 


for the United States alone, but for all the nations of the free world 

The International Refugee Organization resettled 1,038,750 refu- 
gees in 41/2 years in 48 countries and an equal number of other areas. 
Of this total number, the United States took less than one-third, 
through the Displaced Persons Commission. The Displaced Per- 
sons Act, as amended, also brought to the United States some 55,000 
German expellees and 2,000 Italian refugees. When the Displaced 
Persons Commission's work ended in the summer of 1952, all visas 
authorized under the Displaced Persons Act had been issued to dis- 
placed persons, German expellees and Italian refugees and some 400,- 
000 people had entered the United States under the act. Yet the 
Displaced Persons Commission reported that there were still under 
consideration, likely to receive visas if more were available, 32,000 
German expellees, 1,500 Italian refugees, and 7,500 displaced persons. 
These are the so-called "pipeline cases". This is clearly "unfinished 

The refugee problem is much smaller now ; it has bounds ; it can be 
solved within a fairly short space of time. The United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees and the Intergovernmental Committee for 
European Migration (formerly PICMME) are handling it as best 
they can. The Commission is convinced that these international 
agencies should be given the strongest support by the United States 
and the rest of the free world. But the obstacle that faces them is the 
closing of doors to immigrants in the United States, Canada, Aus- 
tralia, and elsewhere. 

The refugee problem cannot be solved by closed doors. And as 

long as the problem continues, the United States will have to continue 
helping, in one way or another, to support the refugees. The United 
States will continue to spend more money and effort to bolster the 
Western European economies ; yet it will continue losing good will be- 
cause of its restrictive immigration policy. And most important of 
all, the United States will continue to pay the much larger price that 
results from the progress that communism and neo-nazism and neo- 
fascism make when frustration overtakes the people and countries 
whose refugee and expellee problems remain unsolved. Where the 
United States has taken the lead, as in the displaced persons program, 
the other countries have followed our example. 

Escapees from Iron Curtain Countries 

The escapee situation is even more critical at the present time. 
There are 20,000-25,000 persons, housed in camps in Germany, Aus- 
tria, Italy, Trieste, Greece, and Turkey, who have escaped from be- 
hind the Iron Curtain since January 1, 1948. These escapees are non- 

Germans. They are, in general, the people from behind the Iron Cur- 
tain who have most recently arrived, risking life and limb, leaving be- 
hind everything but the clothes on their backs, in order to live in 
freedom. Some of them have come because of the enticements held 
out to them by the Voice of America or by other Western propaganda 
for democracy. 

Now that the Communists have tightened up the border watch, the 
flow has dropped to about 500 a month. How many try and fail, pay- 
ing for the attempt with their lives, is anyone's guess, but at one 
point the mortality rate was estimated to be over 80 percent. 

Unfortunately, escapees are not likely to find the welcome and free- 
dom they thought would await them. They arrive in countries already 
surfeited with refugees. They cannot, for the most part, continue on 
to the United States, because of restrictions in our immigration law. 
And so most of them are put in camps, without work, with none of the 
comforts and few of the privileges or rights of free men. 

The United States has a special responsibility toward these people, 
and a special interest in them. At least some of them have come be- 
cause our propaganda lured them. If sacrifice earns the right to lib- 
erty, they have earned it. We cannot turn them away and expect 
those still behind the Iron Curtain to believe us ever again. 

Furthermore, they are, generally speaking, convinced opponents of 
Communist tyranny. They have experienced it, and they want no 
more of it. They can be helpful to us. And yet, we have done very 
little for them and nothing to welcome them to our shores. 

Out of the current Mutual Security appropriation, a fund of 
$4,300,000 has been set aside to help the resettlement of escapees. The 
announcement caused hopes to rise among those escapees in camps in 
Europe. It brought a short-lived increase in the rate of escape through 
the Iron Curtain. Its results have been negligible because the fund 
is too small and because the United States and the other free nations 
have formulated no adequate programs for their care and resettlement. 

The Commission believes that effective measures should be 
taken and adequate appropriations made to provide reasonable 
reception, care, and migration opportunities for escapees from 

The escapee problem is not a partisan political issue. It is generally 
agreed that something should be done immediately. President Tru- 
man said in his special Message to the Congress on March 24, 1952 : 

* * * specific aid and assistance should be provided for the people who are 
fleeing at the risk of their lives from southern and eastern Europe. These people 
are Baits, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Alba- 
nians, Ukrainians, and Russians. 

These people face a desperate situation. Not only do they arrive destitute, 
with only what they can carry on their backs, but they find themselves in to- 


tally strange lands among strange peoples speaking strange languages. The lo- 
cal authorities do not have adequate resources to care for them properly. These 
people need better care when they first arrive, and they need assistance if they 
are to move on and resettle elsewhere. 

The miserable conditions in which these fugitives from communism find them- 
selves, and their present inability to emigrate to new homes and start new lives, 
lead inevitably to despair. Their disillusionment is being effectively exploited by 
Communist propaganda. These men and women are friends of freedom. They 
include able and courageous fighters against communism. They ask only for an 
opportunity to play a useful role in the fight for freedom. It is the responsibility 
of the free world to afford them this opportunity. 

He recommended a program authorizing 21,000 escapees to migrate to 
the United States over a 3-year period, plus supplemental reception, 
care, payment of cost of ocean transportation, and a program of edu- 
cation for leadership for those who choose to remain in Europe. 
President-Elect Eisenhower said in a speech on October 17, 1952 : 

A contest for world leadership — in fact, for survival — exists between the Com- 
munist idea and the American ideal. That contest is being waged in the minds 
and hearts of human beings. We say — and we sincerely believe — that we are on 
the side of freedom ; that we are on the side of humanity. We say — and we 
know — that the Communists are on the side of slavery, the side of inhumanity. 

Yet to the .Czech, the Pole, the Hungarian who takes his life in his hands and 
crosses the frontier tonight — or to the Italian who goes to some American con- 
sulate — this ideal that beckoned r him can be a mirage because of the McCarran 

Secretary of State Acheson said, in his statement to the Commission : 

Another special problem of equal importance is that of the escapees from Com- 
munist countries. These people arrive in the border countries destitute. They 
have lost their homes, their property, and often their families. They have a deep 
hatred for communism — they know 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 with 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 dif- 
ficult for us to convince the captive populations behind the 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. 

Prof. Philip E. Mosley, president of the East European fund set up 
by the Ford Foundation, and member of the Kussian Institute of 
Columbia University, testified : 

I feel that we will strengthen our own country and the free world ... if we 
will open a door, or rather if we will reopen a door to the people who under 
intolerable pressure are escaping every day and every week from the Iron Curtain 

American foreign policy toward the countries behind the Iron Cur- 
tain, particularly the satellites, is to emphasize that their people Would 


be better off on our side. But in connection with escapees, a most 
vital aspect of the "cold war," American immigration law lies 
directly athwart our foreign policy. 



The foreign relations of the United States reflect not only our needs 
and desires, but also those of other nations. One of the most acute 
special needs of some key foreign countries today is for relief of over- 
population. At present they cannot make constructive use of all their 

Serious overpopulation problems exist in two separate areas of the 
world: (1) certain countries of western Europe, and (2) southern and 
eastern Asia. However, the problems and needs of these areas differ 
widely. The needs of the overpopulated European countries are for 
migration as well as economic development. The needs of the over- 
populated Asiatic countries, except perhaps Japan, are not for mi- 
gration but rather for economic development. 


Seven years after the end of hostilities in World War II, western 
Europe is still beset with a serious problem of excess population, con- 
centrated principally in the Netherlands, West Germany, Italy, and 
Greece. Hugh Gibson, Director of the Intergovernmental Committee 
for European Migration, gave the Commission an estimate of some 
3,500,000 people (including refugees) who cannot be absorbed into the 
economies of the countries in which they find themselves. 

The Netherlands. — The overpopulation of this country has become 
so serious that in September 1951 Queen Juliana wrote to the Presi- 
dent of the United States to urge his initiative in finding international 
means to deal with the whole European overpopulation problem. 

With the highest birth rate in northwestern Europe, the Nether- 
lands needs migration opportunities for its young people at least to 
the amount of 25,000 per year in addition to the current emigration 

West Germany. — The overpopulation problem is indistinguishable 
from the refugee-expellee-escapee-displaced persons problem. Ac- 
cording to the Bonn Government, some 1,350,000 of its people are 
potential emigrants. 

Italy. — This nation's situation is the most acute of all in Europe. 
Its already overburdened population has been augmented by some 
480,000 Italians repatriated from former colonies and other areas in 
the Mediterranean not presently open to Italian emigrants. Another 


125,000 Italians fled to Italy from land ceded to Yugoslavia in the 
Peace Treaty. 

Italy's excess population is concentrated primarily in the agri- 
cultural southern part of the peninsula and in Sicily. It is in those 
areas that the neo-Fascists have their greatest strength. In the same 
areas the Communists are currently making a strong bid for adherents. 
In the same areas one finds also the most frequent and general expres- 
sion of popular demand for emigration as the only hope for betterment. 

Prime Minister de Gasperi made a special plea to the United States 
Government in 1951 for cooperation in providing migration opportuni- 
ties for Italy. The failure of our immigration law to accord such 
cooperation has, in the judgment of competent and objective observers, 
weakened the prodemocratic forces in Italy. The critical nature of this 
matter can be seen from the reports of competent American observers 
in Italy to the effect that the population problem and its consequences 
may be crucial in elections to be held in the spring of 1953. 

Italy's geographic position in the Mediterranean makes it of the 
greatest importance to our security and to world peace. It is not with- 
out significance that the NATO conference in Lisbon early in 1952 
adopted a resolution concerning "the importance of emigration par- 
ticularly for Italy, but also for other countries." Nor is it an accident 
that the country with the most serious overpopulation problem, Italy, 
has the largest Communist Party in Western Europe. 

Overpopulation, in addition to its political effect of stimulating 
unrest and the search for radical remedies, has clear economic conse- 
quences, most of them stemming from unemployment. Our immigra- 
tion restrictions work against our foreign policy in Italy. 

Unemployment in Italy has been high ever since the war and remains 
today at about 2,000,000 totally unemployed. These people are a 
burden on the public economy since the State pays unemployment 
benefits which might otherwise be productively invested or used to 
build stronger military defenses. 

In addition to unemployment, underemployment in Italy is esti- 
mated in the neighborhood of 2 to 2y 2 million people. Under- 
employment constitutes an obstacle to the private economy in that an 
excess of hands reduces the impetus to raise farm and factory produc- 
tivity. As long as the United States continues to support the Italian 
economy, a significant part of our effort will be nullified by these 
factors. Belief of the overpopulation and of the consequent under- 
employment and unemployment would permit more efficient and 
effective use of United States economic and military aid to Italy. 

A frequent issue in connection with Italian overpopulation is the 
mistaken belief that the country has an unduly high birth rate. Actu- 
ally, Italy's birth rate is lower than that of the Netherlands. It is 
lower than that of France, the traditional example of a country whose 


birth rate is alarmingly low. Surprisingly, but nevertheless true, the 
Italian birth rate is now lower than that of the United States. Italy's 
birth rate has been declining for several generations and if this decline 
continues for the next 15 years it will no longer exceed the death rate. 
Italy's population growth will then cease — but its overpopulation 
crisis is now. 

Italy needs migration opportunities for another 170,000 people a 
year, as a supplement to the even greater additional number for whom 
resettlement opportunities are already in prospect. 

Greece. — Greece has a triple problem of internal refugees uprooted 
during the recent civil war, refugees from abroad, and native popula- 
tion growth. The Greek Government believes that emigration oppor- 
tunities must be provided for 30,000 of its surplus population a year. 

The situation in Western Europe has been described by Hugh 
Gibson, Director of the Intergovernmental Committee for European 
Migration, as follows : 

While the refugee and surplus population problem faced by individual coun- 
tries of Western Europe varies in its nature, the situation as a whole presents 
certain common features. . . . For all the countries it is a problem which 
causes deep concern to the governments by reason of its damaging effect upon 
political, economic, and social conditions ; the situation as a whole is one of the 
most serious obstacles to the stability of Western Europe in general. 

The refugee-overpopulation situation in "Western Europe has the 
following general characteristics : 

(1) Overpopulation exists in certain countries and causes unem- 
ployment and underemployment; 

(2) Unemployment provides a fertile field for extremist agitation 
of Eight and Left ; 

(3) It constitutes a drain on the economy of these countries in a 
variety of ways ; 

(4) The objectives of American programs of aid to these coun- 
tries, whether economic or military, are hampered by the consequent 
political and economic instability ; 

(5) A small amount of emigration can have lasting and successful 
effect in resolving the difficulties that arise from overpopulation in all 
these European countries. 


Except for Japan, which resembles the European countries in this 
respect, the situation in Asia is completely different. The problem of 
refugees, where it exists, is predominantly internal and cannot be dis- 
tinguished from the problem of overpopulation. The structure and 
birth rate of the Asian populations, and the stage of economic develop- 
ment of their countries, are all quite different from those of the Euro- 


pean countries. Only in Japan, with its rapidly declining birth rate 
can migration offer real relief for population pressures in the next few 

The best scientific and professional advice available to the Commis- 
sion is to the effect that migration offers no solution to overpopula- 
tion on the Asiatic mainland. No conceivable migratory movement 
could provide substantial relief for present Asian surplus population, 
much less for the annual growth of some 10 million a year in non- 
Communist Asia. For the Asian mainland, the need is for better use 
of resources and economic development where the people now live. 

On the other hand, for Western Germany, Greece, Italy, the Nether- 
lands, and perhaps Japan, the need is different. Emigration can 
serve as a safety valve for transitory problems of critical popula- 
tion pressures. These countries have reached a stage of economic 
development and population structure at which both the need and 
desire for migration is most acute and where its result would be soon 
effective. This is not to say, of course, that economic development 
is not also equally important in these particular countries. However, 
a concerted international effort to deal with the burden of present 
overpopulation would serve to bring about a relatively manage- 
able situation in which the natural population increase of such coun- 
tries can be readily absorbed for productive use within their own 

These countries need and can have substantial results from imme- 
diate international efforts to move some of their surplus population. 
All reliable scientific evidence indicates that effective international 
migration programs can and will have a lasting and successful effect 
for these countries. The contrary is true for the Asian mainland. 

The same general situation prevails as to refugees. In Europe the 
problems of refugees, expellees, escapees, and displaced persons are 
now finite. With a coordinated international effort, in which the 
United States would play its part, the end of these European refugee 
and related problems is in sight. 

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the refugee situation 
in Asia, where the dislocations of World War II have been equalled 
if not exceeded by the dislocations of the postwar period. Apart from 
the Arab refugee situation in the Near East, the refugee problem in 
Asia is not distinct from the general problem of overpopulation in 
those areas. For example, the partition of India set in motion 18,- 
000,000 refugees, an exchange of Hindu and Moslem. This occurred 
principally in the Punjab and in Bengal. However, the acute political, 
social, and economic problem in India is not in the Punjab, but in 
South India, especially Madras, where there is no refugee problem. 

The problems of overpopulation and refugees in Asia are of vital 


importance to world peace. Their solution, however, cannot — as it can 
in Europe — find major relief through migration. 

The Remedy 

No one has suggested that emigration is the only or whole solution 
of these population problems. Nor has anyone suggested that the 
United States alone should try to meet them. They are international 
problems. However, the Commission is convinced that the inflexi- 
bility of our present immigration law prevents the United States from 
making any special contribution to the solution of these issues. 

Anything which has the effect of weakening our partners, as over- 
population certainly does, has also the effect of weakening the se- 
curity of the United States. Since our foreign economic and military 
policies are devoted in large measure to building the strength of these 
very countries, failure to help them solve the problem of overpopula- 
tion quickly works against their strength and our safety. Each of the 
four European countries mentioned is part of NATO or involved 
in plans for western defense, and therefore is essential to our own 
security protection. And Japan occupies a critical role in Asian 

The Secretary of State advised the Commission : 

A special effort to reduce the overpopulation problem to manageable propor- 
tions, would be a most effective step toward our foreign policy goals. 

In a joint declaration of May 1950, the Foreign Ministers of France 
and the United Kingdom and our Secretary of State said : 

In the course of their discussions the Foreign Ministers have recognized that 
the excess of population from which several countries in Western Europe are 
suffering is one of the most important elements in the difficulties and disequi- 
librium of the world. 

In a special statement to the Commission, Hugh Gibson, Director, 
Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration, wrote: 

* * * the establishment of the Committee, as a result of American initiative 
based on broadmindedness 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 so- 
lutions and to adopt policies, the international implications of which were 
highly dangerous. International cooperation, and the solutions to this problem 
thereby made possible, are essential for mutual understanding between the 
members of the Atlantic community as well as between the members of the 
European community. 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. 

Three facts are obvious in this situation: (1) the United States 
alone cannot solve the problem of European overpopulation; (2) the 

250653 O — 53 6 65 

problem is one of international concern in whose settlement the United 
States is deeply involved; and (3) the present United States immi- 
gration law impedes our participation in international migration 
efforts, and thus prevents us from exercising the kind of leadership 
that would encourage other countries to admit a larger number of 
European immigrants. 


Many applicants for visas desire to visit the United States for only 
a short time. They may be students, teachers, writers, scholars, busi- 
nessmen, lecturers, concert musicians, tourists, or other visitors. They 
may plan to visit for a day or so (for example, in the case of a scientist 
to address a meeting) , or stay a few weeks or as much as a year, or even 
just to pass through the United States on the way to a destination in 
Canada, Mexico, or another country. 

In any event, they must have a visa from a United States consular 
officer abroad before leaving on their trip. And even if they are to be 
in the United States only for several hours, they must satisfy sub- 
stantially all the health, financial, security, and other requirements 
that apply to permanent immigrants. 

In recent years, an increasing number of visitors have been sub- 
jected to denials, difficulties, and delays in getting visas. In prac- 
tically every case the problem is one of security clearance. The 
process of security investigation has become more rigorous and time 
consuming. And even where the visa is finally issued, the nature of 
the process may diminish international good will toward the United 

From testimony before the Commission, it would appear that the 
greatest number of current cases involve foreign scientists, although 
businessmen, journalists, technical assistance team members, artists, 
and writers have also been affected. It should be remembered that, 
as to foreign authorities in the arts and sciences, many of the amplica- 
tions for visas are prompted by urgent invitations from distinguished 
American institutions. 

The number of people involved in the problem is probably small, al- 
though no definite statistics have been made available to the Commis- 
sion. The international repercussions, however, are disproportionate 
to the number for the simple reason that the persons affected generally 
occupy prominent places in the social, commercial, or intellectual life 
of their countries. Their opinions carry more than ordinary weight 
and their prejudices are likely to be more widely reflected in the views 
of the country's press and official documents. 

If it becomes known that any of them has been denied a visa to visit 
the United States, the fact makes the headlines in both the Communist 


and non-Communist press. If the individual concerned believes the 
denial to be mistaken or unjust, and chooses to complain about it, 
he wields a good deal of influence on the attitudes of his friends and 
associates. In the light of our desire to exercise leadership among 
free nations, it is especially important to the United States that the 
favorable impression these people have of America be not unneces- 
sarily diminished and that they be not subjected to petty annoyances, 
irritations, and embarrassment. 

Among scientific groups abroad, particularly in the United King- 
dom and France, comparisons have been voiced between the Soviet 
Iron Curtain and the American "Uranium Curtain." This reaction 
is reflected to a certain extent in some of the most influential foreign 
newspapers. The Manchester Guardian of England, in particular, has 
commented on at least two occasions, concluding one editorial with the 
statement that : 

This visa business is doing the United States incalculable harm and is undoing 
all the lavish propaganda about its noble leadership of the free world. 

Jean Jacques Servan-Schreiber, an influential French journalist who 
is usually friendly toward this country, last September wrote that the 
new immigration law 

is stupid, inefficacious and does more harm to United States prestige than all 
the Soviet propaganda. 

Another consequence is that international scientific congresses are 
beginning to avoid the United States. The International Congress 
of Psychology, for example, was originally scheduled to meet in this 
country in 1954. It has been shifted to Montreal, Canada, specifically 
in order to avoid embarrassment to members who might be denied 
visas to this country or whose visas might be delayed until months 
after the meeting was over. Similar reasons governed the decision of 
the International Congress of Genetics to meet in Italy in 1953 and 
probably in Canada the following year rather than in the United 
States. The International Astronomical Union declined an invitation 
to hold its next meeting in this country because of the visa situation. 
Although the International Federation of Documentation and the 
International Physiological Congress gave other reasons for declining 
invitations to meet here, it is understood, the Commission was told, 
that similar considerations figured in their decisions. 

A third consequence, more important for national security than for- 
eign relations (but not unrelated to the strength of the Western 
World), flows from the denial of visas to foreign scientific visitors. 
For example, Enrico Fermi, the refugee Italian scientist who played a 
crucial role in the development of atomic energy during the war, would 
probably have great difficulty entering this country today. Some of 
America's most distinguished scientists warned the Commission that 


such intellectual strangulation was dangerous for our own national 

Dr. Vannevar Bush, President of the Carnegie Institution of Wash- 
ington, and former Director of the war-time Office of Scientific Re- 
search and Development, testified as follows : 

My principal criticism of our law in regard to immigration and naturaliza- 
tion, as far as the scientist is concerned, is that the shoe has always seemed to 
be on the wrong foot. Instead of placing our emphasis on the desirability of 
attracting the right individuals, most of our emphasis has been on the problem 
of keeping the wrong ones out. 

. . . I am quite sure that this has given a bad impression throughout the 
world of our attitude in this country toward scientists generally . . . Even 
where there has been no exclusion . . . the impression has been very bad, 
indeed . . . 

Dr. Alan T. "Waterman, Director of the National Science Founda- 
tion, advised the Commission as follows : 

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 channels, 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 handicap to our 
progress in science will in turn unquestionably react adversely 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 statement from the Atomic Energy Commission read, in part, as 
follows : 

The Commission has always encouraged visits by foreign scientists to the 
United States when such visits would make a constructive contribution to the 
atomic energy program insofar as they were consistent with 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 basic 
knowledge is urgently needed and where the traditionally free exchange of basic 
scientific information is essential to maximum progress. Foreign science can 
and does make really significant contributions to these fields. It is important, 
therefore, that this source of help not be denied the United States. Certainly any 
legislation which denies to the United States the free exchange of basic scientific 
information may impede the research and development programs of the Com- 
mission and its contractors. 

Howard A. Meyerhoff, representing the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, advised the Commission : 

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 sup- 


plied 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 difficulty or outright refusal was experienced. They are 
rightly concerned, however, with the imperfections of the law and its administra- 
tion, because these imperfections are creating ill will that is being reflected in 
the increasing number of decisions on the part of international scientific bodies 
not to schedule meetings in the United States. If this trend 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 origi- 
nates within the confines of the United States. 

The Federation of Atomic Scientists made similar representation 
to the Commission in several of its hearings. Professor Edward A. 
Shils, of the University of Chicago, who edited a special edition of the 
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, for October 1952, devoted to visa 
policy, testified that the subject had "very great import for the United 
States and America's foreign relations." He said of our present visa 
policy : 

Now this is not only injurious to American science and injurious therefore to 
American development and welfare and to American intellectual achievement; 
it is injurious to the achievement of the ends of foreign policy. Every time a 
visa is refused to an eminent European scientist or scholar, and many times when 
it isn't, it gets into the Communist press. Of course, . . . Communists believe 
what they believe and . . . [we] can't do much about that, but there are a large 
number of people in Europe who are not Communists, who are pro-American and 
want to be, and they find it difficult to defend the American policy when America 
behaves in this way. 

The situation is broader than the admission of scientists. The 
American Academy of Arts and Sciences took formal action, through 
its Council, as follows, in part : 

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is gravely concerned by the 
formidable barriers which now exist to the entry of our foreign colleagues in 
the arts and sciences into this country. 

. . . These barriers are a serious threat to the progress of American science and 
learning . . . the present restrictions on the entry of foreign scholars to this 
country are actually dangerous even from the point of view of national security. 
Moreover, the obstacles to the admission of distinguished foreign visitors to this 
country have results that are often extremely damaging to American prestige 
abroad. They diminish, amorig S ome of our best friends in foreign countries, 
the trust and respect in which we are held, and thereby tend to nullify some of 
the major aims of our foreign policy. 

This same embarrassment to our foreign relations was called to the 
Commission's attention by Dudley T. Easby, Secretary of the Metro- 
politan Museum of Art, Dr. Henry Allen Moe, Secretary of the John 
Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and Professor Sidney 
Painter, director of the American Council of Learned Societies, among 



The Commission is convinced that our present immigration law 
has a detrimental effect upon our foreign relations in a variety of 

Discriminatory racial and national restrictions in immigration 
law have made enemies for the United States in the past, and will 
continue to lose us friends as long as they remain in the law. In 

this respect, our immigration law conflicts with American propa- 
ganda abroad, an important arm of foreign policy, which emphasizes 
equality and mutual interests among the free nations. Present immi- 
gration law causes large areas of the world, of greatest importance to 
our own national security and welfare, to resent us and view us with 
growing distrust. 

The immigration laws of the United States frustrate our foreign 
policy by hindering our efforts in friendly and allied countries to 
encourage their political stability and unity, rebuild their economies 
and strengthen their military power. 

Rigidity in the national origins quota system prevents the United 
States from acting quickly and effectively in helping to relieve 
refugee and overpopulation problems when and where they arise. 

Population pressure gives rise to economic and political instability 
and thus augments the very conditions which foreign aid programs of 
the United States are designed to ameliorate. Moreover, the inability 
of the United States to deal flexibly with refugee and overpopulation 
pressures reduces the influence this country might exert on other coun- 
tries to help solve these problems. 

Our present national origins quota system prevents the United 
States from giving asylum to escapees from the Iron Curtain 
countries. Besides being contrary to American traditions, this bar- 
rier tends to disillusion the escapees, and denies us the value of their 
help in organizing effective pro-democratic appeals. The present 
immigration law is inconsistent with the aim of our foreign policy to 
uphold the values of freedom in contrast to the chains of Communist 
dictatorship. The effect is to blunt one of our most important psy- 
chological weapons in the cold war. 

Our immigration law and procedures have had the effect, in some 
instances, of keeping out temporary visitors who should be wel- 
comed to this country. The testimony has shown that important 
circles in friendly foreign countries are growing resentful of Ameri- 
can immigration policy, and are losing confidence in the sincerity of 
American professions of devotion to democracy. 

The Commission's study of the effect of the present immigration 
laws upon our foreign relations leads to this conclusion : in order to 


advance our national interests, strengthen our security, and con- 
tribute to the achievement of our foreign aims, American immigra- 
tion policy should be free from discrimination on the basis of na- 
tionality, race, creed, or color and should be flexible enough to 
permit the United States to engage fully in such special migration 
efforts as may be important to the security of the Free World. 


Part III 


Chapter 4 

The Annual 
Immigration Quota 

Until 1921 there was no numerical limitation of immigration into 
this country. The first national census in 1790 recorded a population 
of slightly under 4,000,000. Immigration continued to mount grad- 
ually. Some have estimated that between 1790 and 1820 approxi- 
mately one-quarter of a million immigrants entered the United States. 
From 1841 through 1920 immigration into the United States averaged 
some 411,000 persons per year. The largest annual number of immi- 
grants to enter the United States was 1,285,349 in 1907. 

The 1921 act placed the first maximum ceiling upon immigration. 
It limited the number to 357,800 a year, of which 198,000 were to come 
from Northern and Western Europe, and 156,000 from Southern and 
Eastern Europe. Each country's quota was limited to 3 percent of 
the number of people born in that country who were reported in the 
United States census of 1910. 

The 1924 act further restricted the number of immigrants and had 
two separate formulas. The first, and temporary formula, author- 
ized the admission of 165,000 a year. Of this number, 141,000 a year 
were to be from Northern and Western Europe ; 20,000 from Southern 
and Eastern Europe ; and 4,000 were non-Europeans. In this formula 
the 3 percent of the 1921 act was reduced to 2 percent and the 1910 
census was changed to the 1890 census. 

The second formula of the 1924 act become effective in 1929 and 
with slight changes continues to the present time. This authorized 
the admission of 153,714 immigrants based on a total of 150,000 plus 
minimum quotas of 100 for all countries. By 1952, this figure had 
become 154,277 by virtue of minor changes. The total approximated 
one-sixth of 1 percent of the white population in the 1920 census (the 
last available at the time the 1924 act was passed.) 

Ever since the Act of 1924 became effective, immigration for per- 
manent residence in this country has been divided into two classes, 
quota and nonquota. Quota immigration is that which, under existing 
law, is limited by the total number assigned annually to each nation- 
ality, area or country. The practice in such cases is to admit an alien 


by assigning a number to him from the quota allotted to his nation- 
ality, area or country ; and no quota visa is issued unless a number is 

In addition to the quotas both the 1924 and 1952 acts authorize the 
admission without numerical limitation of nonquota immigrants for 
permanent residence. These principally include alien spouses and 
children of American citizens and natives of the independent nations 
of the Western Hemisphere. Under the Immigration Act of 1924 
ministers and teachers were also permitted to immigrate to the United 
States as nonquota immigrants. However, under the 1952 Act, 
teachers are required to obtain a quota number and to wait until that 
number is reached. 

The most recent step in the legislative declaration of a maximum 
quota was in the act of 1952 which set a maximum authorization of 
154,657. This figure was based on a flat one-sixth of 1 percent of 
the white population in the 1920 census, excluding Negroes, American 
Indians, and other nonwhite persons in the population. 

A comparison of the quotas allotted to individual countries under 
the four different versions of the quota system is indicated in the 
following table : 

Table 3. — Annual Immigration Quotas, by Country, Under Succes- 
sive Immigration Laws: 1921—1952 

1921 act 

3 percent 


1924 act 

2 percent 





1952 Im- 
tion and 
ality Act 


357, 803 

164, 667 

153, 714 

154, 657 

Asia _ _ __ _ __ . _ 



356, 952 



161, 422 



150, 491 

2, 990 

Africa and Oceania 


Europe __ 

149, 667 

Northern and western Europe: 

Belgium _______ 




67, 607 

77, 342 




51, 227 

34, 007 

28, 567 



9, 561 



1, 181 


25, 957 

65, 721 

17, 853 

3, 153 




1, 297 

Denmark . __ __ 

1, 175 

France _____ 

3, 069 

Germany _ __ _ _ _ 

25, 814 

Great Britain and Northern Ireland- 
Irish Free State. _ 

65, 361 
17, 756 

Netherlands _ 

12, 202 
20, 042 


3, 136 


2, 364 

Sweden _ __ 

3, 295 

Switzerland ._ _ 

1, 698 

Total northern and western 

197, 630 

140, 999 

127, 266 

126, 131 


Table 3. — Annual Immigration Quotas, by Country, Under 
Successive Immigration Laws: 1921—1952 — Continued 

Southern and eastern Europe: 









Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- 



Total southern and eastern 

1921 act 

3 percent 



14, 357 



42, 057 

30, 977 



24, 405 

155, 585 

1924 act 

2 percent 














1, 413 


2, 784 


20, 423 

23, 235 

1952 Im- 
tion and 
ality Act 










23, 536 


The Commission believes that there should be a maximum ceiling 
on the number of quota immigrants who should be admitted into 
the United States each year. The Commission recommends con- 
tinuation of the use, on a nondiscriminatory and current basis, of 
the formula in the 1952 Act. The maximum quota to be authorized 
for admission into the United States in any year thus, would be 
one-sixth of 1 percent of the total population in the last avail- 
able census. Specifically this means for the present, the use of the 
1950 census instead of the 1920 census, and it means that the popula- 
tion base to which the one-sixth of 1 percent ratio is applied shall 
include Negroes, American Indians, and other nonwhite peoples. The 
last total population of the United States and its distribution by white 
and nonwhite is shown in the table : 

Table 4. — 1950 Enumerated Population of the United States, by 



All races. 



American Indian 
Other (Asiatics). 


150, 697, 361 

134, 941, 622 

15, 042, 692 

343, 410 

369, 637 


One-sixth of 1 percent of the total 1950 population of the United 
States is 251,162. Since the proposed percentage indicates a rela- 
tionship between an annual maximum volume of immigration and 
the population of the United States, that percentage should apply 
to the latest available population data. The House Judiciary Com- 
mittee in 1952 stated that it recognized the fact that revision of 
immigration quotas might be necessary on the basis of a later census, 
and requested the United States Bureau of the Census to undertake 
the necessary studies. 

A fixed volume of immigration each year means a constantly de- 
clining ratio of immigrants to the total population because of the 
natural increase in the population. On the other hand, if the immi- 
gration quota is a fixed percentage of the population, then the amount 
of immigration would increase proportionately with the growth of 
the total population. 

The Commission finds no justification for the elimination of Negroes, 
American Indians, and other nonwhite residents from the population 
base to which the one-sixth of 1 percent is to be applied. It is a 
discriminatory and unwarranted provision which should be elimi- 
nated from the law. The Commission recommends that the popu- 
lation base include the total number of people in the United States, 
without regard to color, race, or national origin. 


The capacity of the United States to absorb and profit by substan- 
tial migration is discussed in Chapter 2. Many expert witnesses 
addressed themselves to the question of the number of immigrants 
the country can safely receive. 

The Secretary of Labor, in his testimony before the Commission, 
stated : 

... we could safely absorb substantially more than the 155,000 quota im- 
migrants that are authorized by Public Law 414 . . . The peak immigration 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 adversely 

Subsequent to the Commission's hearing, the Secretary of Labor 
stated in a public speech : 

. . . Our experts in the Department of Labor have tried to estimate the effects 
on our population of a larger number of immigrants in the years immediately 
ahead. I want you to know that their figures and their analysis show this 
Nation could absorb several hundred thousand every year, under present con- 
ditions, adding only the most negligible percentage to our population and placing 
no burden on our economy . . . 


The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, testifying for the United 
States Department of Agriculture, noted that the Department had 
supported legislation which would admit 100,000 persons a year, for 
3 years, in addition to the normal 154,000 allowed under the quotas. 
He informed the Commission that : 

. . . benefits would result from such additional immigrants to our country as 
a whole and to agriculture in particular. 

Some of the leading population experts of this country testified 
before the Commission. The director of the Office of Population Re- 
search of Princeton University, Prof. Frank Wallace Notestein, ad- 
vised the Commission as follows : 

Within the scope of a reasonably small migration — one of the general order 
of 5 million within 10 years — it is possible that a program might be designed 
that would work to our own advantage as well as to the advantage of selected 
regions of origin. 

He stated that there was no proof that it would do the slightest harm 
to our economy. 

The former Acting Director of the Bureau of the Census, Prof. 
Philip Hauser of the University of Chicago, testified : 

"The present numerical limitation is absurdly low . . . [and is] unrelated to 
the needs of the United States. . . This figure of 250,000 by no meang represents 
the upper limit of immigrants which we could safely absorb . . ." 

Organized labor testified before the Commission, in its various 
hearings around the country. Labor's views are especially significant 
in this regard not only because of its obvious desire to protect the in- 
terests of American labor, but because of its historical attitude of op- 
position to liberal immigration legislation. But its views are differ- 
ent now. 

Philip Murray, late president of the Congress of Industrial Or- 
ganizations, submitted his views to the Commission. After pointing 
out that until 1924, immigration amounted to 1 percent of the current 
population, he stated : 

I do not believe that any evidence has ever been adduced that immigration 
on this scale adversely affected wage scales in this country or the economy of 
the country : if anything the evidence seems to be directly to the contrary. 
Hence, it appears that this country could, without danger to its wage scales or 
economy, absorb each year a substantial number of immigrants. 

The American Federation of Labor also testified before the Com- 
mission. It pointed to its earlier espousal of legislation which would 
have increased the total authorized quota and special immigration to 
over 250,000 a year for 3 years, and then stated : 

At beet, 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. 


Prof. Arnold C. Harberger, staff member for the President's Ma- 
terials Policy Commission, testified that an authorized immigration 
of even 400,000 a year could easily be absorbed without any lowering 
of our standard of living. 

Dr. Harold G. Moulton, retired president of the Brookings Insti- 
tution, published in 1949, a book entitled Controlling Factors in Eco- 
nomic Development, in which he reached the conclusion that so far 
as natural resources and productive capacity are concerned the United 
States could double its population within the next 100 years and that 
we could enjoy a standard of living eight times as high as that prevail- 
ing in 1949. 

Of particular interest in the Commission's hearings was the unan- 
imous view of the major religious faiths of America, Protestant, Jew- 
ish and Catholic, that the United States could safely absorb some 
250,000 immigrants a year. These church groups had vigorously 
supported the now terminated displaced persons program, with its 
authorization of some 100,000 persons annually for 4 years over and 
above the regular immigration quota of 154,000. Some of these 
church groups testified that a 250,000 annual ceiling was a desirable 
one for permanent legislation. Others testified that at least for the 
next 3 years, if not permanently, an annual rate of 250,000 should be 
established by law. 

For example, Dr. Walter W. Van Kirk, testifying in behalf of 
the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of 
America, recommended an annual admission rate of approximately 
250,000 immigrants a year for the next 3 years, including regular 
immigrants and refugees of various categories. This view was spe- 
cifically supported by Dr. Joseph M. Dawson, representing the Bap- 
tist World Alliance, Rev. Harold H. Henderson, representing the Pres- 
byterian Church, U. S. A., and the Very Rev. Francis B. Sayre, Jr., 
dean of the Washington (Episcopal) Cathedral. 

A similar view was expressed by Miss Cordelia Cox, of the Na- 
tional Lutheran Council : 

The experience in immigration under the Displaced Persons Act gives evi- 
dence that there is room in the United States . . . We admitted somewhat more 
than 250,000 in 1951, and so far we haven't felt any ill effects . . . what we are 
doing, have been doing up until 1951, was a mere trickle. 

She went on to describe the situation in her own organization : 

. . . Comparatively these numbers were so small that they neither disturbed 
the balance of the labor market nor met the existing need for labor ... In our 
national office and in our 36 area offices there are thousands of requests for 
farm and domestic workers. We can place any number of precision workers, 
engineers, doctors and nurses. The need for more workers is documented daily 
in agencies like ours which are known to be interested in immigration. These 
"sample" experiences of one agency indicate something of the possible total 
needs of the United States. 


Monsignor Edward E. Swanstrom, Executive Director, War Relief 
Services, National Catholic Welfare Conference, testified that in- 
stead of the present law a figure of more than 300,000 per year would 
be reasonable : 

We might well establish an annual admission figure in ratio to our popula- 
tion ; for example, 1 new immigrant to every 500 people in our country. 

Various Jewish organizations advocated this same general figure as 
a minimum annual quota for permanent legislation. 

The United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics indicated 
to the Commission that a net annual immigration of 250,000 persons 
would result in an increase in the labor force by 1955 of less than 
one-half of 1 percent. And this increase, it should be added, would 
be distributed throughout the entire area and among all the ap- 
proximately 30,000 occupations of the United States. 

The Commission recommends an annual immigration quota 
ceiling of 251,162, based on the 1950 Census, which on the evi- 
dence presented is fully within the capacity of the United States 
in the foreseeable future. 

250053 O— 53 7 


Chapter 5 

National Origins 
System — Background 

The immigration laws can limit the number of immigrants who may 
enter the United States each year, without reliance upon national 
origins as the method of selecting such immigrants. The total number 
and the method of selection within that number are two separate 

The quota or ceiling was introduced into our law in 1921. The 
concept of the national origins as a means of selection within a quota 
was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1924 which became effective 
on July 1, 1929. Each of these devices had its own unique objective. 

The national origins system has been justified as an attempt to 
guarantee that particular ethnic, racial, or nationality groups would 
have preference for entry into the United States, on the assumption 
that they were more adaptable to American culture. 

The avowed purpose of the national origins system, therefore, was 
a qualitative one. It was concerned with the kind of persons coming 
into the United States rather than with their number. The test it 
applied was not the individual- worth of an immigrant, but rather 
the presumed superiority of people from certain areas of the world. 
Place of birth, not individual capacity or actual cultural background, 
was the test. 

This concern with the caliber and quality of immigrants is naturally 
not new to our people. However, in most of our history qualitative 
selection was designed to keep out the obviously undesirable individual 
and not to distinguish between peoples or races. 

There have been five historical stages in the development of our 
immigration policies. 


In colonial times there were no national immigration policies, but 
only those of the individual colonies and of the mother country. These 
policies differed from colony to colony and accounted for major dif- 
ferences in regional development, as, for example, between the 
Northern States, which early encouraged free labor from Europe, and 
the South, where a plantation economy encouraged the importation of 
slaves rather than of free workers. 


The general problem of the colonial period was that of peopling 
an empty land. The population of the colonies was small and the 
continent was a vast unexplored and unsettled domain. Yet, even 
in those early days the antagonists of new immigration asserted that 
there was no room for more immigrants, and that the new arrivals 
were introducing an alien element and philosophy into the established 
communities. What may be "new immigration" to some is "old 
immigration" to others. For example, of 56 signers of the Declara- 
tion of Independence, 8 were first-generation immigrants. . 

The earliest colonists were predominantly British, although the 
Dutch, Swedes, French Huguenots and some Spanish and Portuguese 
Jews were settled in certain areas. When the Scotch-Irish came 
shortly after 1714, they aroused considerable uneasiness. They were 
followed by a migration of Germans whose arrival was resented and 
feared by many. 

During these early years arguments which seem strikingly familiar 
today were developed against immigration. There was a fear that the 
new immigrants' differences in speech, customs and antecedents would 
disturb the cultural unity of the American people. Many objected 
to the caliber of the immigrants, particularly to those who were pau- 
pers and criminals. Other opposition grew out of religious prejudices. 

In general, however, immigration was encouraged during the colo- 
nial period, and some 750,000 people came to these shores from 1600 
to 1770. The charters of Virginia (1609) and Massachusetts (1629) 
granted the right to "abide and live" not only to "our loving subjects" 
but to "any other strangers that will become our loving subjects." In 
the Declaration of Independence the colonists declared that one of 
their chief grievances was that the government of the mother country 
had hindered the free flow of people into the colonies. 

The founding fathers continued the tradition of encouraging immi- 
gration. The Continental Congress, for example, invited the Hessian 
mercenaries of George III to leave his service and settle in the 
Americas. The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power 
to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, necessarily implying that 
newcomers would join the community. 

In 1783 George Washington declared : 

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable 
stranger but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions ; whom 
we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency 
and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment. 

The Federal Government used the principle of religious freedom to 
stimulate immigration as the guaranty of religious freedom in the 
Northwest Ordinance (1787) exemplifies. Alexander Hamilton, who 
was born in the British West Indies, wrote in his Report of Manu- 


factures in 1792: "A perfect equality of religious privileges will 
probably cause them [immigrants] to flock from Europe to the United 
States." Tench Coxe, Assistant Secretary of State, in 1790, compiled 
notes for the "Information of the Immigrant" in which he listed all 
religious faiths in the United States and definitely offered assurance 
of religious liberty as an inducement for immigration. 


The second stage of our immigration history occurred approxi- 
mately from 1800 to 1875. Immigrants were still welcome and sought 
for, but concern was beginning to be expressed for the qualitative 
aspects of immigration. As early as 1819 legislation was passed to 
improve the condition of immigrants on vessels bound for the United 
States. Although the policy of the nation was to encourage and 
welcome newcomers, efforts were made to bar paupers, criminals, and 
others clearly undesirable. 

The restrictionist sentiments of those who opposed free immigration 
were sharpened by the steady rise in the tide of immigration. This 
so-called "native American" movement was first crystallized in the 
Native American Party, launched about 1835. About 1850 this group 
became known as the Know-Nothings and in later years it emerged as 
the American Protective Association. With the expansion of this 
faction's support and influence there were recurrent manifestations 
of anti-alien feeling, some of which were accompanied by acts of 
violence against foreigners. 

Yet an 1841 message from President Tyler to Congress stated : "We 
hold out to the peoples of other countries an invitation to come and 
settle among us as members of our rapidly growing family. . . ." 
The platform of the Republican Party (then called the Union Party) 
which Abraham Lincoln helped to write in 1864, stated: "Foreign 
immigration . . . should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and 
just policy." 


The third stage of immigration in America was in the period of 
1875 to 1920. There was a sharp rise in the volume of immigration 
commencing in the 1880's, with immigrants coming from every coun- 
try in Europe. This period saw the first general Federal immigration 
statute, which barred convicts, lunatics, and persons likely to become 
a public charge ; the Chinese Exclusion Act, which virtually shut the 
gates of entry to Chinese; the Contract Labor Act, designed to end 
wholesale importation of cheap labor; and other acts providing for 
the exclusion and deportation of aliens. 


In this period Congress set up the Immigration Commission of 
1907. This Commission submitted a voluminous report in 1911 which 
discussed the desirability of limiting immigration and favored a 
literacy test as "the most feasible single method of restricting unde- 
sirable immigration." Bills prescribing a literacy test for immigrants 
were passed at various times by Congress, but were vetoed by Presi- 
dents Cleveland, Taft, and Wilson. A fourth bill was vetoed by 
President Wilson but his veto was overridden by Congress in enacting 
the Immigration Act of 1917. In addition to establishing the literacy 
requirement, the 1917 act codified and extended previous restrictions. 
In addition, it established a so-called Asiatic Barred Zone, which was 
intended to bar Orientals. 

There were numerous other statutes which imposed supplementary 
restrictions on immigration. In general, all the legislation during 
this period concerned itself with improving the quality of individual 
immigrants and with shutting out Orientals. 


The fourth major stage of our immigration history was the period 
from 1920 to 1950. The United States had emerged from the First 
World War anxious to return to "normalcy." But now the United 
States, with some 106 million people, was "filled up," and the pre- 
vailing doctrine of the open door to European migration was chal- 
lenged from several directions : 

Politically, the nation was suffering a sharp revulsion against the 
war. Implicit in much of the thinking was the desire to forget the 
conflict and all it meant in terms of United States responsibilities in 
Europe and the world. The country turned its back on President 
Wilson^ on the "internationalists" and on the League of Nations. It 
indulged in reaction against "foreign" influences. Fear of the Bol- 
shevist menace resulted in various forms of legislative and adminis- 
trative suppressions. There were strong undercurrents of racial and 
religious prejudices, most dangerously expressed in the Ku Klux Klan, 
which ultimately gained millions of members. 

Ideologically, the more extreme rationale of this dramatic national- 
ist revival was the gospel of Nordic white supremacy. These views 
did not go unchallenged, but they had a marked influence on American 
attitudes toward immigration. 

Economically, there were more immediate causes for concern in the 
situation after World War I. The country entered a prosperous 
period in late 1915, mainly as a result of the war in Europe. The 
economy hesitated briefly in the first few months after the Armistice, 
and then boomed in earnest. The labor market was very tight and 


prices soared to a peak in mid- 1920. Strikes became numerous as 
workers were affected by inflation. The collapse was swift. Whole- 
sale prices dropped and manufacturing production fell. Unemploy- 
ment mounted rapidly. Labor saw immigration as a potential threat 
to its standards of living. 

Socially, the crowding of immigrants in the cities and the slums 
had created serious concerns about housing, health, crime, and assimi- 
lation, problems undoubtedly accentuated by the large number of 
immigrants in the prewar era. 

Many bills prohibiting or restricting immigration were introduced 
in the House and the Senate of the United States Congress in the 
years from 1918 to 1921. Rumors were afloat that a flood of European 
immigrants, including many alleged undesirables, were getting ready 
to engulf the country. This reported prospective invasion was said 
to number millions. The sheer physical limitation of steamship facil- 
ities and of financial means, not to mention political and legal restric- 
tions at home, seemed to play little part in reducing these rumors to a 
reasonable perspective of the actual conditions. 

The House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization reported 
favorably, on December 6, 1920, a bill to prohibit all immigration, 
with very limited exemptions, for a period of 2 years. 

Finally, out of all this came the 1921 act which limited the aliens of 
any nationality who might be admitted each year to 3 percent of that 
nationality resident in the United States in accordance with the 1910 
census. This was the beginning of a legislative theory that people 
themselves were not as important as their ancestry. The 1921 act 
was intended as emergency legislation for 1 year but in due course 
was extended for 3 years. 

In the meantime, discussions continued on proposals which ulti- 
mately became the Immigration Act of 1924. This act not only estab- 
lished a ceiling quota or a maximum of 150,000, subject to certain 
minimum quotas, but also established the basic present pattern of the 
national origins system. It sought to establish a rigid racial and 
nationality formula for immigration. 

The curious part of this development was that the major contro- 
versy leading up to the national origins system was not on that system 
itself, but on the literacy test. As has already been stated, three Presi- 
dents vetoed this test for admission. 

There is considerable mystery shrouding the development of the 
national origins plan. There was no extended debate in the Con- 
gress on it. It seemed to come in as an afterthought, without any 
major public discussion. Of the some 500 pages of the Congressional 
Record devoted to the debate on the Immigration Act of 1924, a total 
of approximately 14 pages were given over in both the House and the 


Senate to the consideration of the national origins system. Only a 
small minority of the Senators and Congressmen participated in this 

What started out as a debate on a literacy requirement developed 
into a move to end all immigration, became a temporary emergency 
measure, and ended up without much discussion as the national ori- 
gins system. 


The fifth, and current stage, of American immigration dates from 
the discussions in 1950 culminating in the enactment of the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act of 1952. The 1952 act retains essentially the 
national origins quota system which was introduced by the 1924 act. 
However, it does add some important racist provisions which, in fact, 
depart from the basic theory of the national origins system itself. 
The 1952 act requires the establishment of separate subquotas for co- 
lonial dependencies in the Western Hemisphere, a provision which 
has generally been regarded as discriminatory against the colored 
people of the Caribbean area. The 1952 act likewise defines a special 
geographic area known as the Asia-Pacific Triangle. The people of 
that area are given a special limited racial or Oriental quota, regard- 
less of the place of their birth — a departure from the origins principle. 


The United States is the only major English-speaking country in 
the world which has written discrimination into its national immi- 
gration laws. Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, 
the other great English-speaking countries, all of them immigrant- 
receiving countries, have neither a national origins system nor an 
inflexible quota limitation. 

The national origins system is also unique among the laws of 
English-speaking nations in the candor of its purpose. The legisla- 
tive history, the statements by its sponsors and the nature of its 
operation, all point to the fact that the 1924 national origins sys- 
tem was designed and intended to discriminate on the basis of 
national origin, race, color, and (in effect) religion. It was de- 
signed to favor immigrants from Northern and Western Europe and 
to discriminate against those from Southern and Eastern Europe, and 
against Orientals. 

Three groups were set up in the 1924 national origins law : 

(1) the people of the Western Hemisphere who were granted non- 
quota status and permitted to enter the United States without regard 
to any numerical limitation; (2) Orientals, who were completely ex- 


eluded; and (3) Europeans and others from the rest of the world, 
for whom some 154,000 quota numbers were allocated for distribution 
on the basis of place of birth. 

Some deny the intent of the national origins system to discriminate 
against particular nationalities and races. Perhaps the best answer 
is the view held by the Senator who in 1924 proposed and succeeded 
in enacting the national origins system. Senator David A. Reed 
introduced the national origins system amendment on the floor of the 
Senate. His views are clearly stated in the following quotation from 
a colloquy occurring in hearings before, the Senate nomnrittnA in 1924: 

... I think most of us are reconciled to the idea of discrimination. I think 
the American people want us to discriminate ; and I don't think discrimination 
in itself is unfair. . . . We have got to discriminate. The only question that I 
think worries the committee is whether the use of the 1890 census or the use 
of the method based on naturalization is the more plausible method of attaining 
that discrimination which is the object we are all seeking. . . . The question we 
are tackling is which is the more plausible, the more reasonable and the more 
defensible method of attaining that end. Practically all of us are agreed that that 
is an end that should be attained. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee which conducted the study and 
submitted the bill which is now the Immigration and Nationality Act 
of 1952, specifically considered this same question. That committee 
rejected proposals seeking to ameliorate the discriminatory provisions 
of the national origins system, in the following terms : 

... It is obvious, therefore, that the plan would disrupt the national origins 
system, since the quotas for southern and eastern Europe have a higher per- 
centage of usage than the quotas for northern and western Europe. To dis- 
tribute the unused quotas on the basis of the registered demand would shift 
more quota numbers to the countries of southern and eastern Europe. 

In its conclusions the committee states : 

Without giving credence to any theory of Nordic superiority, the subcommittee 
believes that the adoption of the national origins formula was a rational and 
logical method of numerically restricting immigration in such a manner as to 
best preserve the sociological and cultural balance in the population of the 
United States. There is no doubt that it favored the peoples of the countries of 
northern and western Europe over those of southern and eastern Europe, but 
the subcommittee holds that the peoples who had made the greatest contribution 
to the development of this country were fully justified in determining that the 
country was no longer a field for further colonization, and henceforth, further 
immigration would not only be restricted but directed to admit immigrants con- 
sidered to be more readily assimilable because of the similarity of their cultural 
background to those of the principal components of our population. 

Many of the considerations which lay behind the passage of the national origins 
quota law have now become of little significance. The fact remains, however, that 
the national origins system has established a rigid formula for allocating the 
over-all number of quotas determined by Congress to be the maximum number 
to be admitted annually. Quotas thus established by law are definite and auto- 
matically resist the pressures of special groups. It is the rigidity of the formula, 


however, which also causes much concern, since it eliminates the selection of 
the immigrants on the basis of their potential worth to the United States. 

The 1952 act intentionally perpetuates the national origins system, 
principally to preserve what the committee stated was the "sociological 
and cultural balance in the population of the United States." This is 
merely a gentle way of saying that its purpose was to continue racial 
and national discrimination. 

That racial and national discrimination is the essence of the Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act of 1952 is shown in several other ways. 
For the first time in American history a subquota is created for immi- 
grants born in the colonies or dependent areas of the Western Hemi- 
sphere. This substantially reduces immigration of Negroes from the 
Caribbean area. For example, it shrinks immigration from Jamaica, 
from an average of 1,000 annually to a statutory maximum of 100 

A second indication of the intentionally discriminatory character 
of the act of 1952 is the fact that although the law repeals the Japanese 
Exclusion Act and sets up a minimum quota for Japanese, it estab- 
lishes a racial quota under which Orientals are to be charged to the 
"Asia-Pacific Triangle" on the basis not of place of birth — as is true 
in all other cases — but of their own racial background. 

This is the national origins system. Until 1921 the United States 
followed its great tradition of regarding all peoples as being equal 
and of examining the intrinsic worth of immigrants in terms of their 
prospective individual contributions to the American scene. In 1921, 
in 1924, and even more emphatically in 1952, our immigration laws 
abandoned our traditional faith in the individual human being. 


Chapter 6 

The National Origins 
System — Assumptions 

There is a great deal of official documentation as to the assumptions 
and basic philosophies which motivated adoption of the national ori- 
gins system by Congress in 1924. In particular, the Congress relied 
upon the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1907 which re- 
ported its conclusions in 1911, and upon a report, prepared by Dr. 
Harry Laughlin of the Carnegie Institution, for the House Committee 
on Immigration in 1922. These studies were conducted without public 
hearings, and it is clear that some of their conclusions ran counter to 
the evidence they themselves include. 

In the Commission's hearings the people of America — the scientists, 
the scholars, the social workers, the clergy, leaders of business, labor 
and agriculture, and others — have for the first time had a substantial 
opportunity to present evidence and views on the validity of the 
national origins system. The preponderant testimony is that the 
underlying assumptions of the system are wrong. Scientific and 
other studies, and an enormous amount of additional research com- 
pleted since the 1924 act was passed, corroborate this conclusion. 


The fundamental assumption of the national origins system is that 
the place of birth of prospective immigrants is a reliable indication of 
their possible contribution to the United States and the likelihood of 
their becoming good citizens. To those holding this theory the so- 
called old immigrants from northern and western Europe are better 
than the so-called new immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. 

There are three large areas of assumption behind the national origins 
system: (1) That there are inferior and superior races ; (2) that im- 
migration is harmful, particularly to the economic life of America; 
and (3) that the so-called "new" immigrants have inferior personal 

The Theory of Superior Races 

The Immigration Commission's report of 1911 sought to classify 
races in a pseudo-scientific manner as having group and defined char- 
acteristics. Its theory was that all races can be combined into two 


clear-cut categories: The superior (those that were predominant in 
immigration prior to 1880), and the inferior (all others) . 

An interesting contrast between scientific viewpoints then and now is 
available. The whole argument behind the national origins system 
was given forceful expression by a former anthropologist of the 
American Museum of Natural History, Madison Grant, in a book pub- 
lished more than 35 years ago. He said : 

These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic 
race as were the earlier ones. . . . The new immigration . . . contained a 
large and increasing number of the weak, the broken, and the mentally crippled 
of all races drawn from the lowest stratum of the Mediterranean basin and 
the Balkans, together with hordes of the wretched, submerged populations of 
the Polish Ghettos. Our jails, insane asylums, and almshouses are filled with 
this human flotsam, and the whole tone of American life, social, moral, and 
political, has been lowered and vulgarized by them. 

Compare this with the views of a present distinguished anthro- 
pologist of the same institution, Margaret Mead. In her testimony 
before the Commission she said : 

... all human beings from all groups of people have the same potenti- 
alities. . . . Our best anthropological evidence today suggests that the people 
of every group have about the same distribution of potentialities. When you 
add to that that it is on the whole the enterprising who immigrate and those 
who care more about freedom and are willing to risk their skins for freedom 
in many parts of eastern Europe, you realize that any such point of view is 
artificial and cuts off good ancestors for our great-great-grandchildren. We 
want that ancestry in good human stocks from wherever it comes in the 

Another comparison of scientific evidence in 1924 and 1952 is also 
illuminating. In 1920 Dr. Harry Laughlin was asked by the House 
Immigration Committee to study the relation of biology to immi- 
gration, particularly as it bore on the problems of social degeneracy. 
His report, submitted in November 1922, includes the following 
comment : 

We in this country have been so imbued with the idea of democracy, or the 
equality of all men, that we have left out of consideration the matter of blood 
or natural inborn hereditary mental and moral differences. No man who breeds 
pedigreed plants and animals can afford to neglect this thing. 

Congressman Albert Johnson, then chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee, examined this report and stated : 

I have examined Doctor Laughlin's data and charts and find that they are 
both biologically and statistically thorough, and apparently sound. 

However, the presently accepted scientific views appear in testimony 
before the Commission by Prof. Ralph L. Beals, Professor of Anthro- 
pology, University of California, and formerly president of the 
American Anthropological Association. He said : 


AH" scientific evidence indicates that all peoples are inherently capable of ac- 
quiring or adapting to our civilization. Upon this point the American Anthro- 
pological Association has unanimously endorsed an official statement by its 
executive board. But peoples who have grown up in and been adapted to a quite 
different way of life, that is a different culture, to use anthropological language, 
may find it difficult as adults to adjust to new conditions. The degree of diffi- 
culty will vary according to the way of life in which people have developed. To 
put it in simple terms, because of their training and experience, some people may 
find it slightly easier to adapt to American civilization than do others, but this 
difference does not lie in any inherent qualities attaching to a particular 
group. . . . 

He informed the Commission that there is no scientific verification 
for any belief in inherited difference in the ability of different peoples 
to be assimilated into the United States. He stated that there were 
individual differences in this regard, but "no demonstrable scientific 
differences in the group." 

Other expert witnesses testified to the same conclusion. Prof. Al- 
fred de Grazia, Executive Officer for the Committee for Research in 
Social Sciences at Stanford University, stated : 

The fact is that the doctrines that were rather widespread about ethnic supe- 
riority and inferiority in the early twenties have been systematically refuted by 
every branch of science that concerns itself with those presumed inherent supe- 
riorities of different ethnic groups. 

Now the surprising thing is that it is rather difficult to put one's finger on this 
literature because the fact is so well assumed by anyone of any competency in 
the field that we haven't bothered to build up a great literature dispelling those 

Prof. Philip M. Hauser, department of sociology, University of 
Chicago, and former acting director of the United States Bureau of 
the Census, testified of the 1952 act that : 

... 3. It perpetuates a doctrine of racism based on unwarranted assump- 
tions in respect to the differential quality and potentials of various ethnic and 
national groups. 4. It is blind to the historic example afforded by the experience 
of the United States of the capacity for any people to rise to positions of high 
social, economic, and political level when provided with the opportunity to 
do so. . . . 

In attempting to support its distinctions between races and its belief 
that some races are inferior to others, the 1907 Immigration Com- 
mission looked; to individual motives for immigration. First, it 
argued, the new immigrants came here only temporarily and not to 
stay permanently. However, it presented no evidence that the new 
immigrants were less likely to become citizens than the so-called old 
immigrants. On the contrary, its data proved only what the Dis- 
placed Persons Commission has since found, that the percentage of 
immigrants becoming citizens increased with the length of their 
residence in the United States. The participation of aliens in the 


Armed Forces of the United States in three wars since the 1911 report 
is evidence enough of the invalidity of the report's conclusion. 

The 1911 report also contended that the new immigrants came here 
for a less worthy reason than the old immigrants. There is no evi- 
dence in its report to justify this conclusion. The motives which have 
brought people to the United States have been much the same since the 
discovery of the New World: political and religious persecution in 
their homelands, economic opportunity and freedom's call in the New 
World. History shows that much the same motives and hopes brought 
the English and Scots in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; 
the Irish, Germans, Scandinavians, Orientals and French Canadians in 
the nineteenth century; the Italians, Jews and Poles in the early 
twentieth century ; and the present refugees and escapees from com- 
munism and other forms of totalitarianism. 

The impulse to emigrate which affected people may have arisen 
in different countries at different times. The same desire for free- 
dom which motivated the German refugees of 1848, seems now to be 
inspiring the Iron Curtain refugees of 1952. All the reliable evidence 
refutes this conclusion of the 1911 report. Perhaps Theodore Roose- 
velt best described this situation when, in his Autobiography, he said 
that the term "settler" is a "euphemistic name for an immigrant who 
came over in the steerage of a sailing ship in the seventeenth century 
instead of the steerage of a steamer in the nineteenth century." 

National policy should be formulated on the basis of accurate and 
reliable information. The best scientific evidence available today is 
that there is no evidence of any inborn differences of personality, 
character, intelligence,* or cultural and social traits among races. 
The basic racist assumption of the national origins system is scien- 
tifically invalid. 

The Theory of Economic Harm 

The early arguments for national origins quotas relied heavily upon 
predictions of economic harm likely to develop from immigration. In 
Chapter 2, the Commission discusses the economic aspects of immi- 
gration. The evidence not only repudiates the theory of economic 
harm but actually shows that immigration is economically desirable 
and necessary for the United States. 

In the arguments of 40 years ago, various reasons were adduced 
to support the 1911 report's conclusions : 

( 1 ) that a larger percentage of the new immigrants were unskilled 
labor. This was not substantiated in the report ; 

(2) that the new immigrants pushed the old immigrants out of 
the labor force by lowering the conditions of labor. This was not 
substantiated by evidence before the 1907 Commission. Perhaps the 
best proof of the continuing unsoundness of this reason is the present 


attitude of organized labor in urging an increase in the number of 
immigrants to be permitted to come into the United States, and in 
recommending the abolition of the national origins system; 

(3) that immigrants weakened labor unions. The history of or- 
ganized labor in America proves that this was not true then or since ; 

(4) that immigration increased the number of industrial accidents. 
There was no objective evidence to support this reason ; 

(5) that the new immigrants created no new industries. This is 
clearly erroneous in the light of the contributions by immigrants to 
the development of the American economy ; 

(6) that immigration caused or aggravated unemployment during 
depression. The 1911 report contained no proof to support this rea- 
son. On the contrary, Chapter 2 of this report reviews evidence which 
indicates that there is no relationship between immigration and un- 
employment. Whatever may have been the situation caused by un- 
restricted immigration in 1911, immigration of the size contemplated 
by this Commission cannot be a factor in aggravating unemployment 
or depressions ; 

(7) that the new immigrants did not go into agriculture. To an 
extent this was true, but it was an incident of the industrialization of 
the United States and of the demand. for services in commerce and 
industry rather than an indication of national and racial differences. 

Generally speaking, the evidence before this Commission shows that 
a reasonably limited amount of immigration would have no adverse 
effect ; and that, on the other hand, there would be considerable eco- 
nomic gains and advantages to be derived from such immigration. 

The Theory of Inferior Personal Qualities 

In this area several factors were constantly discussed by supporters 
of the national origins theory : 

1. It was stated that illiteracy was greater among the new immi- 
grants than among the old immigrants, and that this was due to in- 
herent racial capacities. 

All reliable evidence shows that illiteracy is more closely related 
to opportunity than to any other single factor. The literacy of per- 
sons admitted under the Displaced Persons Act showed a surprising 
degree of similarity to that of the American people as a whole. The 
theory of inherent racial tendencies to illiteracy is completely dis- 
proved by the 100 years experience of the American public school 
system which shows that there are no substantial differences in the 
capacity of different groups to be educated and Americanized. 

2. It was alleged that there was more criminality among the 
foreign-born than among the native-born. This is not true. When 
the 1907 Commission turned to the only existing source of information, 
the Census Report on Prisoners, it discovered that immigration has 


not increased the volume of crime to a distinguishable extent, if at 
all, that the percentage of immigrants among prisoners had actually 
fallen between 1890 and 1904, and that native Americans exhibited in 
general a tendency to commit more serious crimes than did the immi- 
grant. Similar conclusions emerge from the studies of criminality 
during the past 25 years. As to total inclination to crime, President 
Hoover's National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement 
(the so-called Wickersham Commission), found in 1931 that the 
foreign-born committed fewer crimes than the native-born in pro- 
portion to their respective numbers in the total population. 

The best available scientific information indicates that criminality 
has no direct relationship to racial or ethnic affiliations. 

3. The 1907 Commission's data and conclusions relating to the 
evidence of insanity showed that no objection could be made to the 
new immigrants on that ground. 

In summary, it would appear that there was no reliable evidence 
that new immigrants were inferior to old immigrants in terms of 
personal qualities. 


It is natural and proper to be concerned about the assimilability 
of new immigrants. The preponderant weight of testimony before 
the Commission was to the effect that immigrants have made a satis- 
factory adjustment to the American scene. Helen M. Harris testified 
on behalf of the National Federation of Settlements and Neighbor- 
hood Centers, a group of social institutions which has had first-hand 
experience for more than 65 years with immigrants from almost every 
country of the world. Miss Harris testified that her organization 
had found no essential difference in the capacity of different groups 
to assimilate. 

The question of assimilability of new immigrants has arisen at every 
stage of our history. Even before our own Revolution, some people 
already here were complaining about the strange newcomers from 
Scotland and Germany. And of course, during the Revolutionary 
War, there was serious complaint against the more recent immigrants 
from England who were loyal to that country. Before the Civil War, 
there were fears that Irish and Germans would never be assimilated. 
These complaints were similar to those before World War I, that the 
Southern and Eastern Europeans could not be assimilated. Each 
new group or category of immigrants evoked fear that they could 
not assimilate, but nonetheless, with the passage of time each of the 
various succeeding groups became full participating members of the 
American community. 


Distinguished witnesses who testified before the Commission made 
this point on various occasions. Dr. Carl Wittke, Dean of the Gradu- 
ate School of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, who is an 
eminent historian on American immigration, testified as follows: 

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

Let me again pick the Irishmen, by way of example, because I think of no 
immigrants who more quickly became a 100 percent or 300 percent American 
than the Irishmen, but In the 1850's and 18G0's, if you read the newspaper com- 
ments and all the literature, you will find that the Irish immigration which came 
in such terrific volume alarmed the old-time Americans ; the Irishman spoke a 
peculiar brogue, and he had a peculiar dress. He was forced to live in the 
slum tenements, in the garrets and in the cellars, and the Irish shanty towns 
developed in all our big cities. He was charged with being intemperate and 
loving liquor too much, or being a kind of boisterous, riotous person. He was 
depressing the labor standards of the average American . . . 

A lot of the Americans said here we have an unassimilable group here in 
America, more interested in the homeland, in its foreign church, and so on, than 
it is in becoming good Americans. 

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

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

The national origins system is based on false assumptions, un- 
substantiated by physical science, history, sociology, economics, or 
anthropology. The Commission found substantial evidence to cor- 
roborate the Senate Judiciary Committee statement that many of the 
considerations which lay behind the passage of the national origins 
quota law have now become of little significance. The Commission 
recommends, therefore, that since the basis of the national origins 
system is gone, the system itself should go. 

250053 O— 53 8 " ' 

Chapter 7 

The National Origins 
System — Operation 

The national origins system has been in effect for more than 23 
years and some of its results are clearly discernible. It achieved its 
restrictive purpose of drastically cutting total immigration from 
quota countries. In particular, it discriminated against people from 
Southern and Eastern Europe and from Asia. It failed in its positive 
purpose of channeling immigration in accordance with a statistical 
pattern. Actual immigration from 1930 to 1952 bears little resem- 
blance to the ethnic and racial ratios incorporated in the national 
origins quota system. 


The individual country quotas under the national-origins system 
are shown in table 5. The quotas under the 1924 and 1952 acts differ 
in only two regards: (1) The assignment of minimum quotas to cer- 
tain Asian and African countries, and (2) a slight pro rata reduction 
of all quotas (other than the minimum) as result of a slight change in 
the method of computation. The principles and net effect of the 
national origins system are retained in the 1952 act. 

Table 5. — Annual Immigration Quotas Under the 1924 Act and the 
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 



Quota country or area 




Arabian Peninsula 

Asia-Pacific Triangle 








Cameroons (trust territory, United 


Cameroun (trust territory, France) 



1924 act 
quota l 




1, 304 





1952 act 











Table 5. — Annual Immigration Quotas Under the 1924 Act and the 
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 — Continued 


Quota country or area 

1924 act 
quota ' 

1952 act 



Chinese (racial) 


Danzig, Free City of 






France - 


Great Britain and Northern Ireland. . 



Iceland — -. 


Indonesia &__ 

Iran (Persia) 


Ireland (Eire) 



Japan (racial and nonracial) 










Luxemburg _. 



Muscat (Oman). 

Nauru (trust territory, Australia) 



New Guinea (trust territory. Australia) 

New Zealand 


Pacific Islands (trust territory, United 



Palestine (Arab Palestine) 




Ruanda-Urundi (trust territory, Bel- 


Samoa, Western (trust territory, New 


San Marino 

Saudi Arabia 

Somaliland (trust territory, Italy) 

South- West Africa (mandate) 





1, 181 






25, 957 

65, 721 







17, 853 




. 100 



3, 153 











1, 175 


25, 814 

65, 361 








17, 756 



3, 136 


















Table 5. — Annual Immigration Quotas Under the 1924 Act and the 
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 — Continued 


Quota country or area 

1924 act 
quota ' 

1952 act 




Sweden . 


1, 707 



2, 798 


1, 698 










Syria _. ___ ._ 


Tanganyika (trust territory, United 
Kingdom).- __ _ - 


Thailand (Siam) - 


Togo (trust territory, France) 

Togoland (trust territory, United 
Kingdom) _ 



Trieste, Free Territory of 


Turkey - 



Union of South Africa . 


Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

Vietnam -_ 






Yap and other Pacific islands 





Yugoslavia _. 



154, 277 

154, 657 

1, 005 

1, 385 

Net Gain 

1 Quotas as of 1952, based on 1929 national'origins^syatem with subsequent additions for China, India 
Trieste, etc. 

That the quota system discriminates against Southern and Eastern 
European countries is evidenced by the fact that 81.6 percent of the 
quotas are allocated to the Northern and Western European coun- 
tries while only 16 percent are allocated to Southern and Eastern 
European countries. 


It Reduced Immigration From Southern and Eastern Europe 

From 1900 to 1919, immigration from Northern and Western 
Europe averaged some 145,000 persons annually, and from Southern 
and Eastern Europe some 488,000. The 1921 and 1924 acts cut back 
particularly the quota immigration from Southern and Eastern 
Europe ; after 1929, quota immigration from this area became a mere 
trickle compared to the flow immediately after the turn of the century. 

The following table shows what happened : 


Table 6. — Immigrants Admitted (by Area): 1900-1951 

(Years ended June 30) 



Northern and Western 


181, 156 


127, 390 

25, 815 

37, 270 

75, 909 
51, 481 





Southern and Eastern 


582, 287 

394, 392 

130, 281 

18, 712 

10, 035 

135, 603 








The rise of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe in 
1950-1951 reflects the operation of the displaced persons program. 
Through mortgaging of future quotas, the Displaced Persons Act 
permitted immigrants, chargeable to small quotas, to enter without 
regard to quota availability in any given year. 

It Reduced the Immigration of Asiatics 

The official statistics also show a sharp cutback in the immigration 
of people of Asiatic origin after the national origins law went into 
effect in 1929 : 

Table 7. — Reductions in Immigration of Asiatics 1 : 1900—1951 

Year ended June 30 — 










19, 182 

18, 885 

25, 523 







1, 128 


3, 184 











142, 536 

77, 257 

40, 482 

































1 Quota and nonquota. 



Unused Quotas 

The 1924 act established national quotas for immigration- The 
total authorized quota ceilings for the 28-year period since then, fiscal 
years 1925-52, is 4,362,354 quota numbers. Of this, a total of only 
1,923,509 was used. In other words, since the 1924 act, 56 percent 
of the available quotas was not used. 

Or, to summarize : 

Fiscal years Percent- 
1925-52 ages 

Total quota numbers available 4,362,354 100 

Total quota numbers actually allotted for use 1, 923, 509 44 

Total quota numbers unused 2, 438, 845 56 

A picture of what happened to quotas in the two most recent years 

may be illuminating : 

Fiscal year Fiscal year 
1951 1952 

Total quota numbers available 154,285 154,277 

Total quota numbers actually allotted for use J 76, 730 2 92, 181 

Total quota numbers unused 77,755 62,096 

1 Includes 9,579 numbers alloted to displaced persons under Displaced Persons Act, as amended. 
s Includes 16,021 numbers allotted to displaced persons under Displaced Persons Act, as amended. 

Waiting Lists 

Despite large quantities of unused quota numbers assigned to some 
countries, there are lengthy waiting lists of people in other countries 
who were not able to obtain quota numbers because their country's 
quota was oversubscribed. 

The following are the five largest quotas : 

Great Britain and Northern Ireland 65, 721 

Germany 25, 957 

Ireland 17,853 

Poland 6. 524 

Italy 5, 677 

Only the British and Irish (Eire) quotas are "undersubscribed" or 
open ; the other three are "oversubscribed", or closed, in varying de- 
gree. Thus, as of August 26, 1952, only those applicants registered 
under the German quota prior to July 1, 1952, could have expected 
quota numbers for the quarter October 1 through December 31, 1952. 
So far as Polish quota applicants were concerned, only those regis- 
tered prior to October 1, 1948, could be allotted quota numbers for 
that quarter. Registrants under the Italian quota who were in non- 


preference categories and who registered prior to January 1, 1950, 
were eligible to receive numbers for that quarter, provided as always, 
that preference demands did not intervene. 

The State Department has provided the Commission with the fol- 
lowing list of oversubscribed quotas and the total registration there- 
under as reported by consular offices on August 1, 1952. There is also 
listed the year through which quotas were "mortgaged" under the 
Displaced Persons Act, as amended. 

Table 8. — Waiting Lists for Quota Numbers 





Total regis- 

Year to 





China (White) . . 
Chinese Racial. . 
Czechoslovakia _ 











In India 

Outside India. 









New Zealand 











U. of S. Africa. _. 

U.S. S. R 





1, 181 


25, 957 






3, 153 




































2090 " 





877, 047 


Reduction of Quotas Through Special Provisions 

Quotas under the law are reduced by virtue of the effect of certain 
provisions of general or special laws, thereby further limiting the 
number who may immigrate to the United States. These reductions 
of the total quota came about : 

By Suspension of Deportation. — The general immigration law au- 
thorizes under certain circumstances the suspension of deportation 
of persons already in the United States. In each case, the quota of 
that person's country of origin is reduced by one. 

By Special Acts. — Congress passes private bills for particular in- 
dividuals. In each such case, the quota is reduced by one. 

By Section ^ of the Displaced, Persons Act, as amended. — A special 
section of the Displaced Persons Act permits certain aliens already in 
the United States to convert their status to that of permanent resident. 
In each such case, the appropriate quota is reduced by one. 

The total of all quotas affected by changes of status is indicated by 
the following figures which show quota charges through the second 
session, Eighty-second Congress: 

Table 9. — Quota Charges for Adjustment of Status 

Quota year 


as percent 

of total 




of deporta- 

D. P. Act 


n. a. 

n. a. 
1. 1 

n. a. 

n. a. 

n. a. 

n. a. 




















Future years. 



n. a.: Not available. 


Racial and National Pattern of Immigration 

The purpose of the national origins system is the selection and 
admission of immigrants in accordance with a basic racial and 
nationality ratio. In this regard, the national origins system has 

For the period July 1, 1929-June 30, 1951, during which the national 
origins system actually has been in effect, a total of 2,010,887 immi- 


grants were admitted to the United States, or an average of 91,404 
per year. The quota immigrants averaged 54,095 per year, and the 
annual average for nonquota immigrants was 37,309. 

Considering only the quota countries, the distribution of actual 
immigration (quota and nonquota) varies considerably from that of 
the quotas themselves. The quota pattern did not prevail. Under 
the quota allocation, 81.6 percent were to come from Northern and 
Western Europe. Actually only 55.8 percent of the quota immigrants 
came from this area. 

Under the quota allocation, only 16.0 percent were to come from 
Southern and Eastern Europe. In fact, of all quota immigration in 
the 22-year period, 1930-51, some 42.4 percent came from Southern 
and Eastern Europe. 

The following table shows the picture of the failure of the national 
origins to accomplish its fundamental avowed purpose. 

Table 10. — United States Immigration: 1930—51, by Regional 


Regional origin 



1924 act 



Total 1 




Northern and Western Europe 

Southern and Eastern Europe . 

Asia . _ 

81. 6 


1. 2 

. 8 
. 5 

38. 7 
34. 2 

. 2 


55. 8 

42. 4 

1. 1 

Africa __ .____ 

Pacific. _ _ 

Non Quota (Western Hemisphere) 



1 Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to roundings. 

Mrs. Helen F. Eckerson, Chief of the Statistical Branch of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, wrote in the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service Monthly Review for October 1945: 

The pattern set by the admission of immigrants during the period 1930 to 1944 
did not at all resemble the national origins plan set up by the Congress. 

Although the national origins system did not establish a prefixed 
flow of immigration, the limitation on numbers did maintain a "racial 
status quo" in the United States, both in terms of nationality and 
racial characteristics. 

In terms of nationality "origin," the following table, from data 
provided by the Bureau of the Census, shows that the status quo was 
maintained : 


Table 11. — White Population of the United States, by "Origin": 

1920 and 1940 

Nationality "Origin" 




Total 1 




Northern and Western Europe- 

79. 1 

15. 1 

5. 6 


77. 9 

15. 9 

5. 9 

. 3 


Southern and Eastern Europe . - 

. 8 

Western Hemisphere _. 

Other __ .- 


1 Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to roundings. 

The maintenance of the general status quo is shown in the following 
table on the three major racial groups: 

Table 12. — Population of the United States, by Race: 1920 and 













Total ' . 

105, 711 


150, 697 



94, 821 

10, 403 



89. 7 

9. 9 

. 2 


134, 942 

15, 043 



89. 5 



American Indians _ _ 

. 2 

Other nonwhites including Orientals _. 


1 Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to roundings. 

Thus, what succeeded in maintaining a "racial status quo" was 
not the arbitrary and unsuccessful national origins formula, but the 
reduction in the total amount of immigration. This was done by the 
quota ceiling which kept immigration so low that the resulting incre- 
ment to our population could have no significant effect on the national 
origins and racial composition of a country of our size. 

Congressional Recognition of Failure 

The inflexibility of the national origins system brought about its 
failure in another respect. This rigidity prevented the accomplish- 
ment of certain desired national objectives and required the Con- 
gress to bypass the national origins system on many occasions 
through special immigration legislation. Among such legislative 
bypassing of the national origins system are the following : 

War Fiancees. — Ancillary to the war brides program, legislation 


was enacted to permit the temporary entry of fiancees, in order that 
they might marry veterans who were citizens of the United States. 
Upon the performance of the marriage they were permitted to re- 
main in the United States permanently. By June 30, 1950, a total 
of 8,538 aliens were admitted under this legislation, without regard 
to the established quotas. 

Displaced Persons. — As a result of special legislation enacted in 
1948 and in 1950, the Congress authorized the entry of certain desig- 
nated displaced persons and other refugees without regard to the 
current availability of quotas, and subject to charges made against 
future annual quotas. Some 393,542 persons were admitted under 
this program by June 30, 1952. 

Skilled Sheep herders. — Congress made special provision for the 
admission of skilled sheepherders, by special quota arrangements, as 
noted in Chapter 2. 

Intelligence Operatives. — Under legislation enacted in 1949, entry 
is authorized each year, outside of the established quotas, under cer- 
tain conditions for 100 aliens (and members of their immediate fami- 
lies) who are certified as useful in executing the intelligence mission 
of the Central Intelligence Agency. 

Overseas Enlistees. — Special legislation sanctions the admission 
into the United States, outside of the established quotas under speci- 
fied conditions, of certain aliens who enlist in the Armed Forces of 
the United States in foreign countries. The 1950 enactment fixed 
the limit of such admissions at 2,500, and this ceiling was increased 
in 1951 to 12,500. 

Private Bills. — In recent years there has been a growing disposition 
on the part of Congress to enact private relief legislation exempting 
designated individuals from the requirements of the immigration 
laws. When granted, such relief is without regard to current avail- 
ability of quotas. 

Eliminating the duplications resulting from introduction of the 
same bill in both houses of Congress, 2,465 private bills were intro- 
duced in the Eighty-first Congress for the relief of 4,145 persons. 
Of these bills, 505 were enacted for the benefit of 835 persons. Five 
bills were vetoed by the President, three of which were subsequently 
reintroduced and reenacted. In the last Congress, the Eighty-second, 
3,302 bills were introduced for the relief of 5,784 persons, of which 732 
bills were enacted affecting 1,364 persons. Two bills which were 
vetoed were subsequently reintroduced and reenacted. 


The national origins system failed in its avowed purpose because 
it was arbitrary and did not conform to the facts. Immigrants do 


not come to the United States in the proportions set up by the na- 
tional origins formula, and therefore it could not succeed in its 

The failure grows out of several factors, including the following: 

1. The favored quota countries did not send immigrants in propor- 
tion to their quota ratio. 

2. The national origins system did not apply to nonquota immi- 
gration, which was substantial. This included people from the West- 
ern Hemisphere and the families of citizens of any national origin. 
During the 22 fiscal year period from 1930-51, immigration totaled 
2,010,887. Of this total more than 40 percent, or 820,795 persons, was 

3. Congressional recognition of the necessity for ignoring the na- 
tional origins system through special legislation, such as the displaced 
persons and the war fiancee programs, and private bills, which to- 
gether admitted almost half a million people since the war. 


Chapter 8 

The National Origins System — 
Suggestions to the Commission 

In discussions of the national origins quota system over a period 
of years, many alternatives have been proposed. Following are some 
of the suggestions made to the Commission as to possible courses of 
action : 


To Stop All Further Immigration to the United States 

Such proposals have been advanced from time to time without suc- 
cess during our national history. In fact, the 1921 act developed 
from just such a proposal. Some few urged this extreme measure 
during the Commission's hearings. 

To Abandon Any Numerical Limitations 

This is the pattern of free immigration, subject to qualitative limi- 
tations, which prevailed in the United States before 1921. No one 
has seriously urged this position upon the Commission. 

To Abandon Numerical Limitations but To Require Assurance of 
Financial Responsibility 

While this plan would not proclaim specific maximum limitations, 
its sponsors argue that it would, in effect, operate as a self-limiting 
guarantee against excessive immigration. The qualitative restrictions 
in the present law would in substance be retained. In addition, each 
prospective immigrant would have to furnish firm and legally enforce- 
able assurance that he would not become a burden on the community. 
This is a plan for qualified immigration similar to that in effect in 
some other countries. 

To Allow Free Movement of Peoples in Designated Areas of Free 

This proposal has been advanced by Forttme magazine and envisages 
specific identification of the immigration policy of the United States 
with revised economic and foreign policies. 


To Adopt Flexible Annual Quotas Based on National Need and 

The advocates of this plan argue that the present immutable annual 
maximum number that may be admitted makes no allowance for 
national needs and changing world conditions. They point out that 
the quotas have remained fixed despite alterations in the requirements 
of the United States and of the world situation. They favor periodic 
revisions in the immigration quota maximum based on an evaluation 
of current needs and the national capacity to absorb immigrants. 

This proposal could be combined with any formula for allocating 
visas within the annual numerical limitations, either the national 
origins system or any substitute plans. Some have suggested that 
an administrative agency be given authority, under standards estab- 
lished by Congress, to determine the number of immigrants who 
would be received in the United States each year within a designated 

Proponents say that flexible authority to determine the number of 
immigrants to be admitted annually is conferred upon administrative 
agencies in other countries. 


To Retain the National Origins System Without Change 

This course of action was followed by the Immigration and Nation- 
ality Act of 1952, and approved by some witnesses at the hearings. 

To Retain the National Origins System but Make Adjustments and 
Revisions in Its Operations 

Among those who urge this course are persons who support the 
national origins system in principle but admit that some modifications 
in the current statutory design are desirable; and also persons who 
oppose the national origins system in principle but who have not 
devised any workable substitute pattern or who believe that legisla- 
tive strategy dictates interim measures. 

A number of revisions have been suggested : 

Pooling of Unused Quotas. — This plan has had strong support. It 
is predicated on the recognition that high proportions of certain quota 
allotments have not been utilized, particularly by Great Britain and 
Ireland. It proposes to assign such unused quotas to other countries. 
The supporters of this plan argue that it merely makes possible the 
full utilization of the quota numbers authorized by Congress, which 
have to a large extent been wasted in the past. The opponents con- 
tend on the other hand that Congress did not guarantee that the quotas 
would be fully used, but rather established a maximum authorization. 


They also assert that any pooling plan would unbalance the national 
origins pattern. 

A major problem is the determination as to how to apportion such 
unused quotas. Some would allocate the unused quota numbers solely 
on the basis of precedence in applications, or in proportion to regis- 
tered demand for quota members. These suggestions have aroused the 
objection that the entire pool would, in effect, be appropriated by na- 
tionality groups with high demand for immigration. Another pro- 
posed plan would reserve such unused quotas for countries with low 
quota allotments, and assign them in .proportion to the original quotas. 
Another plan would assign the unused quotas to regional areas, the 
unused European quotas to Europeans and the unused Asian quotas 
to Asiatics. Still another plan would apply the unused quotas to 
designated groups of immigrants selected on the basis of preferences 
such as our national needs, family ties, and personal hardship of 

Adjustment of the Basis of Computation. — Many have suggested 
substituting the current census for that of 1920 as a basis for deter- 
mining national origins quotas. Such modification would increase 
the total quota and make possible the admission of a somewhat larger 
number of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe where 
needs are great and quotas small. 

Another suggestion is to include Negroes, Indians, and other non- 
white persons in the population base on which the percentage is 
computed in order to arrive at the total quota. Under the present 
law, Negroes and American Indians have been excluded from the 
population base. Were they to be included, this modification alone 
would result in an increase in the quotas under the act of 1952 (based 
on the 1920 Census) from approximately 155,000 to approximately 

If both these suggestions were adopted, the aggregate quotas on 
the 1940 census basis would approximate 230,000, and on a 1950 basis 
aggregate quotas would become 251,162. 

Eliminate Special Racial Quotas for Asiatics and Also Special 
Quotas for Colonies in the Western Hemisphere. — It is alleged that 
these limitations constitute a survival of racial discrimination and 
are unnecessary in achieving limitation of immigration. The pro- 
ponents of such special racial quotas urge, however, that they must 
be retained in order to preclude excessive immigration of Asiatics 
from Western Hemisphere countries. Moreover, they contend that 
the inhabitants of dependencies should not be permitted to utilize 
the quotas of the mother countries. 

Rescind the Mortgaging of Quotas Inaugurated Under the Displaced 
Persons Act. — Such mortgaging commitments are claimed to be an 

250653O—53- 9 113 

unwarranted burden on the future. In its final report, The DP 
Story, the Displaced Persons Commission made this recommendation. 
Many witnesses at the hearings urged it strongly. 

Eliminate Reductions in Quotas Through Private Bills, Suspension 
of Deportation, and Adjustment of Status. — It is argued that by 
granting relief in such cases Congress recognizes that they present 
special meritorious circumstances and that such action should entitle 
the alien to admission outside the quotas. 

Assign Future Quotas on the Basis of the Proportionate Use of 
Quotas During Any Specified Period. — Such a plan would gear future 
quotas to the proportions of past immigration. 

Assign National Quotas on Basis of National Origin Percentage in 
Military Service of the United States Rather Than on Percentage 
of Total Population. — This suggestion is intended to reward services 
rendered to the people of the United States. 

To Retain the National Origins System, but Substitute Regional 
Quotas for the Present National Quotas 

Under this proposal the quotas for all European countries would be 
pooled into a single quota for Europe. Likewise, the quotas for the 
countries of the Asiatic area could be pooled in a single quota for Asia. 
This plan bears some resemblance to the Asia-Pacific triangle device 
introduced by the act of 1952. It would afford greater flexibility in 
utilizing the quotas for Europe. The supporters of the national 
origins principle would probably object to the failure to reserve the 
major portion of the suggested European quota for the countries of 
northern and western Europe. On the other hand, many of the op- 
ponents of the national origins system would probably argue that this 
new device would merely continue racial discriminations under an- 
other guise. However, this suggestion would accomplish a pooling 
of presently unused quotas. 

To Retain the National Origins System in Principle, but Bypass 
It in Practice Through Emergency Legislation to Admit Addi- 
tional Persons on a Nonquota or Quota Mortgaging Basis 

The Displaced Persons Act was an example of such an approach ; 
quota mortgaging was used to evade the restrictions of the national 
origins systems. Senator McCarran's special sheepherder law, the 
War-Fiancees Act, Congressman Walter's bill for specialists, and 
President Truman's emergency proposal for 300,000 refugees and 
others during a 3-year period (as embodied in the bills of Senator 
Hendrickson and Congressman Celler) are additional examples. 

Some oppose this proposal who may agree with the objectives of a 
specific program so advanced, but argue that the way to deal with 


such recurrent emergencies is through enactment of a sufficiently 
flexible basic immigration law rather than through "crisis legislation." 
Others in opposition object to the specific program. 


To Repeal the National Origins Formula, and Substitute a Flexible 
Allocation Within a Maximum Quota Established by Law 

This proposal would establish a maximum annual quota, and would 
authorize the selection of immigrants within that total quota without 
regard to their nationality, race, color, or religion. 

Several different proposals have been advanced for selection within 
this single quota maximum. 

(a) Some urge a "first come, first served" basis. 

(b) Others suggest a system of preferences for the selection of 
immigrants within the maximum quota. Various criteria have been 
suggested for such preferences. The following are some preferences 
that have been suggested to the Commission : 

1. Relatives of American citizens and of alien residents of the 
United States ; 

2. Persons with special skills ; 

3. Refugees, escapees, expellees; 

4. Immigrants from overpopulated areas ; 

5. Persons left in the displaced persons "pipeline"; 

6. Immigrants to satisfy needs in the United States. 
Opponents of this plan claim that it would virtually preempt the 

entire quota for particular nationality groups. The proponents argue 
that this is the only formula that is morally defensible and completely 
fair. Furthermore, the proponents argue, a proper system of prefer- 
ences would prevent undue favoritism to any one nationality, and 
flexibility would permit adjustment to meet the domestic and foreign 
policy needs of the United States. 


Chapter 9 

A Unified Quota System — The 
Commission's Recommendation 

The Commission recommends the complete abolition of the 
national origins system. 

In its place, the Commission recommends a unified quota system. 

The Commission's recommendation contemplates a maximum 
annual number of quota immigrants, to be determined by the Con- 
gress, and a flexible method of allocating visas within such annual 
maximum. Visas should be allocated on the basis of statutory 
categories best serving the interests of the United States, and with- 
out regard to national origin, race, color, or creed. This alloca- 
tion should be made periodically by an administrative agency, 
established for that and other purposes, and would be subject to 
review by the President and the Congress. 

The National Council of Churches of Christ testified before the 
Commission that the national origins system is "an affront to the 
conscience of the American people." The Archbishop of the Catholic 
Archdiocese of Boston stated to the Commission: "The theory of 
national origins cannot be defended without recourse to the discredited 
and un-Christian tenets of racism." The Synagogue Council of 
America testified that the national origins system "flies arrogantly in 
the face of everything we know and have learned, and stands as a 
gratuitous affront to the peoples of many regions of the world." 

These representatives of the major religious faiths throughout the 
United States were joined by spokesmen from all walks of life in 
this country, the sciences, the arts, the professions, education, agri- 
culture, business, labor, law, and social service, as well as by civic 
leaders and individual citizens. 

The Commission believes that its recommendation to abolish the 
national origins system accords with the convictions of the majority 
of informed people in the United States. 

The principal characteristic of the unified quota system is that it 
selects prospective immigrants without regard to national origin, race, 
color, or creed. In this regard it is in line with the attitude expressed 
by George Washington in 1784. Writing to a former aide-de-camp, 
Washington asked assistance in getting several immigrants for his 
plantation, and gave the following qualifications : 

If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They 
may be Mohammetans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, . . . 



The Commission recommends a ceiling on quota immigration into 
the United States, based upon the formula figure used in the Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act of 1952, namely, one-sixth of 1 percent 
of the population of the United States. However, the population base 
should be the latest available census figures and should include all 
persons in the United States, without regard to national origin, race, 
color, or creed. 

On the basis of calculations shown in chapter 4, under the 1950 
census this quota ceiling would total 251,162 visas annually. 



The selection of immigrants who may enter the United States should 
be made on the basis of considerations which advance our national 
interest, strengthen our economy and culture, protect our security, 
and win and keep friends for us among other nations. 

The Commission's proposed substitute for the national origins 
system is a "unified quota system." It is a unified, or single, quota 
of one-sixth of 1 percent of the total population of the United States, 
instead of the 85 national quotas required under the 1952 act. 

The Commission recommends that, within the annual maximum, 
the allocation of visas should be made in accordance with the follow- 
ing five categories, in the order determined by the proposed admin- 
istrative agency: 

The Right of Asylum 

One of our national traditions is that we have provided asylum 
and haven to the oppressed of other lands. This we were able to do 
until 1924 because our law was flexible enough to meet such situations. 
Asylum for the oppressed is thwarted by the national origins system. 
For example, Congress had to bypass that system by enacting the 
Displaced Persons Act of 1948. 

The United States is one of the few major democratic countries 
of the free world whose present laws impede and frequently prevent 
providing asylum. This is harmful not only to the cause of freedom 
and peace in the world, but to our own selfish best interests within 
our own borders. 

The Commission recommends that one of the categories should 
be based on the right of asylum, available for refugees, escapees, 
expellees and other persons suffering from political, religious, and 
economic persecution. 


The Commission realizes that such problems are of international 
scope and responsibility, which the company of free nations must 
jointly assume. However, our present immigration law hinders the 
United States from playing its reasonable part in such efforts. 

The Commission believes that these categories normally should be 
subject to flexible application. However, in connection with this 
category, and as a temporary statutory priority to go into immedi- 
ate effect, the Commission recommends that provision should be 
made for the annual admission over a 3-year period of 100,000 
such refugees, escapees, expellees, and remaining displaced per- 
sons. Under this recommendation, the entire recommended increase 
in the annual number of visas would, for a period of 3 years, be used 
to help solve an existing emergency situation. In this way, a basic 
immigration policy can be established which would promptly help 
to solve the existing emergency, and still remain within a flexible 
immigration pattern, obviating the need for periodic emergency 
and piecemeal legislation. 

Within the foreseeable future, this recommended category would 
apply principally to Europe rather than to Asia. The outstanding 
exception to this may be Japan. 

The Commission's recommendations are based on existing world 
conditions. As shown in chapter 3, American participation in a co- 
ordinated international effort to provide migration opportunities for 
refugees, expellees, escapees and the remaining displaced persons in 
Europe could bring substantial alleviation to the emergency problem 
there caused by World War II and its aftermath. Unfortunately the 
same cannot be said for the refugee situation in Asia, where the num- 
ber of persons affected by dislocations of World War II have been 
equalled if not exceeded in the postwar period. 

Reunion of Families 

The great American success story records that we are a nation of 
immigrants, and that a great part of our moral and spiritual fiber 
grows out of the sacred place of the family in American life. 

The Commission recommends that one of the categories should be 
for immigrants whose admission would result in reuniting families. 

Needs in the United States 

Our immigration law should encourage entry into the United States 
of persons whose skills, aptitudes, knowledge or experience are neces- 
sary or desirable for our economy, culture, defense or security. 

The Commission recommends that one of the categories should be 
for persons of skills or occupations to fill needs certified by the 


Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense or Labor, or by 
other appropriate officials, to be necessary in or desirable for the 
national welfare. 

Special Needs in the Free World 

The security and welfare of the United States are linked with the 
stability of the other free nations of the world. The economic, polit- 
ical and social conditions of other nations directly affect our capacity 
to preserve peace and freedom, develop international trade, and pro- 
mote friendship among nations and peoples. 

An important problem facing the free world today is overpopula- 
tion. Wherever it exists, the stability of the nation affected is 
threatened, and that nation's contribution to the defense against the 
totalitarian menace is lessened. For that reason, among others, all 
free nations, and especially the United States, are deeply concerned 
with the existence of such conditions and with efforts to reach solu- 
tions. In the interest of world peace and security, there is an urgent 
need for a cooperative international effort to move surplus people to 
parts of the world where they can more effectively and constructively 
participate in the national economy. 

The Commission recommends that one of the categories should 
be for persons from countries of the free world where immigration 
to the United States can meet special needs and can provide sub- 
stantial alleviation of hardships which threaten economic, political, 
and social stability in such countries. 

Obviously, the United States cannot solve the entire world's over- 
population problem. This category should meet special needs, 

(1) where population pressure is causing hardship and political 
discontent dangerous to the peace and stability of the free world, 

(2) where a reasonable amount of emigration would be effective 
in providing relief or alleviating tensions. 

Since the application of this category should depend upon the 
existence of special needs which can effectively be dealt with by migra- 
tion, the circumstances and special needs of the particular country 
are significant. For Western Germany, Greece, Italy, the Nether- 
lands and perhaps Japan, emigration can serve as a safety valve for 
transitory problems of critical population pressures. These countries 
have reached a stage of economic development and population struc- 
ture where both the need and desire for migration is most acute and 
where its result would be soon effective. 

A concerted international effort to deal with this situation would 
serve to bring about a relatively manageable situation in which the 


natural population increase of such countries can be readily absorbed 
for productive use within their own economies. Consequently, the 
category would provide some migration possibility for overpopulated 
countries of Europe, but not, at this time, except perhaps for Japan, 
for overpopulated countries of Asia, where the need is not for 
migration but for improved use of resources and greater economic 

General Immigration 

There are aliens who may be desirable immigrants merely because 
they are good people whom we should be happy to welcome. These 
aliens may not be refugees, or relatives of people in the United States, 
or from overpopulated countries, or possessed of special skills. They 
are the kind of immigrants the United States traditionally has re- 
ceived, and they can contribute substantially to our development. It 
is distinctly in our interest to keep alive the opportunity for enter- 
prising immigrants to come here. 

The Commission recommends that one of the categories should 
be for general immigration of all other qualified persons, without 
regard to national origin, race, color, or creed. 

The Commission gave consideration to the desirability of applying 
this category on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Although in theory 
this might seem to avoid any taint of discrimination the Commission 
believes that in practice it may bring about the kind of discrimination 
which should not result from our immigration laws. Conceivably, 
a few countries of the world through early registration for visas 
might monopolize this part of the quota. A better plan, the Com- 
mission believes, is to use this category for the allocation of visas 
among such areas or regions of the world, as may be determined by 
the agency for the purpose. Within any area or region, as defined by 
the agency, the number of visas may vary from year to year, and 
should be issued on a "first-come first-served" basis. 

The Commission suggests that the considerations to guide the agency 
in the exercise of its judgment in prescribing areas or regions should 
include, but not be limited to, benefits to the United States from grant- 
ing the desires of peoples who are anxious to become permanent resi- 
dents and citizens; and the opportunity to satisfy general needs of 
the United States for immigrants who do not qualify under any of 
the other categories. 

The standards to be applied under this category should not be 
rigid. The agency charged with such a responsibility should have 
a reasonable latitude in reaching a fair, impartial, and workable 


result, and should safeguard this category so that no one country, 
group, or area would obtain unfair advantages under its operation. 

The Commission recommends that the allocation of visas within 
the proposed annual maximum quota, in accordance with the 
statutory standards, should be made by an independent adminis- 
trative agency, established by Congress for that purpose among 
others, described in chapter 10. 

The Commission recomends: (1) That such agency be headed by 
a commission; (2) that the proposed agency be authorized to deter- 
mine, in the first instance, the number of visas, within the total 
maximum, to be assigned to each of the categories; (3) that there be 
public hearings before these determinations are made ; (4) that such 
determinations be submitted to the President, and thereafter sent, 
with any changes he deems proper, to the Congress; (5) that such 
determinations become effective unless, within a specified time, Con- 
gress fails to disapprove of them by joint action of both houses; 
(6) that categories so approved shall remain effective for a period of 
3 years, provided that, during the interim, the proposed agency may, 
at the direction of the President, submit other allocations to meet 
emergencies. Such new interim allocations should be subject to the 
same procedure as those originally made. 

The Visa Division of the Department of State has advised the Com- 
mission that on the basis of present visa-control experience, and from 
the point of view of administration, a unified quota system is prac- 
ticable and can be operated. 


Other aspects of immigration policy are related to the national ori- 
gins system and quota limitation. 

Nonquota Immigrants 

Neither the national origins quota system nor the proposed unified 
quota system, nor numerical limitations upon immigrants to be ad- 
mitted into the United States, covers all immigrants. Immigrants ad- 
mitted for permanent residence, to whom neither applies, are called 
nonquota immigrants. 

The Commission recommends nonquota status for all persons 
born in independent countries of the Western Hemisphere, re- 
gardless of race or color. The Commission recommends that all 
discriminations and restrictions against colonies in the Western 
Hemisphere, as a special class, should be eliminated. 


The Commission recommends reinstating the previously appli- 
cable nonquota status for professors, clergymen and other persons, 
as such status was defined prior to the passage of the act of 1952. 

The Commission recommends nonquota status for close relatives 
of citizens, with close relatives defined to include: (a) spouses, 
(6) children (including adopted and stepchildren), (c) parents 
and grandparents. 

Restrictions Upon Immigration 

It is intended that the Commission's proposed unified quota system 
will include qualitative restrictions upon individual immigrants. 
Such grounds for exclusion, relating to security, health, public charge, 
criminal record and other personal qualifications, are considered in 
Chapters 12 and 15. 


Part IV 


Chapter 10 

The Administrative 

The Commission recommends: 

1. That a Commission on Immigration and Naturalization be 
created, to be appointed by the President subject to Senate con- 
firmation, responsible for the administration of all immigra- 
tion and naturalization laws. 

2. That present duplication of functions between the consular 
officers in the Foreign Service of the Department of State and the 
immigrant inspectors in the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
of the Department of Justice be eliminated, and that a consolidated 
service under an Administrator of Immigration and Naturalization 
responsible to the proposed Commission be substituted. 

3. That a Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals be created 
under the proposed Commission, with final administrative appellate 
authority (except in cases involving the exercise of discretion) in 
all cases of visa denials, exclusions, deportations, and other related 


Under present law, the various functions relating to immigration 
and naturalization are committed to two separate departments of 
government, both administering and interpreting parts of the same 
law and applying them to the same persons. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service exercises its func- 
tions in connection with the law principally within the United States, 
in the admission or exclusion of immigrants seeking to enter this 
country, the apprehension and removal of deportable aliens, the con- 
duct of naturalization proceedings, and the preparation of denaturali- 
zation cases. 

Federal administration in the field of immigration began with the 
act of 1864, which established a Commissioner of Immigration whose 
function was to encourage immigration. This law was passed in a 
period of manpower shortage during the Civil War, and it was re- 
pealed in 1868. Thereafter there was no Federal agency charged 


with the supervision of immigration until the first general immigra- 
tion law of 1882 was enacted. The 1882 act vested responsibility for 
its administration in the Secretary of the Treasury, but actual en- 
forcement was entrusted to State boards or officers designated by him. 

Federal administrative enforcement began with the passage of the 
act of 1891 when Congress provided that there should be in the Treas- 
ury Department a Superintendent of Immigration, whose title was 
later changed to that of Commissioner General of Immigration. 

The Bureau of Immigration was transferred from the Treasury 
Department to the Department of Commerce and Labor upon its 
establishment in February 1903. The Naturalization Act of 1906 
inaugurated Federal supervision of naturalization and established 
a consolidated agency known as the Bureau of Immigration and 
Naturalization. In 1913, the consolidated bureau was moved to the 
new Department of Labor and was divided into the Bureau of Im- 
migration and the Bureau of Naturalization. At the head of the 
Bureau of Immigration was a Commissioner General of Immigra- 
tion, while at the head of the Bureau of Naturalization was a Com- 
missioner of Naturalization. Both bureaus were placed under the 
immediate direction of the Secretary of Labor. 

The two bureaus continued to function separately until 1933, when 
the President, acting pursuant to Congressional authority, directed 
by Executive Order that they be merged as the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, headed by the Commissioner of Immigration 
and Naturalization. From 1933 until 1940, the Service functioned 
under the direction of the Secretary of Labor. 

In 1940, the President submitted to Congress a reorganization plan 
which proposed to transfer the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 
ice from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice. The 
plan was approved and the transfer became effective June 14, 1940. 
Since then, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has func- 
tioned as part of the Department of Justice under the direction of the 
Attorney General of the United States. 

Foreign Service, Department of State 

The Immigration Act of 1924 vests the performance of the visa 
function, which consists of the granting or denial of visas in consular 
officers of the American Foreign Service abroad, which operates 
under the control and direction of the Department of State. Under 
the act of 1952, the authority to issue or deny visas is clearly and 
exclusively vested in the consular officers, and the statute directs that 
they shall not be subject to the supervision of the Secretary of State 
in this regard. 

The requirement of a visa to enter this country is relatively new, 
and dates only from World War I when it was established essentially 


as a war-time security device. This requirement to obtain visas from 
American consular officers abroad was given statutory recognition in 
the act of 1918. Under the Immigration Act of 1924, however, immi- 
grant aliens seeking to come to the United States were required to 
establish in advance their eligibility under all the immigration laws 
and to obtain a visa from an American consul stationed abroad before 
embarkation. An immigrant was prohibited from entering the United 
States unless he was in possession of an unexpired immigration visa. 
However, the issuance of such a visa by an American consular officer 
does not guarantee his admission to the United States. 

Other statutes have given additional responsibility under the im- 
migration laws to the Secretary of State. Thus, under the Passport 
Act of 1918 as amended, the Secretary of State with the concurrence 
of the Attorney General, is authorized during the time of war or 
emergency to describe classes of aliens whose entry would be preju- 
dicial to the United States. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 
empowers the Secretary of State in emergency cases to waive docu- 
mentary requirements for aliens seeking to enter this country. 

To aid in the performance of the visa functions abroad under the 
immigration laws, a Visa Division was created in the Department of 
State. The Visa Division provides technical guidance and assistance 
to consular officers who themselves must determine initially the alien's 
admissibility to the United States. 

In the final report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, following 
its recent study of the immigration system of the United States, the 
following recommendation was made : 

Because of the close relationship of the Visa and Passport Divisions of the 
Department of State and their importance in the control of immigration problems, 
the subcommittee recommends the establishment of a Bureau of Passports and 
Visas as an independent unit of the Department of State, headed by a Director 
with the rank of Assistant Secretary of State and subject to general supervision 
by the Secretary. 

To meet objections of the Department of State the bill was revised to 
establish a Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs responsible to the 
Secretary of State, and closely integrated within the Department's 
framework. It was enacted in this form in the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952. 

Board of Immigration Appeals, Department of Justice 

A third agency which functions in the immigration process is the 
Board of Immigration Appeals. During virtually all of the period 
when the Immigration and Naturalization Service was in the Depart- 
ment of Labor, there was no independent Board of Appeals. Origi- 
nally, the Secretary of Labor was aided by an advisory committee in 
making his determinations under the immigration and naturalization 

250053 0—53 10 "™ 

laws. In 1922 a five-man Board of Review was established in order 
to review all immigration cases and to make recommendations to the 
Secretary of Labor. The Board of Review had no power to make 
decisions, and was responsible to the Secretary of Labor, whom it 
advised. The Board of Review offered an opportunity for oral argu- 
ment, submission of briefs, and more careful consideration. Also, it 
relieved the Secretary of Labor of the burden of considering a large 
volume of appeals. When the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 
ice was established as a consolidated agency in 1933, the Board of Re- 
view became responsible to the Commissioner, and its recommenda- 
tions were reviewed by him before being transmitted to the Secretary 
of Labor. 

With the passage of time the procedures and the anomalous position 
of the Board of Review were subjected to increasing criticism. In 
1931, the Wickersham Commission, studying the enforcement of Fed- 
eral laws, advocated the creation of an independent tribunal so that 
the prosecuting and administrative functions in immigration matters 
would be completely separated from judicial duties. The latter duties 
would be vested in an independent tribunal, "composed of men of 
judicial caliber, to be appointed by the President." The Commission 
stated : 

The creation of such an independent tribunal for the determination of deporta- 
tion cases seems to be the logical development of the present system itself. The 
Department of Labor has found it advisable to create a Board of Review within 
its own organization. As has been shown, this board has developed certain em- 
bryonic judicial tendencies, although the growth of these tendencies has been 
hampered by the subordinate position in the department which the board occu- 
pies. The next step in development seems clear — the dichotomy should be made 
complete. The Board of Review should be lifted out of its place in the Depart- 
ment of Labor and should be made an independent tribunal. 

Perhaps the closest analogy in structure to such a proposed tribunal is the 
Board of Tax Appeals, an independent governmental agency created by Congress 
in 1924. The Board neither initiates nor prosecutes the cases which are brought 
before it but in effect sits as a court. Its hearings are public and its decisions 
are reported. It has some power of appointment and is working out an elastic 
organization. Appeals are allowed in the respective circuits. The independence 
of this Board and the satisfactory nature of its decisions are generally conceded. 

There seems to be no good reason why we should not proceed at least as far in 
the establishment of a satisfactory system with respect to the important per- 
sonal rights involved in deportation as we have with respect to the property rights 
involved in taxation. 

From 1938 to 1940 the Secretary of Labor's Committee on Adminis- 
trative Procedure made an exhaustive study of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. Its report stressed the necessity of freeing the 
Board of Review from other than quasi-judicial duties, stating that 
the agglomeration of duties placed on the members of the Board was 
indefensible, and that 


It is folly even to talk of fair hearing by individuals who are struggling under 
such a load . . . The several thousand of admissions and deportation cases which 
would be referred to the Board under the arrangements we are suggesting are as 
much as its members can possibly consider with any semblance of fairness. 

These recommendations were accepted and put into effect. In 1939 
the Board of Review was removed from the control of the Commis- 
sioner and was made responsible only to the Secretary of Labor. When 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service was transferred to the 
Department of Justice in 1940, the Board of Review became the Board 
of Immigration Appeals and was placed under the immediate direc- 
tion of the Attorney General. Unlike the Board of Review, which 
could make only recommendations, the Board of Immigration Appeals 
was empowered to make final decisions, subject to possible review by 
the Attorney General. Since 1940 it has continued to function as an 
arm of the Attorney General, independently of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service whose decisions it reviews. 

The Board of Immigration Appeals, composed now of a chairman 
and four associate members, never has been recognized by statute. It 
continues to function at the pleasure of the Attorney General and for 
his convenience. Its jurisdiction is defined in regulations which have 
been changed on a number of occasions during recent years. Its pri- 
mary function is to hear and decide appeals in exclusion and deporta- 
tion cases. However, since there is no statutory restraint the Attorney 
General could at any time abolish the Board of Immigration Appeals 
or modify its jurisdiction in any regard he deems appropriate. 


The requirements of the Immigration Act of 1924 that approval 
must be obtained overseas before the alien could embark for the 
United States was an important improvement over earlier procedures. 
It enabled the alien to obtain an advance, but not final, determination 
of his eligibility before he pulled up his roots and undertook the long 
and expensive trip to the United States. 

While acknowledging the distinct advances in administration 
made possible by this improved procedure, many have pointed out the 
resultant disadvantages. There is an obvious duplication in func- 
tions between the consular officer overseas and the immigration officer 
at the port of entry. The consul must determine the alien's admissi- 
bility to the United States before he can issue a visa. The immigration 
officer likewise must determine the alien's admissibility before he can 
permit him to enter the United States. Both interpret and apply the 
same law. 

An additional consideration concerns the qualifications of consuls 
to make such determinations. The consular function is an old and 


important one in international relations. The consul's traditional 
duties have related primarily to protecting the property and personal 
interests of American citizens in foreign countries and to the pro- 
motion of trade and commerce. The function added after World 
War I, of passing upon an alien's admissibility to the United States 
under the immigration laws has been regarded by some as a secondary 
one. The personnel to whom this function was assigned generally 
were insufficiently equipped at first by training and experience. Thus, 
the Department of State has reported to the Commission that only 
3 percent of visa officers have had legal training despite the fact that 
the visa issuing officer is required to deal with "a great body of complex 
laws and regulations." It is important to note that the consul's 
negative decision on a visa application is final and unreviewable. 

Soon after operations commenced under the Immigration Act of 
1924 it became apparent that consular officers often lacked adequate 
training and background to discharge their new responsibilities under 
the immigration laws. These deficiencies resulted in a considerable 
volume of rejections at ports of arrival in the United States of aliens 
who had been granted visas. In order to aid the consuls immigrant 
inspectors were sent abroad in 1925 under an agreement with the 
Department of State and were attached as technical advisers to the con- 
sulates at London, Southampton, Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin, 
and Queenstown. Although the consular officer had final authority in 
determining whether a visa was to be issued, he usually was guided by 
the advice of the immigrant inspector. 

This system was successful in operation and was extended to the 
Scandinavian countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, 
Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Austria. The reduced immigration 
during the depression of the 1930's resulted in a decrease in the num- 
ber of technical advisers. In 1934, for example, there were nine im- 
migration technical advisers stationed in Europe, each of whom was 
assigned to areas in Europe and traveled on circuit between the differ- 
ent consulates in that area. The technical-adviser system was termi- 
nated at the outbreak of World War II in Europe and has not since 
been reinstated. 

During the displaced persons program, immigration inspectors 
were stationed overseas, and in effect passed upon the immigrants' 
admissibility after documentation with a visa, just as is ordinarily 
done at American ports of entry. 

In 1949, the Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive 
Branch of the Government recognized the deficiencies of the present 
system under which there is a dual control of immigration and rec- 
ommended that the Visa Division of the Department of State be trans- 
ferred to the Department of Justice. The Hoover Commission made 
two pertinent recommendations : 


1. The State Department as a general rule should not be given responsibility 
for the operation of specific programs whether overseas or at home. 

2. * * * the functions of visa control * * * should be transferred 
from the State Department to the Justice Department.* 

The Hoover Commission Task Force Report on Foreign Affairs 
elaborated in two statements : 

1. All visa responsibility, therefore, except with respect to diplomatic visas, 
should be placed in the Justice Department. Visa work presently performed by 
the Foreign Service abroad should be continued but in accordance with policies 
established by the Justice Department in consultation with the State Depart- 

2. The logical solution to the visa problem lies in the transfer of the Visa Di- 
vision functions to the Department of Justice. Diplomatic visas, however, should 
remain under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. 

Following publication of the Hoover report, the Department of 
State organized several committees to study the various recommenda- 
tions. One of these committees was the Visa Task Force which pre- 
sented its findings in a report (March 31, 1919) in answer to the 
Hoover Commission recommendations on location of the visa func- 
tions. This State Department report counseled against acceptance 
of the Hoover Commission's recommendation to consolidate immi- 
gration functions. 

The study of the Senate Judiciary Committee which preceded the 
introduction and enactment of the act of 1952 likewise took cogni- 
zance of this duplication. However, the committee declined to rec- 
ommend any substantial changes and stated : 

Among the principal points of criticism aimed at the present immigration 
structure has been the contention that the multiplicity of control by several 
agencies of various immigration activities should be eliminated. In general, 
the subcommittee has come to the conclusion that, although there are some 
points in the mechanism where coordinated action is necessary and duplication 
must be eliminated, the over-all structural pattern ought to be maintained. 
The subcommittee is persuaded to the position on the grounds that (1) the dis- 
tribution of responsibility places additional barriers in the way of undesirable 
aliens, additional fences of protection which the alien must surmount, and (2) 
the present system operates satisfactorily and the suggested modifications will 
eliminate most of the existing difficulties. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee likewise addressed itself specif- 
ically to the recommendations of the Hoover Commission, and stated : 

The subcommittee has given serious consideration to the proposal advanced 
by the Hoover Commission for a transfer of the Visa Division to the Department 
of Justice and its merger with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 
As already pointed out, the subcommittee is persuaded to continue the visa 
process separate from the immigration procedure as an additional barrier to the 
entry of inadmissible aliens. 

♦Report of Hoover Commission, on Foreign Affairs, House Doc. 79, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 
pp. 32, 34. 


The act of 1952 made no appreciable change in the organizational 
set-up e.i.ept to establish in the Department of State a Bureau of 
Security and Consular Affairs. Provision was made within that 
Bureau for a general counsel of the Visa Office authorized "to main- 
tain liaison with the appropriate officers of the [Immigration and 
Naturalization] Service with a view to securing uniform interpre- 
tations of the provisions of this act." 

Feasibility of Consolidating Functions 

All witnesses who addressed themselves to this problem in the 
Commission's public hearings urged that the functions of consular 
and immigration officers should be consolidated. The Commission 
agrees that this is a desirable goal. There is no reason why there 
should be two independent determinations of the same issue, except 
upon the basis of mistrust and fear. Every national purpose would 
be fully served by one thorough and trustworthy examination and 

The best available information indicates that this costly, unwieldy, 
and unbusiness-like duplication serves no reasonable purpose. It is 
hardly more than historical accident which has become, to some, a 
principle. An informal study in the Department of State a few 
years ago disclosed that in less than one-half of 1 percent of all cases 
where visas were issued by consular officers were the applicants rejected 
at ports of entry in the United States. The 1951 annual report of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service supplied the following 
information concerning the number of aliens excluded at the border : 

Table 13. — Aliens Excluded From the United States, by Cause, Year 

Ended June 30, 1951 

Number excluded 



crossers ' 


All causes 




Without proper documents - 













1, 180 





Criminals - 


Mental or physical defectives.. 


Subversive or anarchistic 




Had been previously excluded or deported 

Likely to become public charges ' 




Immoral classes 


Previously departed to avoid military service _ 

Unable to read (over 16 years of age) . 

Contract laborers __ 



Other classes 



1 Aliens seeking admission at land borders for less than 30 days. 


Excluding from consideration border erossers and aliens without 
proper documents, this table reveals that during 1951 approximately 
1,000 aliens in possession of visas were excluded by immigration 
officers at the ports of arrival in the United States. The extent of 
unnecessary duplication is revealed when this is compared with some 
206,000 immigrants admitted during that same period, in addition 
to visitors. 

In the Commission's opinion, the duplication in visa issuance and 
immigration examinations is wasteful and unjustifiable. The Com- 
mission cannot subscribe to the sentiment that this obstructive process 
is required "as an additional barrier to the entry of inadmissible 
aliens." By the same token such additional barriers can operate also 
to shut out desirable aliens ; the relatively few inadmissible aliens it 
stops could be dealt with by a unified and more effective administration. 

Similarly, the Commission is not impressed with the State De- 
partment's suggestion that the conduct of foreign relations requires 
the issuance of nondiplomatic visas by consular officers. The con- 
sular function did not until 1924 include the issuance of immigration 
visas. Nor is the State Department suggesting that foreign policy 
requires the determination of admissibility by consular officers at the 
port of entry in the United States. 

The time has come to terminate the unnecessary and costly ob- 
structions established by the duplication of visa and immigration ex- 
aminations. This could be accomplished by eliminating overlapping 
and duplication through unifying these functions in a single process. 
The result will be a more effective administration of the law, a saving 
of Government expenditures, and a better location of administrative 

Operation of Proposed System 

The Commission agrees with the Hoover Commission that a large 
program of such an administrative operation as the immigration 
law has no place in the Department of State, whose primary 
responsibility is the conduct of foreign relations. The Com- 
mission recommends that the primary determination overseas of an 
alien's application for a visa to the United States should be made by 
officials of the same agency which determines admissibility at the 
ports of entry. Presentation of such visa at a port of entry in the 
United States should entitle an alien to be admitted without further 
inquiry except as to (1) identity, (2) any medical condition de- 
veloped since the visa was issued, and (3) any evidence relating 
to subversive activities not previously considered. 

The Commission believes that there should be no substantial dif- 
ficulty in establishing such a system of unified determinations in the 


foreign areas where there are large volumes of applications for visas. 
In such places visa issuance is a full-time job for visa officers. There 
may be some rearrangement necessary for operation in isolated areas 
from which few applications for visas originate and where, therefore, 
full-time visa officers are not stationed. This is a problem of admin- 
istrative management, susceptible of a variety of solutions. The Com- 
mission believes that in such areas the agency responsible for the 
consolidated functions could follow the normal procedure used by 
many Government agencies in connection with overseas activities. 
The consular officer could be designated as an agent of the immi- 
gration authorities to receive the application, which then could be 
forwarded, with the requisite documents and evidence, to the nearest 
overseas regional office of the consolidated agency. The determination 
would be made by an officer stationed in such a regional office. If the 
evidence is incomplete, he could request the consul to conduct any 
additional interrogation or investigation deemed necessary. Or, if 
advisable, the consular officer could in these few cases be authorized 
to act on behalf of the consolidated agency. 

It has been suggested that there may be difficulty in stationing of- 
ficers of the consolidated agency in some foreign countries. Immi- 
gration officers have already performed duties under our immigration 
laws in Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Italy, and in other coun- 
tries. To satisfy any requirements of protocol such officers could be 
attached for technical purposes to our Embassies or other accredited 
offices with conventional titles. 

The differences between present procedures and the consolidated 
procedure the Commission has recommended, including suggested 
appellate procedures, are illustrated in Chart I. 

The consolidation of all immigration functions in one responsible 
agency is an essential aspect both of the new approach to immigration 
which the Commission believes to be long overdue, and of the effi- 
ciency in Government which it was the purpose of the Hoover Com- 
mission to reach. Whatever mechanical difficulties may arise from 
such a consolidation could, with proper spirit and good will, be over- 
come completely and promptly. 



Nature of Functions 

As conceived by the Commission, there are three major functions 
to be performed by administrative officials of the Government in the 
field of immigration and naturalization : 

(1) Enforcement — this includes visa issuance, inspection and ex- 
clusion at ports of entry, policing, investigation, deportation, admin- 


Chart I. — Comparison of Present and Proposed Procedures 

Type of action 

Present program 

Proposed plan 


Action on visa 


By American consular 

No regular appeal pro- 

By officer of proposed 

Appeal to statutory Board 

of Immigration and Visa 


Port of entry: 

Action on admission. 

Determination on 

By immigration inspec- 
tor, with complete 
authority to review 
consular action. 

To Board of Special In- 
quiry. After Dec. 24, 
1952 to (single) special 
inquiry officer. 

By inspector but limited 
to (1) identity, (2) 
health, (3) security. 

To hearing officer under 
Board of Immigration 
and Visa Appeals. 


Initial _ 


To nonstatutory Board 
of Immigration Ap- 

No further appeal, but 
Board of Appeals may 
certify immigration 
cases to Attorney Gen- 
eral and Attorney 
General may review on 
own motion. 

To statutory Board of 
Immigration and Visa 

Review by proposed com- 
mission in selected cases 
involving discretionary 

istrative prosecution, and the administration of the naturalization 

(2) Adjudication— this includes the determination of cases and of 
their appeals within the administrative process. 

(3) Policy determination — this includes over-all policy formula- 
tion; the issuance of regulations for allocation of visas, within the 
statutory ceiling, subject to change by the President and disapproval 
by the Congress; and making reports and recommendations to the 
President and the Congress. 

Another aspect of this problem relates more to attitude than to 
specific functions. The Commission is impressed by the suggestions 
it received that the administration of immigration laws should be 
such as to develop and maintain an atmosphere and spirit of friend- 
ship for immigrants. Whatever the cause, and often it is beyond the 
control of the administrative officials, the fact seems to be that the 
administrative procedures are unsatisfactory, and are productive of 
unnecessary and wasteful delays and embarrassments at home and 
abroad. This factor is an important consideration in the development 
of any administrative structure in the field of immigration and 


Location of Functions 

Throughout the course of Federal immigration administration there 
has been no certainty as to the proper place of immigration functions. 
Originally, immigration enforcement was assigned to the Treasury 
Department. In 1903 it was transferred to the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor. It moved to the Department of Labor in 1913, and 
in 1940 it was shifted to the Department of Justice. Through the 
years immigration and naturalization functions have been handled 
either by two bureaus or by a single bureau. The review process was 
nonexistent, then advisory, later part of the Immigration and Natural- 
ization Service, and finally directly under the head of the Department. 

Additional proposals to shift immigration and naturalization func- 
tions from the Department of Justice to another agency have been 
made from time to time. During the Commission's hearings there was 
a diversity of sentiment on this subject. Some proposed that the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service be returned to the Depart- 
ment of Labor. Others suggested that a new agency be created. 
Still others urged that matter be let alone. 

The Commission's recommendations introduce a new function not 
now vested in either of the two departments. This new element, the 
allocation of visas, requires reconsideration of the entire matter since 
it is no longer a question of old functions remaining in Justice or 
State Department, but rather where new and consolidated immigra- 
tion functions are to be placed. The Commission has already ex- 
pressed agreement with the Hoover Commission that it is inappro- 
priate to put these functions in the Department of State. In its 
recommendation that they be assigned to the Department of Justice, 
the Hoover Commission naturally did not consider the proposed new 
functions of visa allocation. 

It may be argued that these combined functions should be vested 
in the Department of Justice because the immigration law involves 
responsibilities related to the national security and that these logically 
fit into the Justice Department's sphere of activity. The Commission 
believes, however, that the arguments to the contrary are more per- 
suasive. Presumably, the primary security tie to the Department 
of Justice would be the necessity of close relationship with the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. Actual practice, however, does not justify 
such an argument. The Immigration and Naturalization Service 
conducts its security functions through its own investigative unit 
which is completely separate from the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion. Its liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation could be 
just as close if the two investigative units were in different agencies. 
Furthermore, security functions concerning immigration were per- 
formed effectively by the Displaced Persons Commission, and were 


closely related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central 
Intelligence Agency, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
although the Displaced Persons Commission was an independent 

The Department of Justice is primarily a litigating and prosecuting 
agency. It includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 
administration of Federal prisons, but these are natural arms of its 
prosecuting functions. There seems to be no good reason why the 
Department of Justice should be concerned with such matters as the 
allocation of visas to such preferential groups as may be authorized 
by Congress; with the issuance of visas to individual applicants 
abroad, and the subsequent operations at the ports of entry ; or with 
citizenship education. None of these matters has any real relation- 
ship to the normal operations of the Department of Justice. The 
added responsibilities proposed by the Commission remove it further 
from such relationships. 

On the other hand, there is every reason why many determinations 
made under immigration and naturalization laws should be removed 
from control by the Department of Justice. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service has its own legal staff, separate from the vari- 
ous divisions of the Department of Justice, and conducts such matters 
in the same manner and to the same extent as do other departments 
of the Federal Government. If the existing and proposed new func- 
tions were combined in an independent agency, the Department of 
Justice would continue to handle at higher levels litigation originated 
in or with the independent agency in the same manner as is now done 
for other departments and agencies. There are those who believe 
that one of the present causes of criticism of the immigration laws 
stems from the fact that the administration of those laws is centered 
in a prosecuting and litigating agency. No sound argument has been 
advanced for keeping it where it is. The new and combined func- 
tions do not properly fit in the Department of Justice. 

Nor is the Commission convinced by those who urge returning the 
immigration authority to the Department of Labor. This is not to 
say that the Department of Labor has no interest in the subject. But 
the major aspects of immigration and naturalization policy and ad- 
ministration are largely unrelated to the responsibilities of the De- 
partment of Labor. Furthermore, the immigration policy of the 
United States cannot be based solely upon manpower or labor con- 
siderations, although such factors are undeniably important. 

Another suggestion is that immigration and naturalization func- 
tions should be located in the Federal Security Agency. That agency 
already plays a role in the immigration process through the medical 
examinations of immigrants by the Public Health Service, and be- 
cause of the requirement of the act of 1952 for reports on social se- 


curity information for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 
It is argued that such a change would be desirable in the light of the 
Federal Security Agency's interest in people as such, whether aliens 
or natives. 

The fact is, however, that the administration of the consolidated 
immigration and naturalization functions, coupled with the new 
responsibility for visa allocations, does not properly belong in any 
existing department or agency. It touches upon many, must work 
closely with some, but really has no basic connection to the primary 
responsibilities discharged by any of the other departments and 
agencies. The result is that the problems relating to immigration and 
naturalization do not command adequate thought and attention of the 
cabinet officers under whom either the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service or the Visa Division have been placed. 

Independent Agency 

This leaves only one other alternative, an independent agency. As 
a general proposition the Commission recognizes government ad- 
ministration should be organized within departments under the super- 
vision of cabinet officers. But this administrative design gives way 
to the principle that in a democracy content should prevail over form. 
And so the Congress has established the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission, the Federal Power Commission, and the Federal Communi- 
cations Commission, among others which are not within cabinet de- 
partments. These agencies, as with the proposed consolidated im- 
migration agency, exercise legislative, quasi judicial and administra- 
tive functions. Everyone will agree that the interests of the people 
are best served by that form of governmental administration which 
most effectively accomplishes the governmental purpose and not that 
which is motivated purely by administrative expediency. 

The Commission believes that the major immigration functions 
described in this Report can be performed most effectively through 
an independent agency. The duties are so important, particularly 
in connection with the visa allocation authority, that the public 
interest requires a definite pin-pointing of responsibility, as well as 
the full-time attention which a cabinet officer cannot give. 

The Commission believes that the creation by Congress of a new and 
independent immigration agency will assure the development of 
the fresh approach needed to change our immigration policy from 
a negative to a positive force. 

The expert study, knowledge and experience required for visa alloca- 
tion decisions, and for reports to the President and Congress, coupled 
with the other proposed new and highly important administrative 
and appellate duties and powers, make it advisable, if not mandatory, 


that such authority be exercised by an independent agency headed by a 

Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 

The Commission recommends the establishment of a new and 
permanent Commission on Immigration and Naturalization to have 
control and supervision over the entire field of immigration and 
naturalization. This proposed Commission would be composed of 
three, five or seven members, as the Congress may determine. They 
should be appointed by the President, subject to Senate confirmation. 

Under this proposed Commission there would be an Adminis- 
trator of Immigration and Naturalization, appointed by and respon- 
sible to that Commission, and who would be charged with all phases 
of administration and enforcement. Completely separate from the 
Administrator, but also appointed by and responsible to the pro- 
posed Commission, would be a Board of Immigration and Visa 
Appeals. That Board would have final authority to make neces- 
sary administrative adjudications in exclusion and deportation 
cases, subject only to a limited appeal to the proposed Commission 
in cases involving the exercise of discretion, but not in questions of 
law or fact, whenever that Commission agrees to accept such appeals. 
In addition to exclusion and deportation cases, the Board would 
hear appeals in visa cases and would also determine whether an 
alien may be excluded without a hearing in security cases, in the 
manner described in Chapter 15. 

The Commission believes that such a plan would mark an important 
advance from the existing scheme of organization. It would produce 
much more effective and coordinated administration and would assure 
the required high-level consideration of allocations to be made with- 
in the unified quota system. It would bring the immigration process 
into line with the separation of functions contemplated by the Ad- 
ministrative Procedure Act, generally recognized as the norm of fair 
administrative organization. 

If this Commission's recommendation for the creation of an inde- 
pendent Commission on Immigration and Naturalization is adopted, 
provision should be made for the personnel now employed by the Im- 
migration and Naturalization Service, and by the Visa Division, per- 
forming functions affecting immigration in Washington and in the 
consular offices overseas. The present employees of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service should be transferred to the proposed 
Commission and assigned duties under the proposed Administrator 
of Immigration and Naturalization. Present staff of the Board of 
Immigration Appeals and hearing examiners of the Immigration and 


Naturalization Service should also be transferred to the new Commis- 
sion and assigned to duties under the proposed Board of Immigra- 
tion and Visa Appeals. The transfer of personnel working on visa 
matters in the Department of State and exercising the visa function 
abroad likewise should present no serious difficulty. It should be 
ascertained which employees in the Bureau of Security and Consular 
Affairs and which of our consular officers in foreign countries are 
engaged primarily in visa activities. Such employees should be trans- 
ferred to the new Commission. 

Moreover, any transfer of personnel from the Department of State 
and the Department of Justice to the new Commission should be made 
without prejudicing any status, rights, or privileges of such em- 

All pertinent records and files should be transferred to the proposed 
Commission, along with the transfer of functions and staff now vested 
in other agencies. 

Chart II portrays the plan of organization suggested by the Com- 


Chart II — Proposed Administrative Agency 

Commission on 
Immigration and Naturalization 

1. Makes visa allocations, subject to review by President and Congress. 

2. Makes study of all phases of immigration and naturalization, and 
sets policy. 

3. Reports periodically to the President and Congress on immigration 
and related matters. 

4. Supervises the Administrator of Immigration and Naturalization. 

5. Reviews decisions of the Board of Appeals on questions involving 
exercise of discretion in cases in which it agrees to accept such appeals. 

Board of Immigration and 
Visa Appeals 

1. All appeals from Hearing 

2. All appeals in visa cases. 

3. All final determinations that 
hearing on exclusion is to be 
denied on confidential in- 

4. Such questions as are re- 
ferred to the Board by the 
Commission for advance de- 

Hearing Officers 

Conduct administrative hear- 
ings and make determinations 
in exclusion and deportation 
cases and in all quasi judicial 
matters arising under immigra- 
tion and naturalization laws. 

Administrator of 
Immigration and Naturalization 

In charge of all activities relat- 
ing to the administration and 
enforcement of the immigration 
and naturalization laws, includ- 

1. Visa issuance overseas. 

2. Preliminary inspection at 
port of entry. 

3. Investigations. 

4. Physical detention and de- 

5. Border Patrol. 

fi. Administration of natural- 
ization process. 

7. Citizenship education. 

8. Preparation and presenta- 
tion of evidence before 
Hearing Officer and Board. 

9. Routine determinations in 
cases not requiring hear- 

10. Preparation of materials 
for Commission's use in 
making visa allocations. 


Chapter 11 

Fair Hearing and 

Americans treasure a person's privilege to fair consideration in 
proceedings conducted by a Government official. The concept of fair 
dealing is enshrined in the Bill of Eights which guarantees that no 
man shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. It is 
rooted in centuries of solid experience in Anglo-Saxon law. 

Testimony given at the Commission's hearings contains complaints 
by reliable witnesses to the effect that important aspects of our proce- 
dure for the consideration of applications by aliens to come into, and 
of their right to remain in, the United States are not fair. 

There are several problems which arise in this connection. First, 
the present lack of any formal review of a consular denial of a visa. 
Second, the adequacy of the procedure for review of exclusion and 
deportation orders. And third, the nature of court review of admin- 
istrative decisions. Each of these problems involves the fairness of 
consideration given to an alien. 


Review of Consular Decisions 

That the denial of a visa to enter the United States should be sub- 
ject to review by a Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals. 

Fair Hearing and Procedure in Exclusion and Deportation 

That a Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals be established 
by statute, to be concerned exclusively with the adjudication of 
cases arising under the immigration laws. 

That hearing examiners in exclusion and deportation cases be 
separated from enforcement functions and placed under the super- 
vision of the Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals. 

That deportation hearings be conducted in conformity with the 
Administrative Procedure Act. 

That the caliber of hearing examiners be improved. 

Judicial Review 

That an exclusive statutory form of judicial review be established 
in deportation cases. 

25005.3 0—53 11 


That habeas corpus continue to be the form of judicial review 
in exclusion cases. 

That there be no judicial review of actions denying a visa. 

That the courts be specifically authorized to decide whether 
denials of bail pending determination of deportability are arbitrary 
or illegal. 


The preponderance of the testimony before the Commission is 
to the effect that in giving complete and unreviewable authority to 
consular officers, the law and practice fail to conform with tradi- 
tional American reliance upon fair hearings as a safeguard against 
abuse of power. 

Present System 

Under the present system the consul occupies a unique position in 
American law and practice. By express provision of law no one can 
review his decision on a visa application. The Secretary of State is 
charged with the general administration of the statutory provisions 
[relating to the duties and functions of diplomatic and consular 
officers of the United States. However, the Secretary of State has no 
power to control or direct the consuls in certain visa activities. The 
Act of 1952 made crystal clear the finality of the consular officer's 
power in visa issuance by specifying that the Secretary of State could 
control all consular activities "except those powers, duties, and func- 
tions conferred upon the consular officers relating to the granting or 
refusal of visas." 

It was repeatedly testified at the Commission's hearings that such 
administrative "absolutism" was unparalleled in the whole range of 
American law. 

In the Senate Judiciary Committee's study the chief purpose for 
vesting such complete authority in a subordinate official doubtless was 
the Committee's desire to place "additional barriers in the way of 
undesirable aliens, additional fences of protection which the alien 
must surmount." The Committee evidently was unconcerned with 
the desirable aliens whose application might be improperly or un- 
fairly denied if the consul's decisions were not reviewed. The Com- 
mittee stated : 

. . . The subcommittee concludes, however, that to allow an appeal from a 
consul's denial of a visa would be to make a judicial determination of a right 
when, in fact, a right does not exist. An alien has no right to come to the United 
States and the refusal of a visa is not an invasion of his rights. Permitting 
review of visa decisions would permit an alien to get his case into United States 
courts, causing a great deal of difficulty in the administration of the immigra- 
tion laws . . . 


Every witness before the Commission who discussed the consul's 
absolute authority, criticized it without reservation. The chairman 
of the committee on immigration and naturalization of the adminis- 
trative law section of the American Bar Association said : 

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 individual 
free from the control of a superior reviewing body. We search in vain for any 
parallel in our institutions for this despotic consular absolutism. Relatively 
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 safeguards 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 
enormous value as that of entrance to this country.* 

Issuance or denial of a visa frequently involves complicated legal 
problems of eligibility and determinations of foreign law, such as 
whether a crime has been committed. Yet, as stated elsewhere, only 
3 percent of the consular officers are attorneys. Consular officers are 
required to decide whether a prospective immigrant "is likely to be- 
come a public charge," medical questions, complicated security issues, 
occasionally involving knowledge of foreign political economic and 
social movements, and a host of other issues involving technical knowl- 
edge and the wise exercise of discretion. And yet, the visa-issuing 
consular officers are generally junior and subordinate officers in our 
consulates, and assignment to visa-issuing duties is not always re- 
garded as a desirable post within the Foreign Service. 

The Commission finds no persuasive reason why the determinations 
of a consular officer in visa cases should not be reviewed. The Com- 
mission assumes that all consular officers are loyal, disinterested public 
servants. But human beings do err, in interpreting law and assessing 
facts. It is undesirable to permit the possibility of control of human 
destinies by caprice, prejudice, or mistake, subject to no regulation or 
review. The Commission is informed that existing practices permit 
some opportunities for informal reconsideration. However, such re- 
consideration, which is generally limited to aliens who are able to 
interest sponsors, attorneys, or Members of Congress in their cases, is 
palpably inadequate. The Commission recommends that a formal 
appeal procedure be established by statute, giving opportunity for 
appeal on the denial of a visa. 

*Tbe excerpt above is quoted from the statement of Prof. Louis L. Jaffe of Harvard Law 
School, Chairman of the Committee on Immigration of the Administrative Law Section 
of the American Bar Association, speaking for himself and for Prof. Henry M. Hart, Jr., 
of Harvard Law School, at the Washington hearing, October 28, 1952. 


Precedents for Review of Consular Action 

The Commission has sought advice from those urging such review 
as to the methods by which it should be established. The Commission 
is convinced that there are no substantial practical difficulties to be 
encountered in establishing such a review procedure which cannot 
be easily overcome. As a matter of fact, procedures have been 
established in comparable situations which are precedents for the 
Commission's recommendations. 

World War II Visa Review Procedures.— Elaborate procedures to 
review applications for visas were in effect during World War II. 
Under such procedures, with few exceptions, all visa applications of 
aliens seeking to enter the United States, whether for temporary 
or permanent stay, had to be submitted in advance for central clear- 
ance in the Department of State. Such consideration was limited 
to security factors, and the determination was only as to whether the 
entry of the applicant would be prejudicial to the safety of the 
United States. 

The procedure for such review of prospective visa action required 
the alien to submit detailed information in writing. In addition, the 
review agencies had a complete record which included such items as 
recommendations from the consular officer handling the case abroad, 
intelligence reports bearing upon the alien concerned, statements and 
affidavits from the sponsor and others, and miscellaneous information 
regarding the alien and his sponsors. 

Three distinct visa review bodies were set up in this wartime pro- 
cedure. The first was composed of interdepartmental committees com- 
prising one representative from the Departments of State, War and 
Navy, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. These committees made recommenda- 
tions to the Secretary of State. If accepted, they were sent on to the 
visa-issuing officers as advisory opinions. If rejected, the cases went 
on to the second link in the chain of review procedures, the Interde- 
partmental Visa Review Committees, composed of representatives of 
the same Government agencies involved in the first committees. Here, 
oral argument and representation by attorneys was allowed. If the 
Committee's opinion in any case was accepted by the Secretary of 
State, it became the Department's advisory opinion ; if not, the matter 
was referred to the third and last stage, the Board of Appeals on Visa 
Cases which considered the whole file. 

The Board of Appeals was composed of two persons appointed by 
the President, with an alternate. It held no hearings, and cases were 
decided on the basis of the written record, including statements and 
other materials available to the other review committees. The Board 
of Appeals operated for about three and a half years, from November 


1941 to June 1945, and made definitive recommendations in 22,622 
cases. In only one case did the Secretary of State not follow its rec- 
ommendation. In over 73 percent of the cases, the Board of Appeals 
affirmed the Interdepartmental Visa Review Committees; in 26 per- 
cent of the cases it recommended in favor of the visa applicant after 
the Review Committee had recommended otherwise. 

Present Visa Review Procedures. — Information supplied by the 
Chief of the Visa Division in the Department of State indicates that 
there is now in existence an informal procedure to review determina- 
tions in visa cases, both in advance of such determinations and after 
they are made. One entails a review by the Visa Division of the 
Department of State of visa cases still in course of processing at a 
consular post abroad prior to final action by the visa officer ; in certain 
categories of cases such review is mandatory. The other entails 
review by the division after final action has been taken by a visa officer 
in issuing or, much more often, in refusing issuance of a visa. 

Any visa case still under active consideration, and before final con- 
sular action has been taken, is reviewable either by the visa officer con- 
cerned, or his superiors in the field, or by the Visa Division upon 
request of the applicant or persons interested in his behalf upon pres- 
entation of good and sufficient reason. However, it is comparatively 
rare that such a request will be made by the applicant or other inter- 
ested parties while the case is in process. Although in theory there is 
a review of consular action prior to final determination, in practice this 
is a reconsideration requested either by the consul or his superior, in 
the nature of purely administrative supervision, and not a review 
requested by the applicant immigrant. 

The Chief of the Visa Division of the Department of State also 
advised the Commission of the procedures in effect concerning cases 
in which action has already been taken on a visa application. In cases 
of refusal, where there is more than one consular officer at a post, the 
refusals may be reviewed by such second officer as well as the super- 
visor. All refusals of visas are reported to the Department with ex- 
planatory information. 

In addition, upon request by Members of Congress, attorneys, or 
other individuals in behalf of an alien, the case may be reconsidered in 
the Visa Division. However, there is no established or published pro- 
cedure for the reconsideration of final consular action denying visas, 
nor any power to reverse the original decision. Occasionally, the 
file is sent for, and then each case is handled as a specific problem. 
But in any event, this review process is inadequate because at most 
it can result only in an "advisory opinion," and the issuing consul 
cannot be directed to reverse his determination. 

These two so-called review practices are not in any sense appellate 
reviews; rather they partake largely of the nature of management or 


administrative supervisory and reporting devices. Neither procedure 
meets the normal requirements for fair administrative review of 
decisions, for the following reasons : 

( 1 ) The alien is not given a right of review of his case ; 

(2) There is no definite review or appellate procedure. No specific 
review panels, appeal boards, or other similar formally established 
bodies function. If there is any review at all, it may be made individu- 
ally by an officer of the Division, or by the Chief of the Division, or 
by an ad hoc panel of several division officers, depending upon the 
importance or complexity of the case. 

(3) There is no published information on the opportunity for such 
review or the steps to be taken to obtain it. The procedure is based 
on unpublished departmental instructions to its staff. 

(4) The consul is not bound by the "advisory opinion." 

If the existence of these generally unknown and diverse methods of 
review have any value in this connection, it would seem that they are 
precedents for the creation of a more formal and improved review, 
one that would meet the test of fairness. One of the administrative 
problems to be solved in establishing a formal review procedure is the 
nature of the record upon which such review can be had. This prob- 
lem apparently has been satisfactorily solved in the existing procedure 
for reconsideration of consular action. In such instances,' the record 
of a case submitted for reconsideration consists for the most part of the 
applicant's dossier. This includes the data relating to him personally 
(biographical information and background data) , together with state- 
ments offered in his behalf by interested parties, recommendations 
by the visa officer abroad, and in general all material which bears 
directly upon the issue which enables the reviewing authority to 
formulate a reasoned advisory opinion. 

If the case is being reviewed on security grounds, the record must 
contain all data obtainable which relates to the applicant's status as a 
possible security threat, including intelligence agency reports and 
results of other investigatory bodies' inquiries. If the financial re- 
sponsibility of the sponsor is in doubt, then the record will include all 
possible available data relating to his financial status, so that the 
reviewing authority may decide if sufficient financial ability and re- 
sponsibility is indicated. 

Review of Cases Involving Claims to American Citizenship. — In 
addition to the precedents and procedure for reconsideration of con- 
sular visa actions, there also are procedures to review consular actions 
in connection with passports. 

(1) Board of Review. — Since 1941 procedures have been available 
in the Department of State permitting review of consular decisions 
denying passports. A Board of Review in the Passport Division was 
then established to consider appeals from determinations which deny 


an American passport to a person abroad claiming United States 

The Board of Review has adopted no formal rules of procedure. 
The persons concerned may have their cases considered upon the basis 
of the material constituting the existing record plus any additional 
evidence they may desire to submit, or they may request a formal 
hearing at which witnesses may appear and the interested person may 
be represented by an attorney. The Commission is informed that the 
facts in the Department's possession are disclosed in such hearings and 
that the person concerned is given full opportunity to present his 

(2) Board of Passport Appeals. — As a result of considerable public 
criticism of the procedures of the Department of State in denying 
passports for security reasons, echoes of which appeared in the testi- 
mony before the Commission by some of our outstanding scientists, 
a Board of Passport Appeals was established by the Department of 
State in August of 1952. Provision is made for tentative disapprovals 
of passport applications, accompanied by notice in writing of the 
tentative refusal "and of the reasons on which it is based, as specifi- 
cally as in the judgment of the Department of State secrecy considera- 
tions permit." The applicant is entitled to appeal to a hearing officer 
of the Passport Division, to be represented by counsel, and to submit 
affidavits and other evidence. 

If the decision of the Passport Division is adverse, the applicant is 
informed of such action and of his right to appeal to the Board of 
Passport Appeals. The Board is authorized to publish its rules of 
procedure and accords the applicant the right to a hearing and to 
representation by counsel. 

This Board's jurisdiction includes appeal from actions by consular 
officers in denying passports for reasons of national security. The 
Board of Review has jurisdiction to review actions by consular officers 
denying passports because of doubts as to American citizenship. 

(3) Denials of Certificates of Identity. — The law provides for the 
issuance of a certificate of identity to a person in a foreign country 
whose claim to United States citizenship is rejected and who desires to 
proceed to the United States in order to attempt to obtain a judicial 
declaration confirming his claim to American citizenship. The statute 
specifically provides that such an individual is entitled to appeal to 
the Secretary of State from the decision of a consular officer denying 
a certificate of identity. 

Where a consular officer refuses a Certificate of Identity and an 
appeal is taken to the Secretary of State, the case is reviewed in its 
entirety by the Passport Division. 

These precedents indicate the feasibility of procedures for reviewing 
consular actions on visa applications. 



The Commission is convinced that there is no substantial reason 
for continuing the present system under which the consular officer's 
determinations in visa cases are final and not reviewable as of right. 
The Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals, the creation of which 
is proposed by the Commission, should have statutory authority to 
review all denials of visas, with full authority to reverse such actions 
and direct issuance of visas. 

Where a visa is denied, either formally or informally, the alien 
should be informed in writing of the basis for such denial and of his 
right to have the matter reviewed by the proposed Board of Immigra- 
tion and Visa Appeals. Upon the filing of such an appeal by an 
alien with the visa issuing officer, the latter should be required to for- 
ward to the Board a written report, accompanied by any pertinent 
affidavits or documents, describing the facts and the basis for his 
action. There should be no requirement of a formal hearing before 
the visa issuing officer. 

The alien should not be authorized to come to the United States 
merely for the purpose of presenting his appeal. The alien should 
be entitled to know the grounds for refusal, except such as are deter- 
mined by the Board to be unavailable for security reasons. The alien 
should be entitled to representation by counsel before the Board. 



Consular decisions concerning a visa take place outside of the 
United States and before an alien has severed his ties abroad. Immi- 
gration authority decisions on exclusion take place when the alien 
reaches the shores or borders of this country. Orders of deportation 
affect aliens already resident in the United States. 

Current Hearing Procedures 

Exclusion — Examination Upon Arrival. — No alien may legally enter 
the United States unless he undergoes examination and inspection 
by the Immigration and Naturalization Service acting for the Attor- 
ney General. Since 1893, Congress has provided for administrative 
hearings in cases of arriving aliens whose admissibility to the United 
States is questioned. The courts have declared that such hearings, 
whenever provided, must be fairly conducted and that exclusion can 
be ordered only on statutory grounds. 

Each such hearing is conducted by a special inquiry officer. Previ- 
ous to December 24, 1952, the effective date of the act of 1952, the 


hearings were conducted by three-member Boards of Special Inquiry, 
stationed throughout the United States. 

The procedure on the alien's arrival is set out in considerable detail 
in the statute. If the alien's right of entry is in doubt the immigra- 
tion officer may order his temporary removal for detention at a desig- 
nated place, but such removal is not considered a landing in the 
United States. If the immigration officer questions the applicant's 
right to enter, he must refer the case to a special inquiry officer for a 
hearing. Proceedings before the special inquiry officer are conducted 
under oath and his determination must be based solely on the evidence 
produced at the inquiry. At such hearing the alien may be repre- 
sented by counsel. A complete record is made of the proceedings and 
of all evidence produced by the Government and by the alien. 

The alien has a right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Ap- 
peals in the Department of Justice from the exclusion order of the 
special inquiry officer. The filing of an appeal stays the execution 
of the exclusion order until final decision is rendered. The decision 
on appeal must rest solely on the evidence adduced before the special 
inquiry officer. Decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals may 
be certified to the Attorney General for further review in exceptional 
cases upon request of the Attorney General, the Board, or the Com- 
missioner of Immigration and Naturalization. 

Simultaneously with the inspection by immigration officers, per- 
sons seeking to enter the United States are required to undergo a 
physical and mental examination by medical officers of the United 
States Public Health Service. Generally, the determinations of medi- 
cal officers are subject to review only by a board of medical officers of 
the Public Health Service. 

Aliens whose exclusion is finally ordered by immigration or medical 
officers must be deported immediately to the country whence they 
came at the expense of the transportation line which brought them. 

Deportation. — Although some form of hearing has always been 
available to persons subject to deportation, no express provision ex- 
isted in the statute until 1952. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has 
held that a requirement for a fair hearing necessarily was implicit in 
the immigration law relating to deportation. The Court has held 
that the provision of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be de- 
prived of his liberty without due process of law applies to all persons 
in the United States, citizens and aliens alike. This guarantees to 
each alien in the United States, whether he be lawfully or unlawfully 
here, a fair hearing before his deportation can be ordered. 

Deportation is not regarded as criminal punishment. However, it 
often entails great hardship. Consequently, the courts have insisted 
that deportation hearings must conform most scrupulously to the 
highest standards of fair play. 


Under the 1952 statute, when a preliminary investigation indicates 
that an alien may be subject to deportation, application is made for 
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Such warrants of arrest are 
issued only upon a determination that probable cause for deportation 
exists. When the alien is arrested, he is furnished with a copy of 
the warrant of arrest and notified of his right to counsel and release 
under bond. In virtually every case the alien is released under bond. 

The hearing takes place before the special inquiry officer, who is 
authorized to administer oaths, present and receive evidence, inter- 
rogate, examine and cross-examine the alien or witnesses, and to 
make a determination as to the. alien's deportability. In any case or 
class of cases designated by the Attorney General, an additional 
immigration officer may be assigned to present the evidence on behalf 
of the United States before the special inquiry officer. 

The statute directs that the alien shall be given reasonable notice of 
the charges against him, that he shall have the privilege of being 
represented by counsel, as well as a reasonable opportunity to ex- 
amine the evidence against him, to present evidence in his own be- 
half, and to cross-examine the Government witnesses. No order of 
deportation is valid unless it is based upon substantial evidence in 
the record of the hearing. 

The alien is entitled to appeal to the Board of Immigration Ap- 
peals from an adverse decision of the special inquiry officer. A deci- 
sion of the Board of Immigration Appeals is subject to review by the 
Attorney General only when such review is requested by the Attorney 
General, by the Board, or by the Commissioner of Immigration and 
Naturalization. If the alien's deportation eventually is ordered, he 
is taken into custody under a warrrant of deportation, if not already 
in custody, and deported. 

The Issues 

The ordinary test applied to a law or to a procedure is not what is 
done under it, but what may be done. Only in that way is it pos- 
sible to determine whether it is open to abuse. Authorities in legal 
fields have long condemned procedures under which the same officials, 
or officials acting under the same administration, appear as com- 
plainants, as witnesses on their own complaints, and finally as judges 
to determine the result. The main issue here is whether reviews or 
appeals from the initial findings should be decided by officers not 
directly connected with those responsible for such findings. The 
issue here involves proposals for an independent appeals board, the 
separation of prosecuting and judicial functions, and provision for 
independent hearing examiners. 


Past Studies of Immigration Procedures 

During the last 40 years, there have been at least eight appraisals 
of this issue by various individuals and groups. In general, they have 
dealt with the separation of judicial and enforcement functions and 
with the caliber of the hearing officials. 

The Hoover Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. — A 
major study of immigration procedures was prepared by the so-called 
Wickersham Commission in 1931, "The Enforcement of the Deporta- 
tion Laws of the United States." 

One of the principal criticisms in the Wickersham report was ad- 
dressed to the practice of having the immigrant inspector perform 
the combined duties of investigator, prosecutor, judge, and enforce- 
ment officer. The report was critical of the Board of Review, since 
reorganized as the Board of Immigration Appeals, on the ground 
that it was not a statutory board and was the creature of the Secre- 
tary of Labor, who was authorized also to enforce and administer the 
immigration laws. It observed additionally that the Board lacked 
necessary discretionary power to alleviate hardships. 

In its conclusions and recommendations the report sharply criticized 
the system of administration under which "one agency of the United 
States Government acts as investigator, prosecutor, and judge, with 
despotic powers." It recommended that 

(a) The Department of Labor should be charged only with the duties of in- 
vestigation and prosecution of aliens unlawfully in this country and of execu- 
tion of warrants of deportation when issued. . . . 

(d) An independent board, with some such name as the "board of alien ap- 
peals," should be created, composed of men of judicial caliber, to be appointed 
by the President. This board should be charged with the duties of issuing 
warrants of arrest, of conducting hearings on the warrants, and of deciding 
when warrants of deportation should be issued. Its findings should be pub- 

(e) The board of alien appeals should have discretion to allow even deport- 
able aliens to remain in this country where deportation would result in unneces- 
sary hardship to American families, or is otherwise found to be inadvisable. 
Discretion should also be given to admit aliens previously deported. 

(f) This board should have broad powers in effecting its own organization. 
It should have the right to appoint subordinate officials, such as masters or ex- 
amining attorneys ; these appointees would act as officers of the board in the 
different localities and would be under its sole jurisdiction. 

Van Vleck Study. — This study, "The -Administrative Control of 
Aliens", published in 1932 under the auspices of the Commonwealth 
Fund, was made by Dean William C. Van Vleck of George Washing- 
ton University Law School. It criticized various exclusion and de- 
portation procedures. It strongly objected to the combination in the 
immigration hearing officers of the functions of investigation, prose- 


cution, and adjudication. It pointed out that few of the inspectors 
had legal training. It recommended that the personnel of boards of 
special inquiry be improved, that the Board of Keview be given statu- 
tory authority, and that deportation be made a judicial, rather than 
an administrative, process. 

President's Committee on Administrative Management. — This 
group made the next major study of administrative procedure. While 
its scrutiny was not aimed directly at the immigration process, its 
report criticized the mixture of administrative and adjudicative func- 
tions in Government agencies. It observed that such "mixed duties" 
"constitute an unwholesome atmosphere in which to adjudicate private 
rights." The Committee also pointed out that: 

The same men are obliged to serve both as prosecutor and as judge. This 
not only undermines judicial fairness, it weakens public confidence in that 

The Dimock Committee. — Probably the most comprehensive analy- 
sis and criticism of immigration procedures was that made by the 
Secretary of Labor's Committee on Administrative Procedure, the so- 
called Dimock Committee, which was appointed in 1938 and made its 
report May 17, 1940. The report pointed out that "the serious prob- 
lem in deportation administration is bias or suppression of bias re- 
sulting from confusion of function," which was a consequence of 
"imposing upon the same inspector not only the duty of presiding over 
the hearing, but of actually prosecuting it." The Committee also 
spoke of the need for a "public guarantee of real insulation and inde- 
pendence of the inspectors who sit as trial examiners" and remarked : 

To assure to every alien in a contested proceeding a fresh hearing before an 
official with the special experience, standing, and point of view of an adminis- 
trative judge would do much to minimize the dangers of abuse. 

The Committee said : 

We recommend that the presiding inspectors be relieved of their present duties 
of presenting the case against aliens and be confirmed [sic] entirely to the duties 
customary for a judge. This, of course, would require the assignment of another 
officer to perform the task of prosecuting attorney . . . 

A genuinely impartial hearing, conducted 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 himself of 
assembling and presenting the results of the investigation. Considerations 
such as these have led the overwhelming majority of other Federal administra- 
tive agencies to adoption of the practice here proposed . . . 

Finally, the report urged the need to attract personnel "who have 
the fresh, outside viewpoint which this ingrowing [Immigration and 
Naturalization] Service so badly needs." 


Attorney GeneraVs Committee on Administrative Procedure. — 
This Committee made a comprehensive study of all Government 
processes, not limited to procedures in immigration cases. Its final 
report, submitted in 1941, stated that it had not undertaken a study 
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service because the Secretary 
of Labor's committee had just completed an exhaustive analysis. 
However, the Attorney General's committee likewise criticized the 
practice of combining the prosecuting and adjudicating functions in 
Government agencies, and stated : 

A man who has buried himself in one side of an issue is disabled from bringing 
to its decision that dispassionate judgment which Anglo-American tradition 
demands of officials who decide questions. Clearly the advocate's view ought to 
be presented publicly and not privately to those who decide. 

These types of commingling of functions of investigation or advocacy with the 
function of deciding are thus plainly undesirable. But they are also avoid- 
able and should be avoided by appropriate internal division of labor. For the 
disqualifications produced by investigation or advocacy are personal psycho- 
logical ones which result from engaging in those types of activity ; and the 
problem is simply one of isolating those who engage in the activity. Creation 
of independent hearing commissioners insulated from all phases of a case other 
than hearing and deciding will, the Committee believes, go far toward solving 
this problem at the level of the initial hearing provided the proper safeguards 
are established to assure the insulation. A similar result can be achieved at the 
level of final decision on review by the agency heads by permitting the views of 
the investigators and advocates to be presented only in open hearings where 
they can be known and met by those who may be adversely affected by them. 

The Committee also considered the advisability of completely severing 
adjudication from prosecution by creating separate agencies to handle 
each. It concluded that this would be too costly and cumbersome, and 
that the most feasible arrangement would be a severance of prosecut- 
ing from adjudicating functions within the agency itself. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee Study. — The inquiry of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee which preceded enactment of the Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act of 1952 was intended as a "full and com- 
plete investigation of our entire immigration system." However, in 
the voluminous report issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee at 
the completion of its inquiry, the Committee merely described the 
prevailing exclusion and deportation processes. It submitted no 
recommendation for change in the deportation procedures. In regard 
to the exclusion process it recommended merely that the three-man 
board of special inquiry be reduced to one officer. 

Several studies also dealt with the problem of the caliber of hearing 

The Immigration Commission of 1907 submitted its report in 1911. 
Its recommendations included one "to strengthen the certainty of 
just and humane decisions of doubtful cases at ports of entry." This 


it sought to accomplish by urging that the boards of special inquiry 
"should be composed of unprejudiced men of ability, training, and 
good judgment . . . the character of these boards should be im- 
proved . . ." 

The Jane Perry Clark Study in 1931, "Deportation of Aliens from 
the United States to Europe" urged statutory recognition for the 
Board of Keview, and that its members and personnel be required to 
have legal training and higher qualifications. 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

A dominant note in many of these inquiries is their criticism of 
the failure to establish a clear division between the prosecuting and 
adjudicating functions of immigration officers. Such a severance 
has never been completely accomplished. Consequently it is signifi- 
cant that a major zone of controversy in immigration matters during 
recent years has been the issue as to whether the procedural require- 
ments of the Administrative Procedure Act should apply to immigra- 
tion proceedings. 

The Administrative Procedure Act was enacted in 1946. It resulted 
from many years of debate and study concerning the need for improve- 
ments in Federal administrative justice. At the heart of this legisla- 
tion, intended as a broad charter to govern the procedure of all Federal 
agencies, were its provisions for safeguarding the independence of 
hearing examiners. It provided that such examiners should be ap- 
pointed for each agency only by the Civil Service Commission; that 
such examiners should perform no duties inconsistent with their duties 
as examiners; that their compensation should be prescribed by the 
Civil Service Commission independently of agency ratings or recom- 
mendations; and that they should be removable only for cause upon 
the determination of the Civil Service Commission. 

Moreover, the statute prohibited private consultation by examiners 
with agency officers; forbade officers engaged in investigative and 
prosecuting functions in a case from engaging in the decision of 
that case ; and directed that no hearing officer should be responsible 
to any officer engaged in prosecuting or investigating functions. 
These latter provisions are not applicable to the agency itself or 
members of the body comprising it. 

Recognizing the widespread mixture of prosecuting and adjudicat- 
ing functions found in many Federal agencies, the Administrative 
^Procedure Act sought to achieve a limited separation of these func- 
tions within the framework of agency operations, and a substantial 
degree of independence in each agency's hearing examiners. Accord- 
ing to the Supreme Court, the major purpose of the Administrative 
Procedure Act was "to curtail and change the practice of embodying 


in one person and agency the duties of prosecutor and judge." The 
statute did not effect a complete divorce of prosecuting and adjudicat- 
ing functions. But its directives were intended, no doubt, as a long 
step in the direction of that goal. 

The Department of Justice took the position that the requirements 
of the Administrative Procedure Act were not intended to govern 
immigration proceedings. This resulted in litigation which eventually 
culminated in the Wong Yang Sung case,* where the Supreme Court 
concluded that deportation hearings were amenable to the Adminis- 
trative Procedure Act. In its opinion the Court declared: 

The Administrative Procedure Act did not go so far as to require a complete 
separation of investigating and prosecuting functions from adjudicating func- 
tions. But that the safeguards it did set up were intended to ameliorate the 
evils from the commingling of functions as exemplified here is beyond doubt. 
And this commingling, if objectionable anywhere, would seem to be particularly 
so in the deportation proceeding, where we frequently meet with a voteless class 
of litigants who not only lack the influence of citizens, but who are strangers to 
the laws and customs in which they find themselves involved and who often do 
not even understand the tongue in which they are accused. Nothing in the na- 
ture of the parties or proceedings suggests that we should strain to exempt de- 
portation proceedings from reforms in administrative procedure applicable gen- 
erally to Federal agencies. 

The Supreme Court decision dealt only with deportation hearings. 
The Supreme Court has not yet passed upon the applicability of the 
Administrative Procedure Act to exclusion hearings. However, the 
lower Federal courts found the requirements of that statute inappli- 
cable to such exclusion hearings. 

However, the Congress in a rider to an Appropriation Act enacted 
on September 27, 1950 negated this Supreme Court decision by a stat- 
utory exemption of "exclusion or expulsion of aliens" from the provi- 
sion of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 does not deal directly 
with the Administrative Procedure Act. It repeals the Appropriation 
Act rider which specifically exempted immigration procedures. How- 
ever, other directives of the statute forge a pattern which reveals an 
unmistakable purpose to exempt immigration hearings from the pro- 
cedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Thus 
sections 236 and 242 specify that exclusion and deportation hearings 
are to be conducted before special inquiry officers and that the proce- 
dure described in the statute "shall be the sole and exclusive procedure 
for determining" an alien's right to enter or remain in the United 
States. Moreover, section 101 (b) (4) defines a special inquiry officer 

Any immigration officer who the Attorney General deems specially qualified 
to conduct specified classes of proceedings, in whole or in part, required by this 

•Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33 (1950). 


act to be conducted by or before a special inquiry officer and who is designated 
and selected by the Attorney General, individually or by regulation, to conduct 
such proceedings. Such special inquiry officer shall be subject to such supervi- 
sion and shall perform such duties, not inconsistent with this act as the Attorney 
General shall prescribe. 

The apparent purpose of these provisions was to establish an exemp- 
tion from the procedural requirements of the Administrative Proce- 
dure Act without specifically mentioning that statute. The regula- 
tions recently promulgated by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service under the 1952 act have adopted that interpretation. 

The Issues Reconsidered 

The deportation process has come a long way since 1893 when a 
Chinese alien could be expelled from the United States unless the 
legality of his stay was attested by "one white witness" ; or even since 
the 1920's with the "shocking spectacle of flying squadrons of inspec- 
tors moving about the country — a single official regularly making the 
investigation, holding the hearing and recommending a decision." 
Indeed, with some conspicuous exceptions both admission and expul- 
sion procedures have advanced steadily toward the achievement of 
greater fairness. The Commission observes those advances, but 
notes that some of the shortcomings that repeatedly have been sub- 
jected to heaviest assault by responsible and informed observers 
are still unremedied. 

( 1 ) Uncertain Status of Board of Immigration Appeals 

To the Commission it seems inexplicable that the Board of Immi- 
gration Appeals is not specifically sanctioned by statute, and owes 
its existence only to a regulation of the Attorney General. Several 
studies of the immigration process and very considerable testimony 
before the Commission have condemned this situation and have urged 
that such Board be given statutory recognition. A proposal to give 
such status to the Board was passed by the House of Representatives 
in the course of its consideration of the 1952 Act, but was eliminated 
by the Senate. 

The tenuous status of the Board of Immigration Appeals, under- 
lined by repeated changes in its allotted jurisdiction, is clearly unde- 
sirable. A quasi-judicial agency that exercises virtual life-and-death 
authority over thousands of human lives should be free to exercise its 
responsibilities in an atmosphere of stability and protection from 
pressures. In its proposals for organization of immigration func- 
tions (Chapter 10), the Commission recommends a statutory Board 
of Immigration and Visa Appeals, with specific legislative authoriza- 
tion to make final administrative decisions in a wide variety of cases. 


The adoption of this proposal would be a step toward assuring fair 
hearings for aliens. 

Aliens should be entitled to bring appeal to the Board of Immigra- 
tion and Visa Appeals without the payment of fees. 

( 2 ) Commingled Judicial and Prosecuting Functions 

A striking phenomenon in the jurisprudence of our day has been the 
crystallization of concepts for fair dealing in the administrative 
process. These concepts have been formulated by scholars, by the 
legal profession, by official studies, by the courts, and in the legisla- 
tures. They have included a universal condemnation of the situation 
in which one official or group of officials acts as investigator, prosecutor, 
and judge. This practice has been characterized as obnoxious to 
elementary standards of fair procedure. 

Those who have appraised the immigration process likewise have 
condemned its mixture of prosecuting and adjudicative functions. 
They have described it as a roadblock to impartial consideration. The 
Supreme Court said recently that the administrative deportation hear- 
ing is "a perfect exemplification of the practices so universally con- 
demned." But the attainment of insulation between prosecution and 
adjudication has been resisted and is today not yet a reality. The 
deportation process, although it touches countless human lives, thus 
has lagged behind other aspects of administrative justice. The major 
burden of the testimony of the American Bar Association was to urge 
the application of the Administrative Procedure Act to deportation 

The current hearing procedures should be examined in the light of 
the mandates of the Administrative Procedure Act. First is the need 
for restricting hearing officers to adjudicative functions, so that they 
will not be committed to the attitudes or aims of investigation and 
prosecution. In this connection the Administrative Procedure Act 
provides (1) that hearing officers "shall perform no duties inconsistent 
with their duties and responsibilities as hearing examiners"; (2) that 
investigative and prosecuting officers shall not participate in any deci- 
sions. From these requirements it would necessarily follow (3) that 
separate officers shall prosecute and preside at hearings. 

Present practice conforms only partially with this first objective. 
Of 119 full-time hearing officers in the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service on October 1, 1952, only two performed extraneous duties. 
However, several hundred other officers, principally immigrant 
inspectors, are assigned part time to conduct hearings in exclusion 

With regard to the above item (2), the immigration statute now 
provides, like the Administrative Procedure Act, that special inquiry 

250653 0—53 12 

officers shall not conduct proceedings in those cases in which they have 
participated in investigating or prosecuting functions. 

In regard to the above item (3), the departure from Administra- 
tive Procedure Act is even more complete than under item (1). The 
act of 1952 provides that a special inquiry officer shall have complete 
authority to prosecute, hear, and decide exclusion and deportation 
cases, except that in some special classes of cases, fixed specifically 
or by regulation, an additional immigration officer may be assigned 
to present the evidence on behalf of the United States. The regula- 
tion does not require the assignment of an additional officer in any 
specific category of cases, but leaves the assignment to the discretion 
of the officer in charge of the district. In practice an examining officer 
was seldom designated, and in the vast majority deportation hear- 
ings were conducted entirely by a hearing officer, prior to the act of 

The present hearing procedure in deportation and exclusion 
cases fails to conform to the now generally accepted standards for 
fair hearings. The normal practice in both exclusion and deporta- 
tion cases under the act of 1952, is to have the entire proceeding con- 
ducted by a special inquiry officer who acts both as prosecutor and 
judge. Furthermore, officers normally performing investigating and 
prosecuting duties are authorized to conduct immigration hearings. 

Another major facet of the Administrative Procedure Act is the 
removal of hearing examiners from the supervision of officers per- 
forming prosecuting and investigative functions. This goal likewise 
is not fully met by current immigration practices. Even full-time 
hearing officers are subject to the immediate supervision of the dis- 
trict director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
administrative arrangements at the local level, and to over-all policy 
supervision of the assistant commissioner in charge of the inspections 
and examinations division. Both of these officials are concerned with 
enforcement. Under such an arrangement the hearing officer inevi- 
tably will tend to tailor his determinations to the wishes of his superior 
officers, whose sphere of action encompasses enforcement duties. 

Indeed, the 1952 act explicitly declares that special inquiry officers 
"shall be subject to such supervision and shall perform such duties, 
not inconsistent with this act, as the Attorney General shall prescribe." 

(3 ) Independence and Competence of Hearing Officers 

Another major objective of the Administrative Procedure Act is 
to assure to hearing officers a measure of independence. This is done, 
in addition to the methods already discussed, by placing their appoint- 
ment, ratings, compensation, and removal within the domain of the 
Civil Service Commission, independent of control in the agency in 


which they serve. None of these objectives is reached by current im- 
migration policies. Hearing officers enjoy no such independence of 
status. They are civil service officers and are subject to the normal 
powers of the Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice, 
to appoint, compensate, rate, promote, and remove them. 

The sponsors of the Administrative Procedure Act contemplated 
that the hearing examiner would be an officer with a high level of 
competence, and that the scale of his compensation would be adequate 
to attract outstanding individuals. Current immigration adminis- 
tration falls short of these objectives. 

In the previous studies of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 
ice there has been a recurring recommendation for improvement in 
the caliber of hearing officials. Through the years there undoubtedly 
have been marked improvements in personnel, but many have said 
that such improvements have not progressed far or fast enough. The 
present complaint seems to be directed far more to the low concept 
of the role and function of such officers than to the officers themselves, 
some of whom are recognized as meeting the generally accepted stand- 
ards for such important positions. 

The Dimock committee reached the conclusion in 1940 that it was 
a mistake to recruit all hearing officers, as was done in 1940 and is 
still being done in 1952, through promotion from within the service. 
Of the 119 hearing officers now employed by the service, 74 formerly 
were immigrant inspectors, 18 were investigators, and 27 occupied 
miscellaneous positions such as naturalization examiner, patrol in- 
spector, and officer-in-charge. Only 16 hearing officers are members 
of the bar and 5 possess law degrees but are not admitted to the bar. 
Thus less than 18 percent of the hearing officers have legal training. 
Thirty-two hearing officers possess college degrees. This means that 
approximately 60 percent of the hearing officers do not have college 
degrees or legal training. 

The Commission is in accord with the conclusions of previous 
studies that it is of the utmost importance that hearing officers be 
possessed of adequate training and experience properly to dis- 
charge the duties assigned to them, requiring knowledge of intricate 
laws, regulations and court decisions and the capacity to deal justly 
with human rights and aspirations. 

Closely related to the independence and qualifications of hearing 
examiners is their compensation. Manifestly, officers of high caliber 
cannot be attracted to these positions unless they are offered reason- 
able compensation commensurate with their responsibilities. The 
compensation scales of immigration hearing officers during recent 
years have never attained the reasonable levels fixed in most other 



The deficiencies in the immigration hearing process seem clear. In 
large measure they result from a commingling of prosecuting and 
investigating functions, from the absence of real independence in the 
officers who hear and decide cases, and from what is said to be the 
inadequate qualifications of some of the hearing officers. 

The Commission believes it imperative not only that immigration 
hearings accord a maximum of fairness, but also that they give others 
confidence of fairness. In order to improve immigration administra- 
tion, to insure greater impartiality in rendering judgments, and to 
bring to the decision of cases under immigration laws a fresh and more 
humane point of view, the Commission makes the following recom- 
mendations : 

Separation of Organization. — In the recommendation for a Com- 
mission on Immigration and Naturalization (Chapter 10), provision 
is made for a division of organizational responsibility between an 
Administrator of Immigration and Naturalization and a Board of 
Immigration and Visa Appeals. The Board of Immigration and 
Visa Appeals would be a statutory board whose members would 
be appointed by the Commission. The Board would be concerned 
exclusively with the adjudication of cases arising under the 
immigration laws. The entire process of adjudication would be 
concentrated in the Board, which would be independent in deciding 
cases. Its decisions would be administratively final on all issues of 
law and fact and would be subject to review by the new proposed 
Commission only in regard to the exercise of discretionary authority. 

Separation of the Hearing Function. — The Commission recom- 
mends that the examiners who hear and decide exclusion and de- 
portation cases be separated from any enforcement functions. 
This would be accomplished principally by placing such examiners 
under the supervision of the Board of Immigration and Visa Ap- 
peals and removing them from the control and direction of any 
enforcement officials. Such examiners would be prohibited from 
performing any duties outside of their responsibilities as hearing 

A number of witnesses have urged also that the procedural require- 
ments of the Administrative Procedure Act be applied to immigra- 
tion hearings. The spearhead of this proposal is the American Bar 
Association, whose representative testified at the hearing, in part as 
follows : 

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 proceed- 
ings 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. 

The need for invoking the purely procedural directives of the Ad- 
ministrative Procedure Act doubtless will be lessened by the adoption 
of the Commission's proposal for the separation of adjudicative func- 
tions from enforcement, subject only to a limited right of appeal. It 
may perhaps be urged that there is still a possibility that immigration 
hearing officers, lacking the relative independence of examiners chosen 
in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, may ultimately 
come under the influence of enforcement officials. To minimize this 
possibility, to remove a constant source of needless controversy and 
litigation, and to bring the deportation process in line with the uniform 
administrative procedures established by the Administrative Proce- 
dure Act, the Commission recommends that deportation hearings 
be conducted in conformity with the procedural requirements of 
the Administrative Procedure Act. All this would entail, in addi- 
tion to the division of functions and organization recommended, is that 
a prosecuting officer be assigned to assemble and present evidence be- 
fore the deportation examiner. There can be no substantial objections 
to making this a routine rather than the exceptional requirement it is 
under the 1952 act. The practical difficulties would be negligible and 
the added costs inconsiderable. 

In reaching the conclusion that the added costs will be inconsider- 
able, the Commission has not lost sight of the estimates given to the 
Congress by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that the in- 
creased cost for that particular year would be almost $4,000,000, and 
that if all aliens charged in deportation cases demanded hearings the 
extra annual expense might reach 25 or 30 million dollars. These cal- 
culations were on the theory that in the case of every alien appre- 
hended because illegally in the United States, a hearing would have 
to be given him by an independent hearing officer with the aid of a 
prosecuting officer. 

For the last fiscal year, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
completed 42,258 deportation hearings. At the same time, voluntary 
departure without a hearing was allowed in 694,200 cases. If hearings 
were conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act it would still 
be permissible for the service to permit voluntary departure without 
bringing the case to a hearing, as is the practice today. No factual 
basis whatever has been offered to support the conclusion that every 
alien apprehended because illegally here, or any number of aliens 
greater than those now accorded hearings, would demand a hearing if 
operating under the Administrative Procedure Act. Actually, every 


alien charged in deportation proceedings at present has a right under 
the United States Constitution to demand a fair hearing, so that the 
opportunity for delay exists even now for those disposed to resort to 
dilatory tactics. 

It has been suggested that a deportation hearing under the Adminis- 
trative Procedure Act would be more time-consuming and, therefore, 
more aliens would demand a hearing in order to remain in the United 
States longer. It is difficult to perceive the validity of such an assump- 
tion. In fact, it would seem that as a hearing officer under the Admin- 
istrative Procedure Act would be relieved of the duty of studying a 
case in order adequately to act as a prosecuting officer, with that func- 
tion being placed in another official, hearings should be less time- 
consuming than is now the case. 

Clearly, applying the Administrative Procedure Act to deportation 
proceedings will be somewhat more costly than is true under existing 
law and regulations. That cost, however, should be limited to the 
expense involved in hiring additional personnel to act as prosecuting 
officers. Judging this added cost against the benefits of a completely 
impartial and objective hearing, the Commission is of the opinion 
that fiscal considerations should not operate against the adoption of 
the Administrative Procedure Act in deportation proceedings under 
the immigration laws. 

The Commission believes its recommendations in connection with 
deportation hearings meet the substantive requirements for a fair 
hearing, and comply fully with the spirit and purpose of the Admin- 
istrative Procedure Act. 

The exclusion process seems to be governed by somewhat different 
considerations. It deals with an alien who is outside the United 
States and who is not in a position to claim procedural protections 
equal to those accorded to an alien who has established residence in 
the United States. The American Bar Association has not officially 
favored application of the Administrative Procedure Act to the exclu- 
sion process. Moreover, in the admission process at the numerous 
ports of entry along the seacoasts and land ports of the United States 
there is special need for speed and flexibility in passing upon cases. 
The application of the Administrative Procedure Act to the exclu- 
sion process would seem to hamper effective administration, and 
the Commission does not recommend that course now. It believes 
it would be advisable to study the results of experience under the pro- 
posals it has made before reaching a decision as to the need for ad- 
ditional measures. 

In the* meantime, under the plan recommended by the Commission, 
the hearing officers who consider applications for admission would be 
responsible to the Board of Immigration Appeals and not to en- 
forcement officers. 


In addition to the other reasons against the application at this 
time of the Administrative Procedure Act to exclusion, the Com- 
mission believes that it would be inappropriate to attempt to use 
that act to control the procedure of visa issuing officers stationed 

The proceedings before such visa officers should be free from un- 
necessary complications. Generally, their determinations would be 
made on a written record, consisting of an application and supporting 
documents. Unless extended inquiry is found necessary, there would 
be no need for any formal hearing in such cases. The visa issuing 
officer's determinations would be subject to review by the proposed 
Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals. This procedure would 
provide appreciably greater assurances of fair play to the applicant 
for a visa than is available under present law. 

Improvement in Caliber of Examiners. — Such improvement will 
follow to some extent from the severance of adjudication from admin- 
istration. Freedom from ties with enforcement doubtless will tend 
to alter the outlook of hearing officers. But changed organizational 
management will not in itself meet the need, to which many of the 
studies called attention, for improvement in the caliber and the com- 
petence of some of the hearing examiners. 


With the growing complexity of modern life, it has been necessary 
to develop specialized administrative agencies of government, many 
of which take on quasi- judicial functions which previously were con- 
ceived of as being wholly within the area of court action. This de- 
velopment of administrative justice has raised the important problem 
of the relationship of such quasi-judicial administrative agencies and 
the normal court system. There has been some uncertainty as to the 
precise extent to which the courts would, or even should, inquire into 
the merits of issues which have been resolved by the quasi- judicial 
administrative process. 

This same uncertainty has been present in immigration. The legal 
scholars in general seem to agree that in the area of administrative law, 
including immigration, there has been a steadily widening zone of 
intervention by the courts. 

The issues are twofold: first, whether there should be any judicial 
review of the action of immigration officials; second, whether such 
judicial review should be limited to a determination of the reasonable- 
ness of executive action, or should re-examine the merits. 

These issues arise in different phases of the immigration process: 


Deportation Orders 

The statutes never have directly sanctioned judicial examination 
of deportation orders. On the contrary, they always have confided to 
administrative officers the function of determining whether an alien 
should be deported, and have provided that the determination "shall 
be final." Such is still the provision of the 1952 act. The courts have 
supported this igrant of authority to administrative officers; the 
Supreme Court has stated that they are authorized to function "with- 
out judicial intervention." 

Although the immigration law lacks a specific statutory authoriza- 
tion for judicial review of deportation, the courts have held that an 
alien could question a deportation order through a writ of habeas 
corpus. The proceeding affords to each person deprived of his liberty 
a speedy and effective means of testing the legality of his detention. 
But it is not a full judicial review of the issue; it only enables the 
courts to ascertain whether the deportation order was supported by 
substantial evidence, was issued on the basis of legal authority, and 
after a fair hearing. The courts have not attempted to decide in 
habeas corpus proceedings whether the administrative findings were 
wrong but rather have determined whether the proceedings were fairly 
and legally conducted. 

Until the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 
the courts uniformly held that the writ of habeas corpus was the 
exclusive method of contesting a deportation order. Since then, the 
legal situation has been somewhat confused. Efforts have been made 
to invoke court remedies under the Administrative Procedure Act and 
under the previously enacted Declaratory Judgment Act, and both 
forms of proceeding have been sanctioned in some of the lower Federal 
courts. Perhaps by the time this report is completed the Supreme 
Court will have ruled on the matter. 

The 1952 act contains no specific provision concerning judicial re- 
view of deportation orders. The congressional conference report on 
that bill stated that "the safeguard of judicial procedure is afforded 
the alien in both exclusion and deportation proceedings," but it does 
not explain or indicate just how. 

The attempts to enlarge the remedies that might be pursued to ques- 
tion orders of deportation doubtless have been engendered in large 
measure by a conviction that the relief afforded through the writ of 
habeas corpus is inadequate. No one would dispute that the writ of 
habeas corpus has furnished sturdy protection to individual rights in 
deportation cases. However, that writ can be obtained only by a 
person who is actually in physical custody. The alien, therefore, is 
unable to bring court proceedings until an attempt is made to enforce 

the order of deportation. This has meant that he was obliged to 
undergo detention before he could obtain a court ruling. 

The Commission requested the advice of the United States Solicitor 
General's office concerning the possibility of improving and clarifying 
the avenues for judicial review of deportation orders. The views ex- 
pressed in the Acting Solicitor General's response were formulated 
with the concurrence of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
of the Department of Justice. The Acting Solicitor General stated : 

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

He recommended clarification of the existing uncertain situation by a 
statutory substitute of "a single, fair, and expeditious review" for the 
habeas corpus proceeding. He observed : 

It is inconvenient to the alien and of no corresponding benefit to the Govern- 
ment that he cannot challenge a deportation order which is otherwise final until 
he has been taken into at least nominal custody. 

He also suggested that the statute include assurances for speedy con- 
sideration of such cases and reasonable safeguards against dilatory and 
multiple litigation. 

The Commission agrees with these views and recommends the 
creation of a statutory form of judicial review of orders of deporta- 
tion. Just how this should be developed is a matter for legislative 
draftsmanship. The Commission is not wedded to any particular 
means of providing a clear and precise procedure for judicial review 
of orders of deportation. 

However, as some indication of what such proposal might involve, 
the following is suggested as one means of accomplishing this recom- 
mendation : 

(a) The immigration statute should include specific authorization 
for judicial review of deportation orders after the administrative de- 
cision has become final. Although the precise designation of such a 
court proceeding is unimportant, this remedy could appropriately be 
called a petition for judicial review. 

(b) Enforcement of the order of deportation should be subject to 
the right to file a proceeding for judicial review within a period of 
60 days. 

(c) Although there is a logical justification for channeling review 
proceedings directly to the United States courts of appeals, the heavy 
volume of such cases might overburden those courts. On balance 
therefore it might be preferable that the petitions for review be 
brought in the United States district courts. If this view be taken, 
such suits should be maintained in the district of the plaintiff's 
residence, rather than in the District of Columbia, in order to avoid 
a concentration of cases in one court. 


(d) Because of protracted calendar delays in the trial of civil 
actions in some Federal courts, the statute should make provision for 
simplified pleadings and expedited consideration in the same manner 
as habeas corpus proceedings are now expedited. Moreover, the 
statute should preclude multiple attacks upon deportation orders by 
providing that this special review proceeding shall be the exclusive 
remedy. Such procedure will give the alien respondent in deporta- 
tion proceedings a prompt and effective remedy, but will restrict him, 
in common with all other litigants, to a single mode of review. 

(e) Because deportation will continue to be an administrative, 
rather than a judicial function, court review should be restricted to 
an appraisal of the legality and fairness of the decision, and should 
not reconsider the merits of the controversy. Therefore, the scope 
of review of deportation orders could continue to be governed by 
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, which substan- 
tially conforms with the scope of judicial inquiry fashioned by the 
courts themselves in deportation cases. 

Exclusion Orders 

Under present law and court rulings the alien applying for admis- 
sion to the United States who is stopped at the port of entry does not 
have status or legal protections equivalent to those granted to an alien 
already admitted into the United States. However, the Supreme 
Court long ago decided that an alien so barred from the United States 
had the right to institute habeas corpus proceedings, to determine 
whether the exclusion was ordered on grounds prescribed by Congress. 

The availability of habeas corpus has been an important privilege 
to aliens whose exclusion has been ordered. The excluded alien ordi- 
narily remains in confinement at the port of entry and the writ of 
habeas corpus seems a suitable vehicle for obtaining a court ruling. 
Moreover, the Commission is not aware that the form of the remedy 
has caused any real difficulty. Consequently the Commission recom- 
mends that there be no change in existing formulas for review of 
exclusion orders after final administrative review by the proposed 
Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals. This would mean that the 
writ of habeas corpus will continue to be the appropriate remedy 
open to an alien excluded at a port of entry who wishes to challenge a 
final order of exclusion. 

Denial of Visa 

Although the precedents are meager, it seems doubtful whether 
under present law a rejected applicant for a visa can bring court 
proceedings to question the adverse determination. Elsewhere the 
Commission recommends that the proposed Board of Immigration 


an I Visa Appeals review determinations denying visas. One of the 
objections to granting such administrative review has been the appre- 
hension by some that it might invite further review in the courts. 

Although the purpose to be served by such review is an old and 
cherished one — protection against arbitrary or illegal official action — 
the legal right recommended is a new one. The Commission believes 
it desirable to await experience with its proposed administrative re- 
view of visa actions before consideration of judicial review. There- 
fore, the Commission recommends that at this time the review by 
the proposed Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals, of a decision 
denying a visa, should not be subject to judicial review. 


The immigration laws do not recognize an absolute right to release 
on bail for an alien against whom deportation proceedings are pend- 
ing. Although the privilege of bail has been granted almost univer- 
sally, there have been some instances in which bail has been denied. 

The legal authority to refuse bail prior to a determination of deport- 
ability was challenged in the courts and eventually was supported by 
the United States Supreme Court in Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524 
(1952). The Supreme Court was closely divided on this issue, but 
the majority sustained the denial as a necessary administrative 
weapon to be used against aliens who are active adherents of the world 
Communist movement, and declared that the aid of the courts could 
be invoked to determine whether this power was being arbitrarily or 
illegally exercised. 

The act of 1952, section 242, provides that courts shall have author- 
ity to review determinations denying bail in deportation proceedings 
only upon "a conclusive showing . . . that the 'Attorney General is 
not proceeding with . . . reasonable dispatch." This provision ap- 
parently attempts to preclude the courts from considering whether 
denials of bail have been arbitrary or illegal. 

The Commission recommends that the courts be given specific 
authority to decide whether denials of bail pending hearings and 
determinations in deportation cases are arbitrary or illegal. 

In summary, apart from bail cases, no additional substantive judi- 
cial review is recommended by the Commission. The procedure and 
form of judicial review in deportation cases should be clarified, but 
no new or additional judicial review or court procedures are recom- 
mended in exclusion or visa denials. Here the Commission believes 
that experience with the proposed new rights and procedures set up 
in connection with the proposed Board of Immigration and Visa Ap- 
peals should determine what, if any, further steps should be taken. 


Part V 


Chapter 12 

The Admission of 

The immigration law incorporates two different selective devices, 
group selection and individual selection. The unified quota system 
and the national origins system both deal with immigrants by group 
characteristics. Once a group is selected, either in the nondiscrimi- 
natory manner of the unified quota system or by the discriminatory 
method of the national origins system, there still remains the problem 
of deciding whether a particular individual from that group is de- 
sirable and should be admitted. 

The President's directive to the Commission required that particular 
consideration should be given to 

. . . the requirements and administration of our immigration laws with 
respect to the admission, naturalization and denaturalization of aliens, and their 
exclusion and deportation. 

As a sovereign nation the United States has full power to decide 
which aliens it will admit and which it will permit to remain. These 
questions are resolved by Congress. The Commission's discussions 
of what should be done, therefore, are concerned not with the power 
of Congress under the Constitution but with the nature of the pro- 
visions appearing in the law. 

A primary function of the restrictions in our immigration law is to 
protect the United States against aliens who are actually or potentially 
undesirable. But it is difficult to reconcile this sound and important 
aim with the excessive punishments contained in our immigration 
laws, or with the attitudes of suspicion and distrust which seem to 
motivate them. Any objective study of the present grounds for ex- 
clusion of aliens makes it obvious that hostility to the alien is a major 
characteristic of our immigration statutes. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is unbelievably 
obscure, complex and permeated with burdensome and unnecessary de- 
tail. Opinions may differ concerning some of the substantive require- 
ments of the act of 1952, but there is a virtual unanimity of opinion 
to the effect that its draftsmanship leaves much to be desired. Al- 
though to some extent this may be attributed to poor technical arrange- 
ment, the major cause seems to be the attempt, through excessive 
technicalities, to minimize any opportunity for humane interpreta- 
tions and to increase the opportunity for harsh results. 


The Act of 1952 consists, in an official edition, of 119 closely printed 
pages. There are seven pages of definitions of words and phrases. 
The statute has 143 separate sections, some of which have dozens of 
subdivisions, provisos, and exceptions. One of the justifications given 
for enactment of the 1952 law was that it would clarify and simplify 
the previous law. However, former immigration laws, although not 
always models of clarity, were far more intelligible. 

Some of the formidable difficulties of interpretation and administra- 
tion posed by the statute were described by the Attorney General of 
the United States, in his testimony before the Commission, in which 
he observed : 

It is my opinion that the new act does not achieve the simplicity of arrangement 
to be expected of an exhaustive codification. It may even bring about further 
complications of administration. 

Even immigration experts are appalled at the complexities of the 
act of 1952, but to the nonexpert this legislation is all but incompre- 
hensible. A professor of law at one of the leading universities testified 
before the Commission that he was compelled to read one of the sec- 
tions 13 times before he thought he understood it. 

The Commission's objections to the law are much more fundamental. 
The Commission believes that aliens have a right to expect fair and 
just treatment by our laws and in their administration. Although 
it is true that the alien cannot claim as a matter of right the protec- 
tions of our Constitution, when knocking at the gates of entry into the 
United States, nevertheless, our immigration laws and administration 
must be governed by a high sense of decency, tolerance, and respect for 
the individual human being. In many of the present statutory 
grounds for exclusion of aliens these qualities are now absent. 


The immigration laws have never directly described the type of 
individual who may enter the United States. Instead, our early immi- 
gration policies were founded on the premise that all immigrants were 
acceptable. The first century of free immigration was followed by 
the introduction of gradually increasing restrictions which described 
only the unwelcome groups. Thus our immigration law today does 
not describe "whom we shall welcome", but rather whom we shall 

The tabulation of categories of unwanted aliens has grown through 
the years, as more were added to the rolls. In 1862, the first approach 
to Federal regulation penalized traffic in coolie labor. In 1875 the 
importation of prostitutes and convicts was prohibited. The first 
general legislation of 1882 added bans upon paupers, lunatics, idiots, 
and persons likely to become public charges. Chinese were barred the 


same year, in legislation substantially retained in effect until 1943. 
Legislation after 1882 expanded the prohibited lists to include contract 
laborers; insane persons, paupers, and persons suffering from loath- 
some and contagious disease; epileptics, imbeciles, professional beg- 
gars, and persons suffering from tuberculosis ; feeble minded, physical 
defectives, and persons admitting commission of crimes involving 
moral turpitude. The codification of 1917 added to the excluded classes 
illiterates, psychopaths, alcoholics, stowaways, vagrants, persons suf- 
fering a previous attack of insanity, and natives of a geographical area 
commonly known as the "Asiatic Barred Zone." Outstanding among 
subsequent enactments were the laws aimed at subversives. 

In the historic development of the immigration laws there was 
bound to be an accumulation of legislative provisions that had become 
archaic and had proved to be unnecessary or inequitable. Conse- 
quently a recodification of our immigration laws could have been 
especially useful in correcting manifest inequities, and in bringing the 
law into line with modern needs. But the act of 1952 failed almost 
entirely to achieve these salutary goals. Although it did effect one 
major improvement in terminating the complete exclusion of Ori- 
entals, the new law overlooked or deliberately rejected the opportunity 
to strike out many obsolete and excessively severe survivals from the 


The Commission recommends that the provisions of the act of 
1952 relating to exclusion of immigrants should be revised so as to 
eliminate the unwise, the unfair, and the obsolete grounds now 
contained in the law. 

The Commission believes the act of 1952 has failed as a purported 
codification and modernization of the immigration laws. Some of 
the reasons for these statements are : 

Excessive or Irrational Penalties 

Shutting off the opportunity to come to the United States actually 
is a crushing deprivation to many prospective immigrants. Very often 
it destroys the hopes and aspirations of a lifetime, and it frequently 
operates not only against the individual immediately affected but also 
bears heavily upon his family, in and out of the United States. 

The United States should protect itself against the entry of aliens 
who are dangerous, diseased, or otherwise undesirable to the good 
order and welfare of our country. The immigration statutes neces- 
sarily must exclude those aliens who are subversive, criminal, or 
suffering from serious mental or physical disabilities. But no ra- 
tional purpose is served by excluding aliens forever for mistakes 
of the past, if they now are respected members of society. 

250G53 0—53 1-3 * « * 

These are broad generalizations, but they describe situations unfor- 
tunately too prevalent in our immigration statutes. For example, 
an alien is permanently barred from entering the United States if, 
20 years ago, he stole a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family and 
was convicted for that offense. The fact of an exemplary life since 
has no bearing upon his admissibility. 

Excessively Broad Catch-Alls 

Throughout the exclusionary provisions of the immigration lawa 
there are vague restrictions, which may result in undue penalties in 
barring aliens. 

Examples of this type of restrictive discretion include: (a) the 
authority granted to the President "for such period as he shall 
deem necessary, [to] suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of 
aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of 
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate ;" (Sec. 212 (e) ) ; 
(b) the exclusion of aliens who "in the opinion of" the consular 
officer or the Attorney General are likely at any time to become public 
charges; (Sec. 212 (a) (15) ) ; and (c) the barring of aliens who the 
consular officer or the Attorney General has reason to believe are 
seeking to enter the United States to engage in prejudicial activities. 
(Sec. 212 (a) (27) and (29).) 

The Commission believes that latitude in administrative action is 
frequently a desirable objective. However, such discretionary au- 
thority should not be limited to permitting flexibility only for the 
purpose of imposing additional restrictions. Moreover, such dis- 
cretionary authority should not be nebulous and undefined but 
rather should contain some standards controlling the administra- 
tive action. 

Lack of Sufficient Discretion To Cope With Hardships 

The act of 1952 has either deleted or severely curtailed discretionary 
authority to alleviate hardships, although it is written in such a way 
as inevitably to produce situations of great inequity. 

The Commission recommends that the head of the agency admin- 
istering the immigration laws be authorized in individual cases, sub- 
ject to certain exceptions, to exercise discretion to admit otherwise 
inadmissible aliens, upon a finding that the case is a meritorious 
one and that the alien's admission would not be detrimental to 
the United States. In relation to new immigrants seeking permanent 
residence this would not include authority to waive inadmissibility in 
cases involving present subversive activity or affiliation, serious medi- 
cal or other named reasons. It is intended that such discretionary 
authority would be subject to adequate safeguards and would be 
exercised in relatively few cases. The Commission's proposal has 


precedent in the immigration law which now sanctions waivers of 
the documentary requirements on a limited basis, and — prior to the 
1952 act — authorized waivers of inadmissibility under certain cir- 

The expansion of administrative authority to ameliorate hardships 
in exceptional cases would introduce into the law a highly desirable 
element of flexibility. Such provisions have abundant precedent in 
the immigration processes of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and 
of most other countries, which confer upon immigration officers the 
power to waive any immigration requirements in individual cases. 
The grant of limited discretionary authority to immigration officers 
in the United States would be a desirable step in the direction of an 
enlightened immigration policy. 

Returning Lawful Residents 

Under present law, every time an alien living in the United States 
leaves the country, no matter how brief his absence, his legal immigra- 
tion status on return is as if he had never been in the United States. 
Under this so-called "reentry doctrine," an alien residing in the United 
States for 25 years who crosses the border to view Niagara Falls, to 
shop or visit in Windsor, or to take a short excursion to Cuba or 
business trip to Europe, is subject to the same exclusionary injunctions 
as an alien coming to the United States for the first time. These iden- 
tical restrictions apply, even to an alien who has obtained from the 
immigration authorities an official reentry permit before leaving the 
United States. 

Thus, if a lawfully resident alien becomes afflicted with tuber- 
culosis in the United States he is not deportable for that reason. But 
if he happens to cross the frontier, he is regarded as inadmissible on 
his return, perhaps a few hours later, because as an immigrant suffer- 
ing from tuberculosis he must be barred, even though he may have 
resided lawfully in the United States for many years and contracted 
the disease here. Similarly, if a lawfully admitted alien is convicted 
of theft 10 years after he entered, but has a good record otherwise, he 
is not deportable and may in fact be eligible for naturalization. Yet, 
if he leaves the United States on a short visit, he is deemed inadmissible 
on his return as an immigrant who has previously committed a crime 
involving moral turpitude. He is consequently precluded from re- 
entry, even though he has a reentry permit, has resided in the United 
States for many years, may have a family, home, and job here, and 
may be concededly a person of good character. 

The grounds for exclusion in the immigration laws were designed to 
bar newcomers whose entry would be harmful to the United States. 
Aliens who are admitted lawfully are permitted to remain unless an 
offense committed in the United States renders them deportable. The 


Commission cannot find any reasonable justification for the use of 
immigration laws to entrap residents of the United States who were 
not amenable to deportation so long as they continued to be physically 
in the United States but who happened briefly to cross the interna- 
tional boundary line. 

The Commission recommends that the provisions directing the 
exclusion of aliens shall not be applicable to aliens who have estab- 
lished lawful permanent residence in the United States and who are 
returning from a brief absence. If there are causes which would 
warrant the deportation of such aliens had they continued to remain 
in the United States, these causes should be the basis for deportation 
proceedings. If these causes would not have made them aliens subject 
to deportation had they remained in the United States, their brief 
absence should not create basis for exclusion. 

A reentry permit issued by the appropriate Federal official should 
assure a resident alien the privilege of return to the United States. 

Aliens Returning to Irregular Domicile in the United States 

The reentry doctrine has been applied to aliens lawfully in the 
United States who seek to return following temporary absence. How- 
ever, another situation concerns aliens whose original entry was irreg- 
ular but who may have resided in the United States for many years 
and who may have established a home and close family ties here. 
Recognizing the important humanitarian considerations involved in 
such cases, the so-called Seventh Proviso in the Immigration Act of 
1917 authorized the waiver of grounds for inadmissibility in the cases 
of aliens returning to a domicile in the United States which had been 
maintained for a period of 7 years. It has been held by the immigra- 
tion authorities that such relief was available to an alien whose orig- 
inal entry was irregular. This ruling has made possible the allevia- 
tion of many hardships. 

The 1952 act has sharply reduced the opportunity to grant such re- 
lief. The statute permits amelioration only when the departure 
abroad was not under an order of deportation and when the alien is 
returning to a lawful domicile. These restrictions foreclose any op- 
portunity for relief to many aliens who may have resided in the United 
States for many years, and who may have their homes and families 

Examples of cases that have arisen in the past will illustrate the 
effect of the law. 

Case I : 

The alien, a native and subject of England, was 40 years of age. He had re- 
sided in the United States continuously, with the exception of visits to Canada, 
since the age of 18, when he had entered illegally. He was the father of five 


native-born children. His family was totally dependent upon mm for support. 
He had been employed in Detroit, Mich., for about 14 years and was earning 
$75 a week. He was buying his own home and had war bonds. Twenty years 
ago on a plea of not guilty, he had been convicted on a charge of simple larceny 
for the theft of a newspaper valued at 3 cents. He had no other arrest record. 
The record reveals the alien has led an exemplary life in the United States. He 
could readily obtain an immigration visa if the crime, the ground of inadmissi- 
bility, were waived under the Seventh Proviso. He was granted such waiver 
which also permitted him to reenter the United States to join his wife and family 
when in possession of his visa. 

Under the act of 1952 no relief would be available to the alien in either exclu- 
sion or deportation proceedings. 

Case II : 

The alien was a 41-year-old married woman, a native of Ireland and last a 
subject of Great Britain. Twenty-four years before, at the age of 17, she was 
convicted in Toronto, Canada, for stealing various articles of apparel and was 
sentenced to a prison term, of which she served about 1 year. She entered the 
United States unlawfully in 1924 or 1925 and resided in the United States except 
for short visits to Canada. She last reentered in 1937. Since 1926 she has been 
entirely dependent upon her husband, a legally resident alien who was then an 
applicant for naturalization. She had no arrest record other than the one con- 
cerning the conviction in 1922. 

This ground of inadmissibility was waived, under authority of the law, and 
the alien was admitted into the United States. Under the act of 1952, the alien 
would be inadmissible. No discretionary authority is allowed to admit her. 

The 1951 Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service reveals, that from 1947 to 1951, inclusive, a total of 1,162 appli- 
cations for exercise of Seventh Proviso relief were received; 1,028 
applications were granted and 134 were denied. In 1951, 140 appli- 
cations were received; 121 were granted and 19 denied. Of those 
granted, 22 cases involved physical or mental defects ; 86 cases involved 
the commission of crime; 9 cases involved illiterates; and in 4 the 
grounds were not shown. The average length of residence in the 
United States where favorable action was taken was 23 years. 

In explanation of this new provision of the act of 1952 it is argued 
that the previous authority to ameliorate hardships only encouraged 
efforts at illegal entry. On the other hand, an "illegal entry," which 
under the 1952 act would bar such ameliorative relief, could result 
from the purely clerical error of a consul in assigning an incorrect 
quota nationality to the alien. 

The heaviest impact of such provisions in the act of 1952 falls on 
the wives and children of those aliens who cannot now be readmitted 
to rejoin them in the United States. The Commission recom- 
mends that the 1952 act's restrictions upon the exercise of Seventh 
Proviso authority be repealed. 


Temporary Visitors 

The law makes no significant distinction between exclusionary 
grounds applicable to aliens entering the United States for permanent 
residence and those who are temporary visitors. The prospective 
visitor to the United States, no matter how brief his intended stay, 
is subject to exclusion in the same manner as an immigrant seeking 
to come to the United States to spend the rest of his life. 

The general effect of this situation was called to the Commission's 
attention in the hearings in connection with temporary and short-time 
visits of scientists, scholars, artists, and businessmen. 

It impedes the free movement of aliens who desire to enter the United 
States temporarily for legitimate purposes. Its impact has been un- 
fortunate along the Canadian border, where residents of Canada often 
are required to pass briefly through the United States en route from 
one point in Canada to another. It has caused embarrassments and 
annoyances to distinguished scientists, scholars, and others who have 
wished to visit the United States for brief attendance at professional 

It is desirable to permit an alien to pass through the United States 
from one part of Canada to another in order to avoid a difficult (and 
in some cases nonexistent) passage through neighboring regions of 
Canada. It likewise is desirable to encourage visits by aliens to the 
United States for business, study, or pleasure. The entry of such 
persons should not require the same standards that govern the admit- 
tance of persons who intend to take up permanent residence in the 
United States. The Air Transport Association of America testified 
before the Commission : 

The encouragement of business and pleasure travel favors not only the carriers, 
but promotes national interests of far-reaching importance. . . . [The consuls] 
can call for vast data from each alien whether good or bad, and can make every 
requirement a reason for delay. Too many aliens already feel that this is the 
policy followed today. On the other hand, they can recognize that just as there 
are aliens who are obviously inadmissible so there are also many more who are 
legitimate travelers whose visits should be encouraged. For those in this class, 
the application should be received immediately, and the visa issued promptly. . . . 

Many of the exclusionary provisions of the immigration laws are 
concerned with long-term political, moral, and economic risks. Mani- 
festly such long-term considerations aimed at the prospective perma- 
nent resident, often are not relevant in dealing with an alien who seeks 
to come for a short stay. 

The Attorney General has had authority, under the so-called Ninth 
Proviso, to permit the temporary entry of otherwise inadmissible 
aliens. Similar authority, hedged in with considerable language and 
many restrictions, is continued in the act of 1952. But the exercise 
of this discretion generally entails long delay, usually for a determina- 


tion by an official in Washington, D. C. Such delays often cause can- 
cellation of the visit. 

The Commission recommends that the law ordinarily should 
apply to nonimmigrants or temporary visitors only such exclu- 
sionary grounds as are directly concerned with the health, safety, 
and security of the United States. The otherwise applicable pro- 
visions for waiver would be available to visitors and nonimmigrants. 

Aliens From United States Possessions 

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are 
regarded as part of the United States for the purposes of the im- 
migration laws. This means that no alien can enter those territories 
until he has been thoroughly screened under the immigration laws, 
and has satisfied every requirement for entry into the United States. 
In addition, since 1917, the immigration laws required that aliens 
coming from our insular possessions be subjected to the same restric- 
tions as if they were coming from a foreign country. The 1952 act 
continued this policy and extended it to Alaska, which was not pre- 
viously included. In his testimony before the Commission the Direc- 
tor of the Office of Territories of the Department of the Interior, 
stated : 

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 denned 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. 

. . . Introducing such complications to travel between the Territories and the 
continental United States can produce no salutary consequences. Normal inter- 
course with 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 continental 
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 

Officials and others from Alaska pointed out to the Commission 
that these new provisions would require the examination of United 
States citizens as well as aliens traveling between continental United 
States and Alaska, would impede travel and commerce between those 
areas, and had already aroused strong resentments. The Department 


of the Interior emphasized that like difficulties exist in other prin- 
cipal possessions — Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. 

This discrimination against inhabitants of the possessions of the 
United States seems to be unsound. In view of the critical impor- 
tance to the security of the United States of Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto 
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, the sowing of distrust and resent- 
ment in those areas, by the imposition of unwarranted discriminations, 
seems directly opposed to the national interest and security. 

The greatest vigilance should be and, the Commission is informed, 
is exercised to prevent the admittance of undesirables into our Terri- 
tories. The Commission recommends that an alien lawfully ad- 
mitted to permanent residence in any part of the United ' States, 
including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and 
Guam, should not be again subjected to the requirements of the 
immigration laws when he travels to the mainland or to any other 
part of the United States. 

Obsolete Requirements 

In many instances, the immigration statute retains archaic language 
that no longer has any clear meaning. This failing appears in the 
medical exclusions, which the United States Public Health Service 
has described as outmoded and often meaningless. That Service 
pointed out that the 1952 act made little change in the medical criteria 
included in earlier legislation, and recommended that the obsolete 
language of the statute be conformed to modern medical knowledge. 

Specifically, the Public Health Service has stated that the termi- 
nology, "insane," "feeble-minded," and "mental defect," "have no exact 
medical significance for modern diagnosis," and may result in inequi- 
ties. The Public Health Service has recommended that the terms 
"idiot," "imbecile," "moron," and "mental disease," be substituted as 
more consonant with contemporary medical concepts. 

The Commission approves these recommendations of the Public 
Health Service. 

Other examples of obsolete requirements continued in the statute 
could be cited. Thus, for example, the statute purports to bar pau- 
pers, professional beggars, and vagrants, groups now obviously com- 
prehended within the general exclusion of persons likely to become 
public charges. 

The Commission recommends that unnecessary duplication and 
obsolete requirements be eliminated from the law. 



Because of the paramount importance of security protections dur- 
ing the present critical period, the provisions of the immigration laws 
dealing with subversives are discussed separately in chapter 15. 

Criminals and Other Groups 

The interest of our society in rejecting the criminal elements of 
other nations has always been an important factor in our immigra- 
tion policy. The earliest Federal statutes barred the entry of convicts, 
and a similar policy has been reflected in every subsequent Federal en- 

The developing Federal legislative design gradually has enlarged 
the restrictions aimed at criminals. An act of 1891 prohibited the 
entry of aliens convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and an 
act of 1907 introduced a prohibition against immigrants who admitted 
the commission of such crimes. In the 1952 act these prohibitions are 
amplified, and in addition exclusion is ordered in cases of aliens con- 
victed of two offenses without regard to moral turpitude, where aggre- 
gate sentences of 5 years or more were imposed. 

Permanent Bar for Single Crime. — The conviction of a single crime 
involving moral turpitude, regardless of the circumstances under 
which conviction occurred and regardless of the length of the inter- 
vening period, forever precludes an alien from admission to the 
United States. 

This law ignores the vast differences between kinds of offenses. It 
fails to recognize the possibility of redemption or reformation. It 
disregards intervening family ties and neglects the effect of arbitrary 
action on the alien's family. It overlooks the fact that the most impor- 
tant asset an immigrant brings to us is his future not his past. 

While the 1952 law grants some power to forgive youthful indis- 
cretions, this authority is hedged in with so many limitations that it is 
virtually valueless. The Commission recommends that the law pro- 
vide administrative discretion to waive the ground for exclusion 
of an alien who has been convicted of a single crime involving moral 
turpitude, where it is determined that the alien has been a person 
of good moral character for a given period of time such as, for exam- 
ple, 5 years, and that he is not a person of criminal tendencies. 
This proposal would make possible an assessment of whether his life 
evidences that he will be a decent, useful member of American society. 

In exercising such discretion the administrative officers would be 
required to take into account the gravity of the crime, the genuineness 
of the reformation, the alien's family ties, and other considerations. 


The Commission does not recommend that there be any discretion 
to permit permanent entry where the alien has been convicted for 
two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, arising out of sepa- 
rate criminal transactions. Such a history seems sufficient to demon- 
strate the criminal disposition of the applicant and to warrant his 

At the same time the administration of the statute should take into 
account the irrationalities of criminal penalties in totalitarian coun- 
tries. Although the statute excludes convictions for political offenses, 
it is well known that totalitarian countries often make political pun- 
ishments under the guise of prosecutions for ordinary criminal viola- 
tions, such as frauds against the State and larceny. Our immigration 
laws should not be used to enforce totalitarian "justice." Therefore, 
the Commission recommends that where the conviction for a crime 
or crimes involving moral turpitude was rendered by a court in a 
totalitarian country, the administrative officers should be author- 
ized to inquire into the circumstances of the crime in order to 
determine whether the conviction actually was for a crime or 
crimes involving moral turpitude under American standards. 

Although the designation of crimes involving moral turpitude has 
not been entirely satisfactory, it has not caused excessive difficulties. 
The principal problem in this connection is its indiscriminate applica- 
tion to both major and minor offenses. A youthful indiscretion in 
stealing seven shoelaces, or a frantic father's theft of food to feed a 
hungry family, are "crimes involving moral turpitude." The Com- 
mission recommends that the statute specify that minor infractions 
are not within the contemplation of "crimes involving moral turpi- 
tude" so as to bar entry. The immigration law should also permit 
consideration, which it does not, of any pardon or other form of 
clemency that may have been granted by the foreign government 
under whose laws a crime was committed. 

Conviction for Two Offenses. — A new provision in the act of 1952 
prohibits the entry of aliens who have been convicted of two or more 
offenses, regardless of whether they involve moral turpitude, where 
aggregate sentences of more than 5 years were imposed. Despite the 
reservation in the Congressional Conference Report, the Commission 
believes that this new provision in effect would penalize aliens who 
were subjected to false or trumped-up charges in totalitarian countries. 

In his testimony before the Commission, the Attorney General of 
the United States urged amendment of this provision. He said : 

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 practical problem 
of enforcement is that many aliens from Iron Curtain countries undoubtedly con- 


tend that they were convicted of "crimes" when no crime has 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. Trust- 
worthy 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. 

Boris Shishkin, speaking in behalf of the American Federation of 
Labor, observed : 

A realistic distinction should be made between the justice meted out by totali- 
tarian 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 Ger- 
many, individuals are arrested and jailed every day for all types of minor vio- 
lations 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 examples. The 1952 law, in effect, 
accepts Nazi and Communist laws and the decisions of Nazi and Communist 
police officials and courts as the basis for excluding refugees from totalitarian 
countries from admission to this country. There can be no justification for such 
a provision. The law should be changed so that the principles of our own law 
and our own system of government should be the criteria used in determining 
whether to admit or exclude aliens. 

Walter Keuther, recently elected President of the C. I. O., commented : 

* * * Workers who protest speedups behind the Iron Curtain, who sabotage 
Red war production, who organize free trade unions such as our own, are crim- 
inals in the lands under Red domination. If caught in these acts they become 
criminals in the eyes of the United States and are forever unable to come to 
our shores. 

The Commission finds these objections valid. There are also fur- 
ther reasons why this new provision of the act of 1952 is objectionable : 

1. It reiterates the philosophy that there can be no rehabilitation 
where an alien has once erred. 

2. It does not require an alien to be convicted of what are regarded 
as crimes, as distinguished from minor infractions. Conviction for 
any offense or violation of law is sufficient — walking on the grass; 
smoking in an unauthorized place; acts of juvenile delinquency; 
providing religious education to children in Iron Curtain countries; 
listening to the Voice of America — convictions for these offenses would 
be sufficient to bar the alien. 

3. It does not require actual imprisonment for any period. Con- 
victions where sentence was suspended would suffice. 

4. It makes foreign governments the final arbiters of American law. 
Where exclusions are based on the commission of crimes involving 
moral turpitude, the determinations are made by using standards 
applied in the United States. No such American standard is relevant 
in the provision requiring exclusions for the conviction of two offenses. 


Conviction and sentence are sufficient, regardless of the nature of the 


5. Just as there are varying systems of justice in all countries, there 
are different standards controlling the sentencing of persons convicted 
of offenses. Courts in some countries may impose long terms of 
imprisonment and then suspend sentence or grant liberal parole ; in 
other countries the courts may impose short sentences but require them 
to be served. Thus two aliens from different countries although con- 
victed of similar offenses, in one case may be barred from entering the 
United States while in the other would be admitted; yet the alien 
barred might be as desirable as the other, in terms of American interests 
and welfare. 

The Commission recommends that this provision be repealed. 

Admissions of Crime. — Since 1917 the law has contained the author- 
ity to exclude aliens on the basis of an admission of crime involving 
moral turpitude. The act of 1952 goes further than the previous law 
and authorizes exclusion when an alien "admits acts constituting the 
essential elements of such crime." Thus an alien may now be barred 
for a supposed infraction of the criminal laws of another country for 
which he has not been convicted and which he does not admit com- 
mitting. The finding should be based upon admissions of acts consti- 
tuting "essential elements," whatever that means. 

The statute places upon the administrative officers an obligation 
to determine whether a crime has been committed, a function cus- 
tomarily performed by the criminal courts. Furthermore, the issue 
may involve a crime under foreign law. This adjudication will be 
made by immigration or consular officers, who ordinarily have no legal 
training. They will not be bound by constitutional protections sur- 
rounding criminal proceedings. Immigration or consular officers will 
act as prosecutors, juries, and judges. The finding that an alien is 
guilty of committing a crime, for which he was never convicted, need 
not be made upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even upon a 
preponderance of the evidence. 

Copies of foreign laws are not ordinarily available to immigration 
officials. In such cases the presumption is that the foreign law is the 
same as that prevailing in the United States. Thus, an alien may be 
excluded on the basis of events occurring in a foreign country which 
would not necessarily be a crime in that country. Indeed he may be 
deemed guilty of a crime even where the foreign criminal authorities 
have not seen fit to institute prosecution or perhaps even where the 
courts of such foreign country have acquitted the alien. 

Immigration officials should not be given the function of balancing 
facts and deciding whether the facts establish guilt of crime under 
foreign laws. The provision of the 1952 act places an excessive bur- 


den on administrative authorities and lends itself to abuses in exacting 
admissions. The Commission recommends that the revisions made 
by the act of 1952 be eliminated and that an alien be subject to 
exclusion if he admits the commission of a crime or crimes involv- 
ing moral turpitude. Conditions for waiver of inadmissibility 
should be the same for aliens who admit as for those convicted of a 
crime involving moral turpitude, except that the discretion to 
waive in cases of admission should not be limited to a single offense. 

False Representations in Applying for Entry 

The act of 1952 includes a new provision which forever bars an 
alien who has sought to enter the United States through fraud or will- 
ful misrepresentation. This statute continues and expands a similar 
provision of the Displaced Persons Act which perpetually barred dis- 
placed persons who had made willful misrepresentations when apply- 
ing for entry into the United States. 

Of course fraud and willful misrepresentations of material informa- 
tion should be grounds for exclusion. The act of 1952, however, intro- 
duced the principle of perpetual exclusion. The act of 1952 makes no 
provision for those cases in which misrepresentations may be 
prompted by fear, or by an understandable effort to escape suffering 
and misery. 

The Commission has been informed that refugees and displaced 
persons, who, facing the possibility of being forced back behind the 
iron curtain or of reprisals against their loved ones who still lived 
there, may have made false statements concerning their places of 
origin or former residence or other facts in their personal history. 
The report of the Congressional Conference Committee suggested that 
this provision be administered humanely and that its mandate 

. . . should not serve to exclude or deport certain bona fide refugees who in 
fear of being forcibly repatriated to their former homelands misrepresented 
their place of birth when applying for a visa and such misrepresentation did 
not have as its basis the desire to evade the quota provisions of the law or an 
investigation in the place of their former residence. 

But the language of the law remains an open invitation to the perpe- 
tration of injustices. 

In its present form the statute imposes a penalty not reasonably 
related to any sound national interest. If the fact concealed affects 
the alien's admissibility it would in itself be a ground for excluding 
him. Thus it would appear that the statute penalizes the concealment 
of facts which in themselves are not material to the alien's admissi- 
bility. In the present state of the world, with so many persons seek- 
ing to escape the oppressions and persecutions of Communist dictator- 
ships, many have felt obliged — so the Commission is informed — to 
resort to misstatements concerning their antecedents and identity. It 


does not seem reasonable to bar from the United States forever those 
who have made such misstatements. Even a former member of the 
Communist Party is not permanently barred under the Act of 1952. 
The Commission recommends that the bar against the entry of those 
who have sought to enter on the basis of fraud or willful misrepre- 
sentation be retained but that the administrative authorities be given 
discretion to waive this ground of inadmissibility in meritorious 
cases. This would alleviate the inflexible rigor of the present require- 
ment and would permit taking into account the circumstances of the 
case, the length of time that has elapsed, and the present worth of the 
applicant for entry. 

Economic Qualifications 

Although the best evidence available to the Commission indicates 
that limited immigration does not increase or aggravate unemploy- 
ment, particular prospective aliens may be undesirable in that they 
may become economic liabilities upon the community. Therefore the 
exclusion of aliens likely to become a public charge is a reasonable and 
necessary element of our immigration policy. However, the 1952 act 
permits this finding to be made on solely the basis of the opinion of 
the Attorney General or the consular officers. Apparently it was 
designed to substitute subjective opinion for demonstrated fact, and 
to lessen the opportunity for judicial inquiry. The statute allows 
much room for prejudice and for arbitrary action. 

Present practice in applying the public charge provision relies 
principally on evidence of the wealth of the sponsor. On Septem- 
ber 8, 1930, the President instructed the Department of State to adopt 
a strict interpretation of the public charge requirement. That course 
was said to have been dictated by the rise of unemployment in the 
United States. In complying with this directive the consular officers 
required strong proof of economic reliability on the part of applicants 
for entry. This policy has never been published in any regula- 
tion, but has continued to govern consular consideration of visa 

Because of the absence of any published regulation there is no uni- 
formity in current consular practices. Each consul establishes his own 
requirements for evidence of financial reliability. In the absence of 
personal means in his own right, the prospective immigrant usually is 
required to submit to the consul the affidavit of at least one responsible 
person in the United States, stating that the immigrant will not 
become a public charge. The sponsor customarily is required also to 
attach to the affidavit supporting evidence of his financial responsi- 
bility, such as letters from his bank and his employer. Since the affi- 
davit is not directly sanctioned by any statute or regulation, it is quite 


doubtful whether it creates a legally enforceable obligation. So far as 
the Commission is aware no attempt has ever been made to bring suit 
against a person who has signed such a sponsoring affidavit, in cases 
where the immigrant actually became a public charge. Apparently 
the sponsoring affidavit has been regarded as useful for its moral 
persuasion and for establishing some tie with a responsible individual 
in the United States. 

The Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended, developed a new 
approach to the question of protecting the United States against public 
charges. There, in practice, the public charge provision was regarded 
as complied with when an alien had an assurance of a job and home 
which would not displace another person. The testimony before the 
Commission indicated that this system worked well for the some 
400,000 people admitted under that law. 

The Commission believes that the law could be improved by adding 
affirmative criteria to guide administrative action. The Commission 
recommends that the immigration law provide that no alien should 
be deemed likely to become a public charge who (1) has a firm 
assurance of employment in the United States, and (2) has assur- 
ances furnished on his behalf by a responsible individual or organ- 
ization in the United States that the alien will not become a burden 
on the community. 

In making this suggestion the Commission expresses no judgment 
on the merit of two features of the act of 1952, owing to the fact 
that additional study of each subject is necessary. 

These subjects are : 

The contract-labor clause. — Since 1885, and until the 1952 act, the 
immigration law excluded contract laborers from entry for permanent 
residence, with certain exceptions and waiver provisions. This has 
always been regarded as one of the most important features of immi- 
gration restriction. The Displaced Persons Act waived this provision, 
in the light of the job and housing assurances. The 1952 law eliminates 
the contract labor provision, but authorizes exclusionary action upon 
a finding by the Secretary of Labor, in connection with aliens seeking 
to enter to obtain employment. 

Concern was expressed by the Secretary of Labor that the elimina- 
tion of the contract labor provision "may put us in a position of act- 
ing too late to prevent unwarranted and economically harmful entry 
of foreign workers." Similar uneasiness was expressed by the Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor, whose spokesman urged the Commission to 
recommend restoration of the contract labor provision. Further 
study of the problem is desirable. 

Affidavits of support. — Although the Commission believes that it is 
desirable and necessary to retain in the law a provision excluding 
aliens who are likely to become a public charge, time has not permitted 


adequate study of the present method of administering this provision. 
Affidavits of support are the principal method used to determine 
whether an alien is likely to become a public charge. Whether this 
is a satisfactory device to implement the public charge requirement 
is a matter which should be given further study. However, the Com- 
mission believes that a satisfactory procedure should be adopted and 
codified in an appropriate regulation so that the administration may 
be uniform. 


Chapter 13 

The Deportation of 

The United States has the legal right to expel any alien at any time. 
In practice, every alien admitted in accordance with law is permitted 
to remain so long as he observes the conditions laid down by Congress. 
If he elects to become a citizen and successfully meets the required 
qualifications, he acquires a new status, with immunities, privileges, 
and rights not vested in an alien. 

Here, as with other discussions of complaints against the immigra- 
tion laws, it is well to remember that it is for Congress to establish 
the terms and conditions under which aliens are permitted to enter 
and remain in the United States. It is for Congress to determine 
what measures affecting aliens are best suited to meet the needs and 
promote the security of the Nation. 

The position of the resident alien has been fruitful of much con- 
troversy through the years, in this and other countries. Most immi- 
grants, except visitors and nonimmigrant laborers, enter the United 
States with the intention of remaining permanently and becoming 
citizens, and most of them do become citizens. Others remain indefi- 
nitely, some for life, but never renounce allegiance to their native 
countries, and never become citizens. 

Congress could require all aliens, after a specified length of time, 
to become naturalized citizens or to leave the country. But Congress 
has not seen fit to enact such a requirement, and the Commission 
makes no such recommendation. Congress has chosen to allow aliens, 
legally admitted, to remain, and has even made provisions at times 
for permanent residence by those who are here illegally. It will be 
agreed, so long as the law permits aliens to remain in this country 
without time limit, that a moral, if not a legal, obligation exists to 
treat such people fairly. Especially where, as in this country, the 
alien is permitted to become a full-fledged member of the community 
in which he lives; to be employed, to own property, to marry and raise 
a family, to pay taxes, to serve in the armed forces, and otherwise to 
participate in all activities save those reserved for citizens, such as 

It is clear, therefore, that to aliens who have lived in the United 
States for many years, who have become integrated into its community 

250053 0—53 14 193 

life, and whose ties to their mother country may have become remote 
and purely technical, a deportation order becomes the most severe 
and cruel penalty imaginable. It may be the equivalent of banish- 
ment or exile, and the Supreme Court has pointed out that deporta- 
tion "may result in the loss of both property and life ; of all that makes 
life worth living." 

A few examples illustrate types of hardships resulting from our 
immigration laws with respect to deportation : 

Case I: 

The alien came to the United States in 1921, at the age of 16. Within 5 years 
after his entry he was involved in an automobile accident which resulted in the 
death of a child. He was convicted of manslaughter, served a sentence and was 
paroled. More than 5 years later he was ordered deported. 

Case II : 

The alien entered the United States with his grandparents in 1916, at the age 
of 13. In 1922 he married a native-born American and they had two sons. 
During World War II his sons served honorably in the Armed Forces of the 
United States. He was a good worker and family man and had never been 
arrested for any offense. In applying for naturalization in 1949 he voluntarily 
disclosed that he had been a member of the Communist Party for a few months 
in 1934 or 1935, had paid about 90 cents to that organization, had dropped out of 
it, and had had nothing to do with it since. His deportation was ordered. 

Case III : 

The alien entered the United States with his parents in 1913, at the age of 3 
months. His three brothers and two sisters were born in the United States. 
In 1930, when 17 years of age, he was convicted of attempted larceny and in 
1932 was convicted of robbery. He was ordered deported. 

Case IV: 

The alien came to the United States in 1913 and left in 1921, returning again 
in 1925 without a visa. For failing to disclose his absence from the United 
States between 1921 and 1925, he was convicted of perjury. He has been steadily 
employed in steel mills since 1933 and his conduct in other respects has not been 
questioned. His family is in the United States and his two sons are American 
citizens. Many years after his conviction for perjury his deportation was 

These random examples could be multiplied indefinitely. In each 
of these instances courts publicly criticized the unreasonable harsh- 
ness of the deportation statute, but they were powerless to mitigate its 

A substantial number of responsible organizations and individuals 
urged the Commission to recommend abolition of all deportation ex- 
cept where entry into the United States had been obtained by fraud. 
They pointed out that Australia grants complete immunity from de- 
portation, in peacetime, to aliens with 3 years of residence. In other 
countries, such as Belgium and Brazil, certain groups of aliens are 


exempt, expecially where they have tied their future to the country 
by residence or marriage. 

The Commission believes that the suggested abolition of all deporta- 
tion is much broader than necessary to accomplish its purpose. The 
suggestion really aims at two grievances : 

(1) some of our present substantive legal requirements for deporta- 
tion are unreasonable, 

(2) some of our present procedures for administrative and judicial 
review of deportation orders, and for the exercise of discretionary 
relief, are inadequate. 

The Commission believes that appropriate changes to remedy these 
wrongs, rather than the total abolition of deportation, is the desirable 

The first of these grievances, relating to the substantive provisions 
of law on deportation, is discussed in this chapter. The second is 
covered by the Commission's recommendation for the establishment 
of a statutory Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals (Chapter 10), 
and the recommendation for a statutory method of appealing from 
such Board's decisions to the courts (Chapter 11). These recommen- 
dations, and the additional recommendations made in this chapter, the 
Commission is convinced, would meet most of the complaints against 
the injustices of our present deportation system, and still retain neces- 
sary and adequate provisions for the protection of the United States. 

The following table indicates the operation of the deportation proc- 
ess for the last 3 years for which figures are presently available. 

Table 14. — Deportations: 1949, 1950, and 1951 

Aliens deported! from the,' United States] by countryfar region to which [deported— years 

1949, 1950. and 1951 

ended June 30, 

Country or region to which deported 




All countries ._. - 

20, 040 


13, 544 

Europe.. .... . ... 

16, 903 



Asia ... . -. _ 


Canada _ 

1, 100 

Mexico. -- .__- 


West Indies - _____ _ 


Central America _ -- 


South America .. .. _. 


Africa - -- -- 


Other countries. ._ .. _- - .._ 



Table 14. — Deportations: 1949, 1950, and 1951 — Continued 

Aliens deported from the United States by cause— years ended June 30, 1949, 1950, and 1951 





All causes 


Immoral classes 

Violators of narcotic laws 

Mental or physical defectives 

Previously excluded or deported 

Remained longer than authorized 

Entered without proper documents 

Aband oned status of admission 

Entered without inspection or by false state 


Likely to become public charges 

Subversive or anarchistic 


20, 040 


13, 544 

























12, 094 

1, 734 











Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Annual Report for 1951, p. 61. 

These figures do not include a large volume of illegal entrants, prin- 
cipally from Mexico, who depart voluntarily in lieu of deportation. 
The Commission has been informed that a substantial proportion of 
deportations are based on technical violations of the laws which 
prescribe the formal procedures that must be followed in entering 
the United States. 


The deportation power complements the power to exclude. When 
an alien enters or remains in the United States in violation of immi- 
gration laws, the statute should enable him to be deported within a 
reasonable period. 

However, certain revisions of existing law should be made : 

Technical Violations 

Our immigration statutes contain many complex prerequisites for 
admission to the United States. By the same token, an alien who has 
entered may be deported at any subsequent time if it is discovered 
that his entry was irregular in any particular. This may be true, 
under the present situation, even though the alien was entirely blame- 

Many of the immigration requirements are highly technical. Thus 
the law requires, for example, a correct determination of nationality 
for quota purposes, the issuance of particular types of entry docu- 
ments, and the execution of appropriate agreements, by transporta- 


tion lines which bring aliens to contiguous territory. In many such 
cases the alien himself has nothing to do with the actual compliance 
with the technicalities of the law. A failure to observe these or a 
multitude of other technical requirements makes the alien's entry 
irregular and therefore under present law renders him subject to 

The Commission believes that if the alien acts in good faith and is 
passed by immigration officers, there is no substantial reason why his 
status in the United States should continue to be insecure because of 
the error of the administrative officials. The Commission recom- 
mends that when an alien is admitted for permanent residence in 
the United States by immigration officers he should not, in the ab- 
sence of any fraud or other illegality for which he is to blame, be 
subject to deportation for technical defects in connection with his 
entry or status. 

Statute of Limitations 

That it is wrong to keep the threat of punishment indefinitely over 
the head of one who breaks the law is a principle deeply rooted in the 
ancient traditions of our legal system. The law requires that crim- 
inal prosecutions, except for capital offenses, such as murder and 
treason, be brought within a fixed period of time or not at all. A 
similar dispensation governs the enforcement of civil liabilities. 

Prosecutions for many serious crimes under Federal law generally 
are precluded unless brought within 3 years after the crimes were 
committed. The 3-year statute of limitations applies to bribery, 
counterfeiting, forgery, extortion, mail fraud, perjury, and robbery. 
Prosecutions for frauds against the United States generally are gov- 
erned by a 6-year statute of limitations. 

Under the Immigration Act of 1917, aliens who entered in violation 
of law were subject to deportation only if expulsion proceedings were 
commenced against them within 5 years after the improper entry. 
In connection with the grounds for deportation specified in the 1924 
act, no statute of limitations applied. The act of 1952 eliminated 
the provision of the 1917 act, and therefore an alien now is subject to 
deportation at any time for even minor technical violations. The 
statement in the Congressional Conference Report that "the conferees 
have provided for a statute of limitations (as contained in the House 
version) in accord with humanitarian principles . . ." refers only to 
the exceedingly narrow provision that mental disease or economic 
distress after entry will justify deportation at any subsequent time 
only if it occurred within 5 years after entry. Under the act of 1952, 
deportation proceedings for any cause specified in the statute can be 
brought at any time after entry and are not subject to any statute of 


Indeed, the 1952 statute retroactively rescinded the limited statute 
of limitations fixed by previous law. An alien who entered the United 
States 25 years ago, and whose entry involved a purely technical vio- 
lation, enjoyed immunity from deportation for the last 20 years. 
Under the 1952 Act, he is now again subject to deportation. That 
Act threatens the security of many aliens and their families. Their 
immunities have been removed, and they may be torn out of their 
accustomed places in the communities in which they live, no matter 
how exemplary their conduct over a long period of years. Instead 
of being a "humanitarian" measure, as the Congressional Conferees 
on the Act of 1952 characterized it, the new act actually restores the 
threat of cruel and inhuman punishment for offenses long since 

This undue severity is underscored by the fact that although prose- 
cutions for aggravated criminal violations of the immigration laws 
are subject to a 3-year statute of limitations, deportation proceedings 
for such violations — as well as for infractions which offend no criminal 
law — are governed by no statute of limitations, and may be brought — 
more than say 20 or 40 years after an alien entered the United States. 
No one has suggested any sound reason why the purpose of limita- 
tions — recognition of the unfairness involved in requiring a person to 
make a defense long after the event, when it is difficult or impossible 
to assemble witnesses and evidence — does not apply to immigration 
matters at least with equal force as to prosecutions for serious crimes. 

It is said that the existence of a statute of limitations would en- 
courage aliens to enter the United States in violation of the immigra- 
tion laws. A person who enters or remains in the United States in 
violation of the immigration laws should be subject to deportation 
from the United States. But the consequences of such a violation 
should be enforced against him within a reasonable time. There is a 
fundamental public purpose which is served by statutes of limitations 
for crimes and in civil actions. This is just as important an objective 
of law enforcement as the avoidance of violation of law. 

A statute of limitations on deportations has been part of our laws 
for 65 years. The 5-year period of limitations was in our immigration 
laws since 1917, and until removed by the Act of 1952. The Com- 
mission believes that a period of 10 years within which proceedings 
must be brought after the commission of an act for which deportation 
is provided is ample for the Government to ascertain that a violation 
had occurred and to take action against the offender. The Commis- 
sion recommends that the immigration statute should provide that 
a deportation proceeding may not be commenced against any alien 
more than 10 years after the violation occurred. Deportation for 
reasons of security is discussed in Chapter 15. 


Residents Who Have Been Temporarily Absent Abroad — The 
Reentry Doctrine 

Chapter 12 discusses the reentry doctrine, which holds that the 
excluding provisions of the immigration laws apply fully to an alien 
resident of the United States who returns from a temporary visit 
abroad, however brief. The unreasonableness of this rule is illus- 
trated most graphically in deportation cases. 

The facts often come to light in naturalization proceedings. Ques- 
tioning sometimes reveals that the applicant once committed a minor 
offense or suffered a disability from which he has completely re- 
covered. Although these circumstances do not in themselves make 
the alien deportable, if he ever went on a trip to Havana, Montreal, 
or Tia Juana, for example, he becomes subject to deportation as an 
alien who was excludable when he reentered the United States. Le- 
gally, every return of an alien to the United States is regarded as if 
he were coming to the United States for the first time. 

The impact of the reentry doctrine on resident aliens of the United 
States is illustrated by the following two cases, which are typical 
of hundreds of others : 

Case I : 

The alien was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent resi- 
dence in 1932. In January 1939, on a plea of not guilty, she was convicted of a 
theft charge. She was fined $1 and costs. This conviction did not make her 
deportable. In December 1939 she reentered the United States after a short 
visit to Mexico. An alien who committed the crime of theft before entering the 
United States is inadmissible to the United States. By departing from the 
United States and then reentering, the alien was herself in the position of a 
person who committed theft before entry and was deportable. In 1940 she 
was arrested in deportation proceedings on the ground that she had committed 
theft, a crime involving moral turpitude prior to her last entry in December 
1939. The alien's husband and her three native-born children reside in the 
United States with her. She had no other police record. She was found de- 
portable but the Attorney General ordered cancellation of proceedings under 
discretionary authority. 

Case II : 

The alien, a native of Yugoslavia, was 55 years old. He first came to the 
United States in 1909, but there was no record of his entry. Through ad- 
ministrative process his entry was registered as 1939 and his status as a law- 
fully resident alien confirmed. In 1924, he had been convicted of larceny and 
placed on a year's probation. This matter was considered when his status 
was adjusted to that of a lawfully permanent resident alien and found not to be 
a bar to that action. In 1939 he left the United States for the purpose of set- 
tling an estate in Yugoslavia. He was readmitted in the same year. In the 
same year, a warrant of arrest was issued charging him with being deportable 
as one convicted of a crime prior to entry. The alien was found deportable 
but he was permitted to remain in the United States under discretionary 


In the past, the law has permitted relief in such cases through the 
so-called Severth Proviso, which authorizes the administrative au- 
thorities to waive grounds of inadmissibility (and thus of deportabil- 
ity) for aliens who have 7 years' residence in the United States. Relief 
under the Seventh Proviso was granted to the majority of qualified 
aliens who applied for it. Although it accomplished a desirable pur- 
pose, this process has generally caused needless trouble and expense 
to the Government and to the alien. The Commission recommends 
that the reentry of an alien returning to a lawful permanent resi- 
dence in the United States following a brief absence shall not be 
regarded as a new entry under the immigration laws. Such brief 
absence should not be a factor in the determination as to whether he 
is subject to deportation. 

The reentry doctrine produces many shocking results. Until a 
contrary opinion was obtained from the courts, the administrative 
authorities ruled that where an alien unknowingly passed over Cana- 
dian territory on a train tripjjetween two points in the United States 
he had left the country antT made a new entry when the train again 
reached the United States. In another case the same situation oc- 
curred when a sailor was taken to a nearby foreign port by a ship which 
rescued him as a survivor of a torpedoed American vessel during 
World War II. The Supreme Court said these interpretations were 
capricious and that the right to reside in the United States should not 
become "the sport of chance." The Act of 1952 wrote into law pro- 
visions which, except for aliens who are lawful permanent residents, 
will produce the results denounced by the Supreme Court. 

The Commission recommends that the law in effect prior to 1952 be 
restored so that a return following an involuntary absence, even in 
the case of an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, 
should not be deemed an entry under the immigration laws. 


x In 1910, a statute was passed sanctioning expulsion at any time of an 
\lien found identified with the business of prostitution. Eventually 
the concept of deportation as punishment for misconduct spread 
rapidly ; today it is predominant in the deportation statute. In 1917, 
deportation for criminal violations in the United States was author- 
ized. The deportation of subversives was the subject of legislation 
in 1918 and 1920, as well as of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 and 
the Internal Security Act of 1950. The Act of 1952 codified and 
considerably enlarged the grounds for deportation as punishment for 
misconduct in the United States. 


Difference in Treatment of Aliens and Citizens 

If a citizen violates a law of the United States he may be imprisoned 
for a specific period of time. If an alien violates the identical law he 
likewise may be imprisoned, but in addition he may be banished from 
the United States. Judge Augustus Hand has observed that for an 
alien, "however serious his crimes, deportation is to him exile, a 
dreadful punishment, abandoned by the common consent of all civil- 
ized people. Such, indeed, it would be to anyone/' Subject to con- 
ditions discussed elsewhere, there does not seem to be any sound 
basis, especially after the lapse of many years, for adding deporta- 
tion as punishment for an alien to the penalties provided by the 
criminal laws. 

Wrongdoers Produced by Our Society 

Alien children of tender years come to the United States with their 
parents, often as babes in arms. In some instances they grow to 
maturity here and then turn out badly. Because of the punitive pro- 
visions in our immigration statutes the wrongdoing of such individuals 
makes them subject to deportation, in addition to any other penalties 
the criminal laws may impose. 

The following are illustrative cases, among many that could be 
cited : 

Case I: 

The alien, a native of Canada, was brought to the United States as an infant 
in 1913. In 1931, he was convicted of breaking and entering and stealing an 
automobile. He was placed on probation for 2 years. About a month later, he 
committed a robbery and was sentenced to a reformatory for 7 years. He was 
found deportable on the ground that he had been sentenced more than once for 
crimes involving moral turpitude. He was ordered deported in 1941. He left 
behind him a United States citizen wife and two citizen children, all of whom 
were dependent upon him. 

Case II : 

The alien, a native of Eire, was brought to the United States by his parents 
in 1909, at the age of 5 years. His entry was lawful and he has since lived in the 
United States continuously. Until 1935, he had believed that he had acquired 
citizenship through the naturalization of his father. In that year be learned 
he was an alien. He is single. He has no relatives or friends in Eire. His 
mother, two brothers and a sister reside in the United States. In 1922, when 
about 18 years of age, he was convicted and sentenced on a charge of larceny 
of property of the value of $152. In 1927, he was convicted of larceny of property 
of the value of $200, and larceny of property of the value of $83. He served a 
sentence of 4 years for these convictions. In 1935 he was sentenced to serve 2 
years for stealing mail matter. Since then he has had a good record. In 1942 
deportation proceedings were brought on the ground that be had been sentenced 
to imprisonment more than once for a term of 1 year or more for the commission, 
subsequent to entry, of a crime involving moral turpitude. His deportation to 
Eire was ordered. 


Case III: 

The alien came to the United States in 1913, when he was 3 months old, and 
has lived here since that time. In 1930, when 17 years of age, he was convicted 
of attempted larceny, and in 1932 was convicted of robbery. His three brothers 
and two sisters were born in the United States. An order for deportation was 
entered and was challenged in court in 1935. The court observed : "His deporta- 
tion will be tantamount to exile from a country in which he has always lived to a 
country in which he will be a stranger. These are circumstances, however, which 
cannot be considered by this court." 

Each of these aliens is the product of our society. Their formative 
years were spent in the United States, which is the only home they 
have ever known. The countries of their origin which they left — in 
two cases during infancy, in another, at the age of 5 years — certainly 
are not responsible for their criminal ways. Their criminal careers 
are American, not foreign, products. If such a person offends against 
our laws, he should be punished in the same manner as other citizens 
and residents of the United States and should not be subject to banish- 
ment from this country. We cannot expect other countries to take, 
and continue to take, undesirable people who have no real tie with 

The Commission recommends that no alien shall be subject to 
deportation if he was lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence before reaching the age of 16 years, or if he 
was lawfully admitted for permanent residence and has resided 
in the United States for 20 years. 

Excessive Penalties 

Some offenses, for which deportation may be ordered under the law, 
do not warrant such an excessive punishment. Deportation may 
result from trivial offenses; for misbehavior many years after entry 
into the United States, without any limitation of time ; and for wrong- 
ful conduct of the remote past, without any consideration as to 
whether there has been reformation or expiation. 

Retroactive Penalties 

The Act of 1952 retroactively makes aliens deportable for specified 
causes, involving conduct that violated no law and warranted no 
punishment when it was committed. For example, the Act of 1952 
subjects to deportation an alien who entered the United States with- 
out proper inspection in 1918, in whose case the statute of limitations 
20 years ago forbade deportation and who also could have been natural- 
ized before December 24, 1952, after his original entry had been legal- 
ized by an administrative registry process. An alien may engage in 
an activity which is perfectly lawful today and yet may be deported 
20 years hence because a statute passed in 1970 may declare the act 
he performs today to be criminal. 


Witnesses in the Commission's hearings objected to this retroactive 
provision as a form of ex post facto law, forbidden by the Constitution 
of the United States. The Supreme Court has decided that deporta- 
tion is not criminal punishment and that the Constitutional prohi- 
bition against ex post facto laws does not invalidate retroactive 
deportation requirements. Nevertheless, such retroactivity has no 
place in the laws of the United States. 

The Commission recommends that the blanket retroactive provi- 
sion in section 241 (d) of the 1952 act be repealed. 



Deportation for reasons of security is discussed in Chapter 15. 

Violators of Criminal Statutes 

The provisions dealing with violators of the criminal laws are 
among the principal punitive features of the deportation statutes. 

Before 1917 there was no statute authorizing deportation for con- 
viction of crime in the United States. As a result of recommenda- 
tions made by the Immigration Commission in 1911, the act of 1917 
authorized expulsion following convictions under certain conditions 
for crimes involving moral turpitude. The act of 1952 increased the 
application of these penalties. 

Criminal Offenders Before Entry. — The Commission believes that 
the laws providing for the deportation of aliens who enter the United 
States in violation of the provisions excluding criminals should relate 
to original entries, and not to reentries after brief absences; and, 
further, that deportation for such offenses should be subject to limita- 
tions of 10 years, as discussed elsewhere. 

Conviction of One Crime After Entry. — The Immigration Act of 
1917 provided for the deportation of aliens convicted of a crime involv- 
ing moral turpitude committed within 5 years after entry, where such 
conviction was followed by a sentence to imprisonment for 1 year or 
more. However, if the court suspended sentence on the belief that 
the crime was committed under circumstances which did not warrant 
imprisonment, the alien was not subject to deportation. Under the 
act of 1952, however, such an alien would be deportable. 

A recommendation to continue the provisions of the 1917 act was 
made in the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee; this recom- 
mendation was not adopted. The Commission recommends restora- 
tion of the provision of the Act of 1917. 

Unlike the previous law, the Act of 1952 makes confinement in a 
corrective institution a ground for deportation. So, where a person 
sentenced is a minor who is confined principally for educational and 


corrective purposes, he becomes subject to deportation. A person 
under 21 who commits a criminal offense, and who is placed upon 
probation, parole, or in a correctional institution primarily for 
corrective and educational purposes, should not be subject to 
deportation solely for that reason. 

The Commission recommends that an alien convicted for one 
crime involving moral turpitude should be subject to deportation 
only if the offense was committed within 5 years after the alien's 
original entry into the United States for permanent residence, and 
resulted in a sentence to a penal institution for one year or more. 
Although the designation of crimes involving moral turpitude is not 
completely satisfactory, the Commission believes, as previously stated 
in Chapter 12, that this descriptive term has not caused too much 
difficulty and that it should be retained. 

Where there has been a conviction for a crime involving moral 
turpitude, deportation does not result if there has been a pardon or 
if the court recommends against deportation. However, the act of 
1952 lists an additional number of crimes for which deportation may 
be ordered without regard to whether they involve moral turpitude. 
In connection with such crimes, no provision is made for clemency 
in worthy cases — as is done with crimes involving moral turpitude — 
as a result of pardons or court recommendations against deportation. 
In one instance, involving activities by aliens in aiding other aliens 
to enter unlawfully, no court conviction is necessary and the admin- 
istrative officers are required to determine whether a crime has been 

The Commission recommends that wherever the statute requires 
deportation for criminal offenses, deportation shall not be ordered 
where there has been a pardon or a recommendation by the court 
against deportation. The Commission recommends further that 
even where an alien is subject to deportation because of a conviction 
and sentence for one offense, deportation should be ordered only 
if the head of the agency administering the immigration law also 
finds the alien to be an undesirable resident of the United States. 

Conviction For More Than One Grime. — The act of 1917 required 
deportation, at any time after entry, of an alien convicted and sen- 
tenced more than once for crimes involving moral turpitude. This 
provision was intended to reach confirmed criminals. It applied to 
aliens who resided in the United States for five or more years. Under 
that act, as construed by the Supreme Court, such an alien was deport- 
able if at any time after entry he committed a crime involving moral 
turpitude for which he was sentenced to imprisonment and confined, 
and then after serving the first sentence committed another crime 


involving moral turpitude for which he was convicted, sentenced 
and confined. 

The act of 1952 changes the prior law and eliminates: (1) the 
necessity for imprisonment, and (2) the necessity that the second 
conviction take place after the alien has been subjected to punishment. 
Thus, an alien who has been found guilty under an indictment con- 
taining several counts arising out of one transaction is now subject 
to deportation even though the offense may have occurred many years 
after his entry into the United States and the court did not regard 
it as sufficiently serious to require a prison sentence. 

The Commission recommends that the provisions authorizing de- 
portation for two or more crimes involving moral turpitude be 
retained substantially as in effect prior to the act of 1952; provided 
that deportation in such cases shall be directed only if the head of 
the agency administering the immigration law finds that the alien is 
an undesirable resident of the United States; and provided that 
no alien should be subject to deportation who entered the United 
States for permanent residence before reaching the age of 16 years, 
or who was lawfully admitted for permanent residence and has 
resided in the United States for 20 years. 

Violation of Registration Requirements 

A new provision, originating in the act of 1952, makes an alien 
subject to deportation for failure to report his present address, as 
required by law, but permits relief from deportation upon a showing 
that the omission was reasonably excusable or was not willful. Con- 
viction of the offense is not required. 

The act also requires deportation upon conviction for other infrac- 
tions of the registration statute, regardless of whether the court 
imposed sentence. No provision is made for alleviation in the case 
of a pardon or a court recommendation against deportation. 

Convictions for infractions of the registration provisions carry sub- 
stantial penalties. Sentences which may be imposed as a result of 
conviction should be an adequate deterrent without the additional 
penalty of deportation. Such additional punishment is entirely out 
of proportion to the nature of the offense. 

These provisions can have little effect upon aliens unlawfully in 
the United States, as such aliens are subject to deportation on other 
grounds. Their only effect is to impair the status of lawfully resident 

The Commission recommends that the provisions authorizing 
deportation for violations of the alien registration laws be elim- 
inated as unnecessary and excessively severe. 


Narcotic Drug Addicts 

The act of 1952 requires, for the first time, deportation of any 
alien who is or at any previous time has been a narcotic drug addict. 
Previous legislation providing for the deportation of those convicted 
of violating the narcotic law, had exempted from expulsion narcotic 
addicts who were not dealers in or peddlers of narcotic drugs. The 
statute makes no distinction between aliens who may be incurable, 
who may be curable, or who may have been fully cured. 

The 1952 act makes no allowance for length of residence in the 
United States before addiction occurred. Nor does it make any dif- 
ference whether the addicts or. former addicts have violated any law 
or have become a problem to the community. There was the case of 
a much-decorated hero of World War II who became a drug addict 
as a result of drugs prescribed to alleviate pain resulting from his 
wounds. If such a person were an alien he would be subject to de- 

It is unjust to apply the same yardstick to persons engaged in drug 
traffic and to their unfortunate victims. The Commission recom- 
mends that applicable provisions for deportation be related solely 
to those engaged in the unlawful traffic in narcotic drugs as pro- 
vided by law prior to the 1952 act. 

Aliens Who Become a Charge on the Community 

Under the law in effect prior to the act of 1952 an alien who became 
a public charge within 5 years after entry was subject to deportation, 
unless he could establish that the cause arose after arrival in the 
United States. Where such a cause occurred within the 5-year period, 
the law placed the burden on the alien to establish that his becoming 
a public charge was not the result of a condition which existed prior 
to entry. 

The 1952 law continues "public charge" as a ground of deportability 
but makes the determination dependent on the opinion of the immigra- 
tion officer. The act permits a finding of deportability for public 
charge to be based not on facts but on opinion, whereas other grounds 
of deportability must be supported by substantial and probative 
evidence. The legislative history of the 1952 act does not indicate 
that there was any administrative difficulty in enforcement of the 
prior law, nor does it disclose the reason for making the "public 
charge" finding dependent on the mere opinion of the administrative 
officials. The Commission recommends that a finding of deport- 
ability on the ground that the alien became a public charge within 5 
years after entry for causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen 
subsequent to arrival in the United States be based upon fact and not 
upon opinion. 


Chapter 14 

Relief in Deportation 

Deportation orders frequently affect many people in addition to 
those against whom action is taken. The alien's spouse and children, 
often citizens, are linked with the destiny of the deportee. The hard- 
ships caused in many cases by such on order have prompted measures 
for discretionary relief, some by statute and some by administrative 
regulation or practice. 

The provisions for relief were well defined prior to the Immigration 
and Nationality Act of 1952. Although in many aspects they were not 
entirely adequate, in general they appeared to be reasonably satis- 
factory. The act of 1952 restricted, or eliminated, practically every 
provision for discretionary relief. 

General deportation statutes cannot deal justly in every situation 
and the Commission believes that a sound immigration law should 
continue to authorize the alleviation of excessive hardships in indi- 
vidual worthy cases. 

Three principal discretionary remedies existed prior to the act of 
1952: (1) voluntary departure, (2) preexamination, and (3) suspen- 
sion of deportation. In addition to these administrative remedies, 
there was a fourth one, of a legislative character, the growing prac- 
tice of introducing in Congress private relief bills to forestall 


In many instances a person may be deportable for reasons which 
impute no personal blame. For instance, a temporary visitor may be 
prevented from, or delayed in, leaving the United States by causes 
beyond his control ; a seaman discharged at an American port may be 
unable to find a new ship within the period of shore leave allotted to 
him ; a student may be financially or physically unable to continue his 
studies; a diplomatic official may resign because his new home govern- 
ment is unfriendly to him and us — he may even be a defector from 
communism. In recent years many persons in a temporary status in 
the United States have been unable to return to their home countries 
which have fallen under Communist control. In other instances, per- 
sonal fault is slight or difficult to assess. Some aliens who have come 
into the country for pleasure or business may have wittingly or un- 


wittingly failed to comply with the laws pertaining to entry. In all 
such cases the aliens are subject to deportation. 

Until 1940 there was no specific statutory authorization to do any- 
thing but to deport such people. However, deportation involves a 
personal stigma and a person deported from the United States com- 
mits a crime if he reenters without the specific permission of the Attor- 
ney General. To avoid such situations, to the extent desirable, and to 
save the Government the trouble and expense of deportation, the 
discretionary remedy of voluntary departure was devised by admin- 
istrative officials. 

The discretionary remedy of voluntary departure is merely permis- 
sion to the deportable alien to leave the United States within an 
allotted time and without a deportation order. Voluntary departure 
serves the needs of the Government and of the alien in meritorious 

The Alien Registration Act of 1940 required an alien to prove 
that he was a person of good moral character for 5 years before he 
could be allowed voluntary departure; it precluded the granting of 
such relief to persons deportable for various violations of law relat- 
ing to subversives, criminals, prostitutes, and narcotics. Although 
the act of 1952 adopts the rule of the 1940 act, it gives unrestricted 
administrative authority to grant voluntary departure before deporta- 
tion proceedings have been started. However, the act of 1952 in 
effect limits the opportunities for granting this relief through an un- 
real definition of good moral character, which is discussed more fully 
in relation to suspension of deportation, and to deportation. 

The expedient of voluntary departure has been widely used. The 
large volume of illegal entries of Mexican agricultural laborers across 
the southern border of the United States has created a need for flexi- 
bility. It would be difficult and expensive to ascertain whether each 
such illegal entrant possessed particular qualifications before he could 
be permitted to depart from the United States. 

Deportation hearings are expensive for the Government and bur- 
densome upon the alien. Moreover, the expulsion of the alien entails 
large costs, which are avoided if the alien is permitted to depart at 
his own expense. 

The Commission recommends that administrative officials should 
have authority to permit aliens who are illegally in the United States, 
to depart at their own expense. The conditions and circumstances 
under which that privilege is granted should be left to the sound 
discretion of the administrative officers, without the unnecessary 
limitations now found in the statute. 



P 'reexamination 

In many instances, persons in a temporary or irregular status de- 
sire to establish permanent residence and are otherwise eligible to do 
so. Since under the immigration law consuls are not authorized to 
issue immigration visas in the United States an alien desiring ad- 
justment of status to permanent residence was required to return to 
his country of origin for such visa. This was an expensive pro- 
cedure which served no useful purpose either for the alien or for 
the United States. 

To meet this situation the administrative authorities in 1935 devised 
a process known as preexamination. An arrangement was made with 
Canada under which aliens who had been authorized such preexami- 
nation in the United States could enter Canada to obtain an immigra- 
tion visa at any American consulate in that country for the purpose 
of reentering the United States immediately as an immigrant. The 
United States guaranteed to Canada that it would permit the imme- 
diate reentry of such aliens. 

Preexamination consisted merely in examining a prospective immi- 
grant in the United States to determine his admissibility. Under this 
procedure, an alien took a short trip to Canada instead of a long and 
expensive trip to his home country. 

Preexamination depended entirely on administrative regulations 
and practices. It was often coupled with an authorization for volun- 
tary departure. Under the established procedure an alien was not al- 
lowed preexamination unless he demonstrated to the immigration au- 
thorities that an immigration visa was immediately available, which 
means that for a quota immigrant a quota number must be currently 
available and that he was otherwise admissible under the immigration 
laws. An alien granted preexamination could complete all his pre- 
liminary arrangements by mail. Usually, after receiving an appoint- 
ment from a United States consul in Canada he could enter Canada, 
apply for and secure his visa, and reenter without being outside the 
United States for more than a day or two. 

Preexamination did not eliminate the usual checks and procedures 
in issuing visas. No persuasive evidence seems to have been presented 
to justify a contrary view. In any event, any loopholes or other diffi- 
culties could have been remedied by the administrative authorities. 

The following are typical cases in which the privilege of preexami- 
nation was authorized : 

Case I: 

The alien, a Norwegian, was admitted in transit in 1942 with other survivors 
of a torpedoed vessel on which he had been chief engineer. Because of unfitness 


250653 O- 53 15 

for sea duty, he remained ashore. He became the president of a ship cleaning 
company which performed war work. He was eligible to first priority for a 
nonpreference quota visa because of his services at sea during the early days 
of the war. He was allowed voluntary departure and preexamination so that 
he could go to Canada and apply for his visa instead of returning to Norway. 

Case II : 

The alien became a citizen in 1926. He returned to Italy in 1930 and resided 
there until 1946, at which time he reentered the United States as a citizen. 
Unknown to him, his naturalization had been cancelled in 1935. It was con- 
cluded that he had obtained an American passport and reentered the United 
States in good faith. Under the circumstances, the application was found ex- 
ceptionally meritorious and preexamination was authorized so that he could 
enter Canada and obtain his visa instead of returning to Italy to obtain it. 

Case III : 

The alien, a 29-year-old native and citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, 
last entered the United States as a seaman on January 5, 1947. He intended to 
remain permanently, but had none of the necessary immigration documents. He 
had enlisted in the Army of the United States in Australia in 1942 and served 
until his honorable discharge in 1945. He is the holder of five decorations. His 
good moral character for a 5-year period was established by the record. He was 
eligible for the issuance of a first priority nonpreference quota visa. By reason 
of his war service his case was found to be exceptionally meritorious. He was 
granted the privilege of voluntary departure and preexamination so that he could 
go to Canada to apply for his visa instead of returning to the Philippines. 

During 1951, out of a total of 1,945 new applications for preexami- 
nation which were filed by aliens not subject to deportation proceed- 
ings, 1,201 were approved and 156 denied. Thirty preexaminations 
were revoked. 

Effect of 1952 Act. — Although the act of 1952 did not in express 
terms abolish the practice of preexamination, the Congressional Con- 
ference Committee stated that it contained a prohibition against pre- 
examination. The regulations issued by the Immigration and Natu- 
ralization Service adopt the conclusion suggested by the conferees, 
and in effect abolish preexamination. The theory of this action, as 
explained in the Conference Report, was "that the preexamination 
system was cumbersome, obsolete, and, as practiced, contained certain 
loopholes for the admission for permanent residence of undesirable 

The preexamination procedure was generally believed to be reason- 
ably adequate. It seems somewhat strange that criticism of the pro- 
cedure of preexamination should have been based, as the Commission 
is informed, on opinions expressed by the administrative officers who 
devised and operated it, and who had ample authority to plug any 
loopholes in it, and otherwise make it conform to proper practice. 

Congress, in eliminating preexamination, did not supply a satisfac- 
tory substitute. It introduced a new procedure called Adjustment of 
Status of Nonimmigrant. In one important respect this seems an im- 


provement over former practices, since it allows adjustment of status 
in the United States without requiring a trip to Canada. But the act 
of 1952 surrounds the new procedure with conditions and limitations 
which apparently permit only a few to qualify and which therefore 
may be self-defeating. 

For example, this new adjustment of status may be granted only to 
an alien lawfully admitted as a nonimmigrant or temporary visitor 
and who is continuing to maintain that status. By denying adjust- 
ment to otherwise admissible aliens whose present status is irregular, 
for one or another reason, the new procedure loses one of the major 
benefits in the old system of preexamination. 

The only avenue provided for the great number who cannot meet 
such rigidly limited conditions is suspension of deportation. But 
this requires a finding that they are deportable, and the procedure 
is slow, cumbersome, and expensive. In fact, in most such cases 
arising: under the 1952 act an alien who resides in the United States 
and who would be qualified immediately to immigrate to the United 
States if he lived overseas, must again make the long and expensive 
trip to his homeland in order to obtain a visa and return. 

The Commission recommends that an alien in the United States 
in a temporary or irregular status be given the privilege of having 
his status adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident, without 
being required to leave the United States, if he is currently qualified 
to enter the United States under the immigration laws. This will 
entail mental and physical examination, security clearance, and satis- 
faction of all qualitative requirements, as well as the present avail- 
ability of a quota number, when it is required. The presence of such 
an alien in the United States should not give him any preference or 
advantage over prospective immigrants in foreign countries. 

Suspension of Deportation 

Congress has provided that hardships created by the inflexible 
provisions for deportation may be avoided through a procedure known 
as suspension of deportation. 

Most of the aliens who become legal residents follow the usual 
course of obtaining immigration visas abroad. For example, in the 
fiscal year 1951, 156,547 quota immigrants were admitted from abroad ; 
only 1,506 aliens became legal residents through suspension of deporta- 
tion, and charges were made against the proper quotas. During 1950, 
the respective figures were 197,460 and 833. After thorough considera- 
tion of the problem during several sessions of Congress beginning in 
1934, the discretionary power to suspend deportation was finally 
enacted in the Alien Registration Act of 1940. The Attorney Gen- 
eral was authorized to suspend deportation of a deportable alien 


who had proved good moral character for the past 5 years, if deporta- 
tion would result in serious economic detriment to the alien's citizen 
or legally resident spouse, parent, or child. 

This consideration was denied to aliens deportable as subversives, 
criminals, prostitutes, the mentally and physically deficient, and aliens 
racially ineligible for naturalization. In each instance where deporta- 
tion was suspended, a quota number was deducted from the current 
quota of the alien's home country. The Alien Registration Act of 
1940 required that each case be reported to Congress, and suspension 
of deportation became final unless, by concurrent resolution, Congress 

Amendments in 1948 enlarged the suspension authority, but also 
introduced some restrictive features. A deportable alien who had 
resided here for 7 years was made eligible, even though he did not 
have the specified family ties; but this provision was limited to aliens 
who were in the United States in 1948. The amendments also re- 
moved the previous bar on aliens racially ineligible for citizenship. 

But instead of the previous requirement that suspensions of de- 
portation were final unless the Congress passed a concurrent disap- 
proving resolution, the act of 1948 made them final only if Congress 
passed a concurrent resolution affirmatively approving them. 

Effect of Act of 1952— -The act of 1952 severely limits the authority 
to grant suspensions of deportation, although it makes such relief 
available to groups previously ineligible for it. 

In place of the relatively simple previous procedure, the act of 1952 
substitutes an involved statutory scheme. In order to be eligible for 
suspension of deportation prior to the act of 1952, an alien had to show 
serious economic detriment to specified close relatives, unless he had 
resided here for 7 years. The act of 1952 requires that the alien must 
be "a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney 
General, result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the 
alien or to the specified relatives. The Senate Committee Report 
makes it clear that the remedy — 

should be available only in the very limited category of cases in which the de- 
portation of the alien would be unconscionable. Hardship or even unusual 
hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent or child is not sufficient to justify 
suspension of deportation. 

In commenting on this new language and the committee's explanation, 
one distinguished witness testifying at the Commission's hearing said : 
"Rarely has there been a balder statement of a national purpose to be 

Even the technical experts have difficulty arriving at an under- 
standing of the provisions of the act of 1952 relating to suspension 
of deportation. The act establishes five classes of aliens eligible for 


suspension of deportation, and prescribes for each such class a "con- 
tinuous period" of physical presence in the United States, up to the 
date of application for suspension. The shortest period for which the 
alien must have been continuously "physically present" is 5 years, 
the longest is 10 years. The 10-year period indiscriminately covers 
subversives, criminals and prostitutes, on the one hand, and persons 
who merely violated purely technical provisions of the law on the 
other hand. Prior to the 1902 act, an alien who supported his Ameri- 
can citizen wife could have obtained suspension of deportation no 
matter how short his stay in this country had been. The new act 
requires 5, 7 or 10 years of continuous "physical presence." 

The alien must prove that he has been a person of good moral 
character during the entire period. The new law contains a highly 
restrictive definition of good moral character, creating many uncer- 
tainties. For example, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
testified at the Commission's hearings that the crime of adultery was 
inadequately defined in the act of 1952. 

Except for persons who came to the United States before June 27, 
1950, an alien may not be granted suspension if a final order of de- 
portation has been entered in his case. This subjects the alien to the 
arbitrary requirement that the date of an order of deportation con- 
trols his right to be considered for suspension of deportation. 

Often, an alien who does not qualify for suspension of deportation 
under the Act of 1952 will be able to return almost at once as a per- 
manent legal resident of this country. Under other provisions of the 
law, lie may be entitled to a preferred immigration status for visa 
consideration, by reason of his citizen or legally resident wife or chil- 
dren. In other cases, for lack of the remedy of suspension, the alien 
may suffer the disruption of his family. 

Many witnesses criticized the restrictions on the authority to deal 
with hardships imposed by the Act of 1952 as being repugnant to 
American principles of justice and humanity. Among them was the 
late Philip Murray, representing the Congress of Industrial Organ- 
izations (CIO), who stated: 

* * * that the authorities administering the law should have sufficient dis- 
cretion to enable them to take humanitarian considerations into account. These 
resident aliens about whom we are talking may have lived in this country for 
years, may have married spouses who are American citizens, and may have chil- 
dren who are American citizens. Deportation of the alien may mean intolerable 
hardship for the family. The officials enforcing the laws should therefore have 
authority to look at the whole picture and decide whether, in the light of all the 
circumstances, the national interest will or will not be served by deportation of 
an individual. The laws should be administered in a liberal and humanitarian, 
rather than a technical and punitive, spirit. 

The Commission believes that the statutory requirement for Con- 
gressional approval of suspension of deportation actions is contrary 


to our fundamental constitutional doctrine of separation of legislative, 
executive, and judicial powers. The basic concept of our American 
system is that the Congress makes the laws, the Executive administers 
them, and the Judiciary interprets them. Our form of Government 
is built upon a tripartite system of checks-and-balances intended to 
assure that no one branch of Government encroach upon any of the 
others. The failure of the Congress to follow the constitutional pat- 
tern is obstructive of good government and destructive of funda- 
mental principles. In immigration matters, in particular, it frustrates 
proper administration and puts a premium on extraneous considera- 
tions in the determination of legal rights. The exercise of discretion 
according to standards fixed by Congress is peculiarly an executive 
function. The legislature is not equipped, and not intended to be 
equipped, to handle the details of administration. The provision for 
legislative approval of determinations in individual cases requires an 
administrative agency within the legislature itself, attempting to re- 
do what the administrative agency has already done, but without the 
safeguards which the Congress and the courts have insisted shall sur- 
round administrative action. This is wrong in principle and bad 
in practice. 

It is no more the function of Congress to pass upon individual cases 
involving suspension of deportation than it would be to pass upon 
the issuance of individual visas, or for that matter upon the custom 
inspection of an individual alien's baggage. 

One searches in vain for a comparable example of intermingling of 
executive and legislative authority. The determination of the exist- 
ence and extent of tremendous human and property rights is confided 
to the discretion of executive officials. For example, the Selective 
Service System periodically drafts tens of thousands of the youth of 
America into the Armed Forces, including aliens, without submitting 
all the individual cases to Congress for its approval. The Atomic 
Energy Commission has virtually unlimited discretion in effecting a 
crucial program affecting our survival. The Interior Department 
has large discretion in regulating the affairs of Indians. The Vet- 
erans' Administration functions in many fields affecting veterans. 
The Mutual Security Agency and the Reconstruction Finance Cor- 
poration are empowered to allocate billions of dollars. The Inter- 
state Commerce Commission, Federal Communications Commission, 
Civil Aeronautics Board, and Federal Power Commission have power 
to grant invaluable franchises and to fix rates affecting millions of 
people. And even the immigration laws themselves grant broad dis- 
cretion in some respects to administrative officers to enforce restrictive 
requirements. Yet the Attorney General cannot suspend the deporta- 
tion of one alien without reporting the case to Congress and obtaining 
its approval. 


The Commission recommends that any alien in the United States 
in irregular status who does not qualify for adjustment of status, 
as above described, may be granted suspension of deportation in 
the discretion of the administrative officer upon a showing of good 
moral character for 5 years, and (a) serious economic detriment 
to the alien's citizen or legally resident spouse, parent, or minor 
child, or (b) residence in the United States for 7 years. 

These recommendations would restore the provisions for suspension 
of deportation substantially to their position prior to the Act of 1952. 
The Act of 1952 authorizes suspension of deportation for former sub- 
versives, criminals, and other groups previously denied this remedy. 
This authority should be continued subject to a limitation that such 
aliens must have resided in the United States for 10 years. 

The Commission recommends that administrative officials be 
given authority to exercise reasonable discretion to suspend deporta- 
tion, without the necessity for Congressional action in individual 

Special Legislation 

Another consequence of the inflexibility of the immigration laws 
is the enactment by Congress of private relief bills, exempting named 
individuals from particular restrictive provisions. Until the past 
decade or so, private relief bills in immigration matters were virtually 
unknown. But during recent years Congress has been deluged with 
an increasing flood of such bills. Thus, while only 163 private bills 
in immigration and nationality cases were introduced in the Seventy- 
eighth Congress, there were 429 in the Seventy-ninth Congress, 1,141 
in the Eightieth Congress, 2,811 in the Eighty-first Congress, and 
3,669 in the Eighty-second Congress. 

The number of private bills has been a heavy burden on Congress. 
Moreover, it has added substantially to the problems of administra- 
tion. In most instances the introduction of such a bill has been fol- 
lowed by a request from a committee of Congress to the Department of 
Justice for an investigation of the facts and a report. Under arrange- 
ments between the Department of Justice and committees of Congress, 
deportation frequently has been withheld while a private bill is pend- 
ing. The result is that the private bill device has afforded an oppor- 
tunity to delay or defeat deportation, and has overburdened Congress 
and the administrative authorities. 

The sponsors of the Act of 1952 have stated that its enactment would 
substantially diminish the volume of such bills. But others predict a 
different result, in view of the many oppressive features of that legis- 
lation, including the severe limitations on the discretionary relief of 
adjustment of status and suspension of deportation. 


The increase in the number of private immigration bills introduced 
into, and passed, by the Congress is itself evidence that something 
is wrong with our immigration laws. The Commission believes that 
the unnecessary hardships which private bills seek to correct would 
better and more fairly be corrected by enactment of a reasonable 
immigration law, including adequate discretionary authority vested 
in responsible administrative officials. 


Chapter 15 

Security Protections 

Since the earliest days of the Republic, Congress has expressed 
concern over the activities of subversive aliens in our midst. The 
Alien Act of 1798 authorized the President to order the departure of 
any alien whom he deemed dangerous to the United States. The Alien 
Enemy Act of 1798, passed 2 weeks later, permitted the apprehension, 
restraint, and removal of alien enemies, if deemed necessary for the 
public safety. The first law was so unpopular and violated such fun- 
damental American principles that it was allowed to expire after 2 
years. The second, limited in application to time of war or threatened 
invasion, is still in effect. 

It was not, however, until 1903 that the law barred the entry of 
aliens who were regarded as inimical to the safety and security of the 
country. By a 1903 statute, anarchists and those who believed in or 
advocated the forcible overthrow of the Government of the United 
States, or of all forms of Government, or the assassination of public 
officials, were denied admission to the United States. These provisions 
were continued and strengthened in 1907 and 1917. The Anarchist 
Act of 1918, as amended in 1920, enlarged the description of aliens 
classed as subversive. It barred from the United States aliens who 
write, publish or cause to be written or published, or circulate, dis- 
tribute or display, or possess for such purposes, any written or printed 
matter advising, advocating, or teaching opposition to organized forms 
of Government, or the overthrow by force or violence of Government, 
or the killing of officers generally, or unlawful damage to or destruc- 
tion of property, or sabotage. 

The Supreme Court, in 1939, had occasion to interpret the laws 
which authorize the exclusion of aliens deemed subversive, and the 
deportation of those in the United States who were members of or 
affiliated with subversive organizations. The Supreme Court's deci- 
sion required a finding by the Government of present membership or 
affiliation, in order to support the exclusion or deportation of an alien. 

However, the Congress reversed this situation in the Alien Registra- 
tion Act of 1940, which made such membership at any time a ground 
for exclusion and deportation. Other enactments between 1940 and 
1950 generally strengthened and, to some extent, enlarged the descrip- 
tion of classes to be excluded or deported from the United States as 
subversives; and authorized the denial of visas to, and the exclusion 


of, aliens seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engag- 
ing in activities which would endanger public safety. 

In the years immediately following the close of hostilities of World 
War II, a growing awareness developed of the inadequacies of existing 
law to cope with Communism's drive for world domination. To 
meet this increasing threat, Congress enacted the Internal Secu- 
rity Act of 1950. This Act greatly enlarged the proscribed classes 
of subversive aliens. For the first time the Communist Party was 
mentioned by name. The terms "communism," "Communist organi- 
zation," "Communist front organization," "totalitarianism," "advo- 
cates," and "doctrine" were defined by statute. Moreover, the Act 
makes membership, association or affiliation with an organization 
required to register as a subversive organization under the Subversive 
Activities Control Act of 1950, a ground for exclusion and deportation. 

In addition the discretion of the Attorney General to admit sub- 
versive aliens, under preexisting legislation, was completely elim- 
inated with respect to aliens returning to the United States to resume 
a permanent residence after a temporary absence abroad. Subver- 
sive aliens seeking temporary admission could do so only under a 
severely curtailed discretion of the Attorney General, and, where ex- 
ercised, the Attorney General was required to make a detailed report 
to Congress. Many provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 
were attacked at the time as being unnecessarily harsh, improper, and 
not in the best interests of the country. 

The provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 have been car- 
ried forward into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, with- 
out substantial change. The only significant difference in the treat- 
ment of subversive aliens under the 1952 Act is that the definition 
of "totalitarian party" is limited to an organization which advocates 
the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship or totalitarianism in 
the United States. This would bar admission of members of the 
Communist Party, but some have expressed concern that it would 
not bar from the United States members of the Nazi, Fascist, or 
Falange parties. 


The various administrative agencies have endeavored to establish 
effective processes to screen out and bar subversive people. The 
State Department has devised an elaborate screening process in an 
attempt to ascertain whether applicants for visas come within the 
statutory designations of subversives. The law requires each appli- 
cant for a visa to prepare a lengthy, documented application. In 
addition, the consular officers usually require the alien to submit a 


questionnaire designed, when completed, to provide a basis for a 
background check of the alien from a security point of view. 

After an examination of the papers submitted by the alien, sources 
of information available in the local Foreign Service posts of the 
United States and so-called "look-out" notices from the Department 
of State and the Department of Justice are checked. American 
officers at the Foreign Service post, such as the military, naval, air, 
or economic attaches, are consulted to ascertain whether their re- 
spective spheres of operation have uncovered any information which 
might have a bearing on the alien's admissibility. Checks with other 
sources of information available abroad are utilized wherever 

The alien is invited to appear at the consular establishment to be 
examined under oath concerning his background and other factors 
bearing upon his eligibility for admission to the United States. If 
any derogatory information is uncovered, further action on the alien's 
application is suspended pending additional examination or pending 
reference of the application to the Department of State. Should the 
derogatory information indicate that the alien falls within one of 
the proscribed subversive classes, the interrogation is usually con- 
ducted more thoroughly in order firmly to establish the facts relating 
to the alien's admissibility. The alien may or may not be given an 
opportunity to rebut the derogatory information on file. 

The consular officer may, of course, refuse to issue a visa at any 
stage of the investigation, but if he entertains any doubt as to the 
alien's admissibility from a security standpoint, he is required by 
regulation to refer the case to the Department of State for an advisory 
opinion. For former voluntary members of proscribed organizations, 
no visa may be issued without an advisory opinion. If an advisory 
opinion from the Department of State is unfavorable, no visa may 
be issued. However, even if the Department of State renders a 
favorable advisory opinion, the consular officer may still refuse a 
visa as he sees fit. Wherever possible the Department of State con- 
ducts an independent and supplemental security check, utilizing 
various intelligence facilites of our Government. 

Special provisions of law which relate to accredited officials of 
foreign governments, or representatives of foreign governments to 
international organizations, generally make impossible the applica- 
tion of normal screening processes to them. On the other hand, classes 
of aliens who, because of their profession, occupation, or previous 
status, present special problems, are subjected to even closer scrutiny 
and additional checks. 

Possession of a visa does not entitle an alien to enter the United 
States ; a visa is, in effect, a permit to apply for admission. An alien 
with a visa, who applies for admission to the United States, is required 


to satisfy the Attorney General that he is eligible under the immigra- 
tion laws for admission. The Immigration and Naturalization 
Service has authority to make a completely independent security 
check upon an alien presenting a visa. Immigration officials at this 
point have the benefit of advice and information from various intel- 
ligence sources in the United States and elsewhere. 

Once an alien is in the United States, he may be deported for 
subversive activities. The investigations preceding the arrest in 
deportation and the consequent hearing may have been made by one 
or more of the several intelligence agencies of the United States 
Government or may have been conducted by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. 

Thus, at each stage of the immigration process, the issuance of a 
visa, the admission at ports of entry, or deportation, the facilities 
for the detection or apprehension of the subversive alien represent 
the combined efforts of many intelligence and investigating agencies 
in addition to the agencies administering the immigration law. 

The Commission made efforts to learn whether security agencies, 
and those responsible for the administration of the immigration laws 
had any specific recommendations to make in order to strengthen the 
security provisions of such and related laws. At the time these efforts 
were made, the act of 1952 had not become effective. However, the 
Commission is able to report that as of the time of its inquiry, the 
security measures in the laws and regulations were believed to be ade- 
quate. The sole exception was the suggestion that the Commission 
recommend provisions to enable immigration authorities to exclude 
applicants for visas who are active members of, or believe in the 
principles advocated by, Nazi, Fascist, and other such totalitarian 

Generally speaking, the immigration laws deal with three groups 
of subversives: (1) spies and saboteurs; (2) present members and 
affiliates of subversive organizations; and (3) former members or 
affiliates of subversive organizations. 


The act of 1952 makes ineligible to receive a visa and requires the 
exclusion of : 

Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to 
believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to 
engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or en- 
danger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States ; . . . 

Aliens with respect to whom the consular officer or the Attorney General 
knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, ater entry, (A) 
engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United States 
relating to espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activity subversive 
to the national security, (B) engage in any activity a purpose of which is the 


opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, 
by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, or (C) join, affiliate with, 
or participate in the activities of any organization which is registered or required 
to be registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 
1950 . . . 

Such aliens, even if they are permanent residents returning after a 
temporary absence abroad, are specifically denied the benefits of the 
exercise of discretion. Provisions relating to the parole of aliens into 
the United States, or to the waiver of documents for nonimmigrant 
aliens, are not intended by Congress to include these subversive aliens, 
save for the possible purpose of prosecution for crime. Such aliens 
may be deported at any time, without regard to when they entered the 
United States. 

Legislation which establishes an absolute bar against admission to 
the United States of those whose purpose in entering is to engage in 
activities which violate our laws relating to espionage, sabotage, 
public disorder or national security must remain on our statute 
books and be strictly enforced. 

These statutory provisions give authority to deal with spies and 
saboteurs. However, the act of 1952 gives a consular officer the ab- 
solute and unreviewable power to bar aliens whom he "knows or has 
reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, 
or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to 
the public interest," or with respect to whom, the consular officer 
"knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, after 
entry" engage in subversive activities. Elsewhere (chapter 11), the 
Commission discusses unreviewable administrative action. The dif- 
ficulties are here aggravated because the statutory language is so 
undefined. It is susceptible of as many different interpretations as 
there are men applying it. Such absolute and unreviewable discre- 
tion is not necessary for the protection of the security of the United 

The statute should without doubt leave ample room for the exercise 
of discretion for the protection of the national security, but it should 
contain definite standards to guide administrative action, so as to 
guard against abuse. The vague language of the act of 1952 does 
not meet this need, and it should be revised so as to specify that it 
applies to aliens who seek to enter, or who are believed to be seeking 
to enter for the purpose of violating the criminal laws of the United 
States relating to espionage, sabotage, and public order ; or violating 
the laws relating to the protection of the conduct of military and for- 
eign affairs; and relating to the protection of other activities and 
functions of the government and other public agencies, national, state 
and local, upon which the national security depends. 


The administrative review elsewhere recommended for visa 
denial, exclusion, and deportation actions should be applicable 
here (Chapter 11). 



The law forbids entry to aliens who are anarchists or who are mem- 
bers or affiliates of the Communist Party or other totalitarian organi- 
zations, or who advocate or teach opposition to or violent overthrow 
of all organized government, or who write, publish, display, or cir- 
culate or who possess for circulation any written or printed matter 
which teaches or advocates world communism, opposition to or 
forceful overthrow of government, the killing of officers of govern- 
ment, the destruction of property or sabotage. Subversive aliens 
barred from admission to the United States are not limited to those 
who are members of the proscribed organizations, but also includes 
those who are affiliated with such groups. 

With respect to all classes of subversive aliens, except anarchists, 
the law authorizes the issuance of a visa to such an alien if he estab- 
lishes to the satisfaction of a consular officer, and the consular officer 
finds, that the membership or affiliation of the alien in a subversive 
organization is involuntary or occurred when the alien was under 16 
years of age. It is necessary, in addition, however, that at the time 
the alien applies for admission to the United States the Attorney 
General must independently be satisfied and also find that the alien 
to whom a visa was so issued was involuntarily a member of or 
affiliated with any of the enumerated subversive classes. 

The law authorizes the deportation of any alien who at the time of 
entry was within any of the classes excluded by law. It also provides 
for the deportation of any member of each of the categories of sub- 
versive aliens who is, or at any time after entry has become, a member 
of any of the proscribed classes of subversive aliens. Discretionary 
relief in connection with deportation is denied to aliens who are pres- 
ent members of subversive groups. 

There can be no doubt that present members or affiliates of sub- 
versive organizations should be excluded from the United States. 
The issue is what is to be regarded as "member," "affiliate," or a "sub- 
versive organization." In these respects, the Commission believes that 
our present laws are not adequate. In part, the difficulty is that the 
act of 1952 is lengthy, complex, repetitive, and obscure. 

As to membership, the Commission believes that the provision of 
the present law exempting "involuntary" members is desirable and 
sound. The purpose of the immigration law should be to bar only 


those aliens who, by their membership or affiliation with subversive 
groups, have identified themselves with the aims and principles of those 
groups. These exemptions should be interpreted broadly, so that the 
statutory injunction will encompass only those who were subversives 
at heart and will not reach those who were merely nominal members, 
or as a result of compulsion or mistake. Such involuntary member- 
ship or affiliation merits the exception which the statute gives it. 

"Affiliation" is not fully defined in the 1952 Act, and the statute 
merely states: 

The giving, loaning, or promising of support or of money or any other thing 
of value for any purpose to any organization shall be presumed to constitute 
affiliation therewith ; but nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as an 
exclusive definition of affiliation. 

This definition is an improvement over the similar one contained in 
the Internal Security Act of 1950 which made the giving, loaning, or 
promising of support or of money a conclusive presumption of affilia- 
tion. Nevertheless, even this improved definition should be read in the 
light of the congressional expression of need for legislation controlling 
subversive activities, contained in the Internal Security Act of 1950 : 

In carrying on the activities referred to in paragraph 6 [establishment of 
Communist totalitarian dictatorship as part of the world Communist movement], 
such Communist organizations in various countries are organized on a secret, 
conspiratorial basis and operate to a substantial extent through organizations, 
commonly known as "Communist fronts," which in most instances are created 
and maintained, or used, in such manner as to conceal the facts as to their true 
character and purposes and their membership. One result of this method of 
operation is tbat such affiliated organizations are able to obtain financial and 
other support from persons who would not extend such support if they knew the 
true purposes of and the actual nature of the control and influence exerted upon 
such "Communist fronts." 

The security of the United States must be protected against aliens 
guilty of true "affiliation" with subversive organizations. However, 
the statutory definition of "affiliation" condemns those who give sup- 
port to front organizations "for any purpose," and thus may reach the 
innocent as well as the guilty. 

The definition of "affiliation" should make it clear that the law 
bars those aliens who by their support or contribution or other form 
of affiliation knowingly and willingly seek to further the subversive 
aims and principles of the organizations. This proposal is in keeping 
with the present law's provision authorizing the admission to the 
United States and the naturalization of aliens who became affiliated 
with a communist organization without knowledge of its character. 

In one respect, the act of 1952 leaves a security loophole, and so 
does not go far enough to protect the national security. Although the 
statute attempts to encompass every activity and belief that might 
be deemed subversive, it fails to ban members or affiliates of foreign 


totalitarian organizations, other than Communist. It bars admission to 
aliens who are members of or affiliated with ... (IV) the Communist or any 
other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, 
or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state . . . 

Comprehensive, though it sounds, this subsection may not bar Nazis, 
Fascists, or other totalitarian groups who are not Communists. This 
clause was carried forward verbatim from the Internal Security Act 
of 1950. But, whereas the Internal Security Act defines the terms 
"totalitarian dictatorship" and "totalitarianism" as 

. . . systems of government not representative in fact, characterized by (A) 
the existence of a single political party, organized on a dictatorial basis, with as 
close an identity between such party and its policies and the governmental 
policies of the country in which it exists, that the party and the government 
constitute an indistinguishable unit, and (B) the forcible suppression of 
opposition to such party, . . . 
the act of 1952 adds to the above definition the following : 

The term "totalitarian party" means an organization which advocates the 
establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship or totalitar- 
ianism . . . 

Both the Senate and House Committee reports are silent on the 
significance of the definition limiting a totalitarian party to one which 
advocates the establishment of totalitarianism "in the United States." 
It would appear, however, that the new definition is intended to exclude 
from the ban of the immigration laws totalitarian parties such as the 
Nazis, Fascists, and Falangists who are believed not to advocate the 
establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States. 

No less than communism, other forms of totalitarianism degrade the 
dignity of man and deprive him of those rights which our Declaration 
of Independence holds to be unalienable. It is contended that the law 
should make a distinction between present membership in the Com- 
munist Party and present membership in other totalitarian parties, 
on the ground that communism is the only present menace. 

While such a distinction appears plausible in the light of the immi- 
nence of the Communist peril, the resurgence of neo-Nazism and neo- 
Fascism in Germany and Italy underlines the danger of treating such 
totalitarian movements too lightly. Nazi and Fascists and other advo- 
cates of totalitarianism may not be developing plans today to over- 
throw the Government of the United States or any other democratic 
government by force and violence. There was a period, however, 
when they did attempt to dominate the world. The cost of stopping 
that effort was the heaviest ever paid in the history of the world. 
The millions of graves of those who died that democracy might sur- 
vive, or who perished as victims of mass murder; the hundreds of 
thousands who were maimed ; the millions who were stripped of their 
possessions and forced to undergo undescribable suffering, privation 


and misery; the destruction of the economic resources of once pros- 
perous and happy peoples — these results of the evil ambitions, the 
cruelties of Nazism and Fascism should keep the United States alert 
forevermore to the danger from that source. The Communists and 
the Nazis pooled their ideologies and their plans for world conquest 
to begin World War II. The subsequent disintegration of that unholy 
partnership was fortunate for the democracies, but we shall be inviting 
disaster if we receive the disciples of one form of totalitarianism 
while arming for defense against the other. 

The Commission deems the present adherents of all forms of 
totalitarianism to be hostile to our way of life and believes they 
should be banned from the United States. 

A problem that has troubled the Commission has been the undesir- 
able alien who is a product of our own society. Elsewhere, the Com- 
mission has urged that such aliens not be deported. Where such an 
alien is a present subversive, a special issue arises. Apart from the 
fact that such an alien is a product of our society, the difficulty, as 
pointed out to the Commission by the Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion Service, is that deportation orders for subversives often prove 
futile. Mr. Justice Jackson succinctly stated the problem in his dis- 
senting opinion in United States v. Spector, 343 U. S. 169 at pages 

A deportation policy can be successful only to the extent that some other 
state is willing to receive those we expel. But, except selected individuals who 
can do us more harm abroad than here, what Communist power will cooperate 
with our deportation policy by receiving our expelled Communist aliens? And 
what non-Communist power feels such confidence in its own domestic security 
that it can risk taking in persons this stable and powerful Republic finds 
dangerous to its security? World conditions seem to frustrate the policy of 
deportation of subversives. Once they gain admission here, they are our problem 
and one that cannot be shipped off to some other part of the world. 

A law which cannot be enforced brings the entire administration of 
justice into disrepute. 

The Commission requested the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service for advice and recommendations to meet the problem of aliens 
who are under orders of deportation, but cannot be deported because 
no country will accept them. The answer was that the Internal 
Security Act of 1950 had provided, and the act of 1952 had continued, 
certain limited sanctions to aid in effectuating an order of deportation 
against persons in the subversive, criminal and other undesirable 
groups, and that no other methods of dealing with this matter had 
been devised. 

Under such circumstances, therefore, the Commission believes that 
this country should accept as its own responsibility all those aliens who 
are the product of our own society. 

250653 O— 53 1G "** 

The Commission recommends that 

( 1 ) present members of subversive or totalitarian organizations, 
or persons who, by their present affiliation with such organizations, 
manifest their belief in or sympathy with the aims and principles of 
such organizations, should be denied visas and should be excluded 
from admission to the United States. Present membership or affilia- 
tion should create a presumption of such belief or sympathy, subject 
to countervailing evidence to prove that such membership or affilia- 
tion was involuntary. 

(2) The definition of "totalitarian party," "totalitarian dictator- 
ship," and "totalitarianism" should be clarified so that it embraces 
all aliens in sympathy with the governmental theories and policies of 
totalitarianism as that word is defined in the Internal Security Act of 

(3) "Affiliation" as used in the immigration laws should be de- 
fined so that it embraces only those aliens who, by their action and 
conduct, have demonstrated an association with totalitarian groups 
because of sympathy for or agreement with the subversive aims and 
principles of such groups. 

(4) Alien members or affiliates of subversive organizations who 
were lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence 
prior to reaching the age of 16 years, or who were lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence and have resided in the United States con- 
tinuously for at least 20 years, should not be subject to deportation, 
but should be dealt with in the same manner as subversive citizens. 



At one time, as witness the Alien Registration Act of 1940, present 
and former members of subversive organizations were treated alike. 
However, in the act of 1952, Congress recognized that former member- 
ship in or affiliation with subversive groups or organizations should 
not be an absolute bar to admission or stay in this country. It made 
two exceptions. The first is where such membership or affiliation was 
involuntary or occurred when the alien was under 16 years of age. 
The second is where membership or affiliation has been terminated 
for 5 years and for that period the alien has been "actively opposed" 
to such subversive ideologies, and where the admission of the alien 
"would be in the public interest." Each case in this last category 
must be reported to the Congress. 

The deportation of former members or affiliates of subversive classes 
is, as in the case of present members, provided for by the law. How- 
ever, unlike present members, former members or affiliates of sub- 


versive groups are eligible, under severely limited conditions, to re- 
ceive discretionary relief by way of suspension of deportation. 

The problem of past membership or affiliation is obviously a difficult 
one. If there is merely a severance of formal bonds of association 
without a corresponding repudiation of sympathetic belief in the 
aims and principles of the subversive group, such aliens continue to 
be threats to our security. 

A former member who has made a genuine break with subversive 
ideology offers no threat to our security. Indeed experience has shown 
that such converts may represent very stable adherents to the principles 
of democracy because they are less likely again to succumb to the false 
blandishments of totalitarianism. The removal of the absolute bar 
against former — and now reformed — subversive aliens strengthens 
our own internal and external security and advances our foreign 

However, the act of 1952 contains other important defects. For 
example, the requirement of 5 year active opposition to a formerly 
held totalitarian ideology may defeat important objectives of our 
intelligence and foreign policy agencies. Escapees who come out 
from behind the Iron Curtain, or defectors from communism else- 
where, may be of vital and immediate importance to our security and 
defense as well as to our foreign policy. And yet they must wait 5 
years, although there may be conclusive proof of complete reforma- 
tion in a shorter period of time. Indeed, retention of an inflexible 
5-year bar against former subversives might seriously impair the 
Commission's proposals to grant priority to refugees from communism 
(Chapter 9). 

The requirement of "active" opposition to former doctrines misses 
the point. Most people who have genuinely renounced subversive 
ideas do not become active pamphleteers, speakers or professional 
antitotalitarians; the genuineness of their opposition to totalitarian- 
ism cannot be measured by the loudness of their disclaimers. 

There is an inconsistency in our laws relating to former member- 
ship or affiliation in subversive organizations. The act of 1952 car- 
ries forward the previous law's failure to coordinate the naturaliza- 
tion and deportation directives aimed at former members of subver- 
sive organizations. The naturalization law permits the admission to 
citizenship of former subversives whose membership in the proscribed 
organization ended more than 10 years earlier. But the deporta- 
tion statute apparently permits the expulsion of such former sub- 
versives at any time, even after 10 years has expired since the mem- 
bership or association with the subversive group terminated. It would 
seem reasonable to suppose that if a former member of a subversive 
group is eligible for naturalization after 10 years he should by the 
same token be able to avoid deportation. 


There are also the grossly inconsistent provisions to the effect that a 
former member of a subversive organization, who actively opposed 
that subversive organization for a period of 5 years, may now be ad- 
mitted into the United States although he was never here before, while 
a long-time resident alien who 30 years ago resigned from member- 
ship in a subversive organization, left it, and has since actively op- 
posed it, must be deported. 

The Commission believes that the provisions of the act of 1952 
to the effect that membership in or affiliation with subversive organ- 
izations should not necessarily be a bar to entry into the United States 
are sound; and the Commission recommends that these same pro- 
visions be extended to cover deportation procedures, so that former 
membership in or affiliation with subversive organizations gen- 
uinely repudiated over a period of at least 5 years, should not be 
a ground for deportation. 

The Commission recommends that the requirement of active oppo- 
sition should be amended by deleting the word "active," thus making 
its benefits available to all opponents of totalitarianism. The Com- 
mission recommends that the requirement of 5 years opposition 
should be subject to waiver in appropriate cases, after thorough 
screening and approval by the appropriate security agencies of the 
United States. This would make possible the admission of bona 
fide escapees and defectors. 

The Commission recommends that the immigration law apply the 
same conditions to former members and affiliates of all totalitarian 
parties, whether they were Communist, Nazi, Fascist, or other 
such parties. 

It should be noted, too, that the law requires a finding by both the 
consular officer and the Attorney General that the admission of the 
alien would be in the public interest. Without criteria under which 
"in the public interest" may be measured, the phrase seems too vague 
for effective administration. It is quite conceivable that administra- 
tive officers might seldom, if ever, find that the admission of a former 
Communist, Nazi, or Fascist would affirmatively be in the public 
interest. The Commission recommends that the law should re- 
quire a finding that the admission of a former subversive would not 
be contrary to the public interest. 


Security considerations sometimes create special problems in con- 
nection with otherwise normal immigration procedures. At least for 
the past 60 years, an alien has been entitled to a hearing before he 
can be excluded at a port of entry. However, when the ground for 


his exclusion involves confidential information, the disclosure of which 
would be detrimental to the best interests of the United States, there 
is a conflict between two important values. On the one side is the 
security of the United States; on the other is the fundamental con- 
cept of American law that a person is entitled to a fair hearing be- 
fore the Government takes action affecting him. 

From at least 1893 until 1941, no alien — not even a subversive — 
could be excluded without a hearing. In 1941 such provision was 
made. The Passport Act of 1918 authorized the President in time 
of war or national emergency to impose additional restrictions and 
prohibitions on entry into and departure from the United States upon 
a finding that the interests of the United States so required. The 
President issued a proclamation on November 14, 1941, reciting the 
existence of a national emergency and declaring that "no alien should 
be permitted to enter the United States if it appears to the satisfaction 
of the Secretary of State that such entry would be prejudicial to the 
interests of the United States," as provided in regulations issued by 
the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Attorney General. 
These regulations authorized the Attorney General to deny hearings 
when a person is excludable "on the basis of information of a con- 
fidential nature, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the 

public interest." 

From the evidence before the Commission, including testimony be- 
fore Congressional committees and various United States Govern- 
ment briefs in the Supreme Court, this measure was intended to have 
only limited application. It seems that this procedure was designed 
to provide a legal sanction for denying access to the United States 
during war or national emergency only in those special cases where 
disclosure of the information or the source of the information, on the 
basis of which the exclusion is ordered for security reasons, would be 
contrary to the national interest. 

During the war years, this new procedure was sparingly used. 
The Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that only a 
negligible number of aliens were excluded without a hearing. How- 
ever, with the end of hostilities immigration to the United States 
was resumed on a larger scale. In addition, the nation became in- 
creasingly aware of the threat to its security by world communism. 
These two circumstances resulted in an enlarged application of the 
hitherto limited measure of denying entry without a hearing, be- 
cause of confidential information. Aliens who had been or were as- 
sociated with Communist activities and those suspected of such affilia- 
tion were excluded without hearing in substantial numbers at sea- 
ports and to a much larger extent at land ports of entry. From 
December 1948, to July 1, 1952, approximately 2,000 aliens, other 
than seamen, were temporarily excluded without a hearing, and in 


about 500 cases the exclusion without hearing was made permanent. 
The constitutionality of exclusions of aliens without hearing was 
upheld by the Supreme Court. 

The Internal Security Act of 1950 provided the first express stat- 
utory authority for excluding an alien without a hearing in security 
cases. Unlike the Passport Act, however, the Internal Security Act 
of 1950 does not limit the exercise of the power to exclude without 
hearing to time of war or national emergency. These provisions of 
the Internal Security Act of 1950 are carried forward into the act of 

The consideration of exclusions without hearing cannot be iso- 
lated from the larger problems created by the efforts of the United 
States to safeguard its security during the current era of interna- 
tional tensions. At many levels in our national life, we have been 
confronted with the dilemma of attempting to resolve apparent 
conflicts between our national safety and traditional concepts of free- 
dom. The attempt to discover a precise line of demarcation is a 
quest that has led us in many directions and has not yet resulted in any 
satisfactory solution. 

The Commission believes that the present situation in connection 
with exclusions without hearing is unsatisfactory. The protection 
of the right to a fair hearing is essential to a democracy. Any legal 
process which affects people's rights without giving them a chance to 
be heard is ordinarily regarded as being repugnant to the American 
sense of fair play. It denies a person the opportunity to defend him- 
self against what may be false accusations. It encourages slanders 
by people whose stories may be generated by malice, misinforma- 
tion, or the desire for self-advancement. However, in time of crisis 
there may be need for extreme measures to protect the national 
security, and even perhaps for some relaxation of our traditional 
safeguards for individual rights. 

Under present world circumstances, it may be necessary for the 
United States Government to have authority to bar, without a hearing, 
aliens whose admission would directly menace the national safety. 
However, such a power should not be exercised except in the extreme 
and unusual case where the national security or the lives, welfare, 
or continued usefulness of our intelligence agents and informants are 
immediately affected by the fact that the very holding of a hearing 
will cause disclosure of highly secret information. 

The officials who have exercised the extraordinary power to exclude 
aliens from the United States without hearing have been motivated, 
the Commission believes, by a sincere desire to protect the nation. 
However, there is some public belief that this unusual power has 
been or may be used to excess and without adequate safeguards. And 


there is some evidence, including testimony of a responsible immi- 
gration official before a congressional committee, to substantiate this 
belief. The law should provide measures to avoid abuse of this 
extraordinary power and to limit its exercise to those few and rare 
cases in which the security of the United States is actually involved. 

The Commission recommends that determination as to whether 
an alien should be excluded without a hearing, on the basis of confi- 
dential information, should be made by the proposed Board of 
Immigration and Visa Appeals (recommended in Chapter 10). 

Each alien affected should, unless the proposed Board of Immigra- 
tion and Visa Appeals decides to the contrary, receive notice of the 
nature of the charges against him, and such other information as the 
Board may determine, after consultation with intelligence agencies, 
will not prejudice the public interest. Any such alien should have 
the opportunity, before any such determination is made, to testify and 
to present in person or by counsel any information or evidence or 
argument he may desire to submit on his own behalf. These pro- 
cedural safeguards should be incorporated into the statute or in regula- 
tions issued thereunder. 

A determination to exclude without a hearing should be supported 
by strong and convincing evidence, not mere rumor or unsustained 
suspicion. It should be reached only after every effort is made to 
investigate the charges and evaluate the confidential information. It 
should never be used because evidence is not easily obtainable. 

In this way, the Commission believes that the security of the United 
States would be protected and a procedure established to preserve 
the American concept of fair dealing. 


During its hearings the Commission was advised of the serious 
problems raised by denial or delays in the granting of visitors' visas 
to distinguished scientists, scholars, and other leaders in the arts, 
professions, and business. 

The Commission believes that no special rule should be made for 
visitors or nonimmigrants who are present members or affiliates of 
subversive organizations. However, the problem seems to have 
arisen because of former association with such organizations. 

In discussing the subject of visas for immigrants who wish to come 
for permanent residence and who were former members of subversive 
organizations, the Commission expressed doubt as to the wisdom of a 
rule in the act of 1952 which set an inflexible 5-year period between 
renunciation of such membership and eligibility for such visas. 
There seems to be no necessity for applying such a 5-year rule to 
temporary visitors. 


If the visa-issuing officers have authority to issue a nonimmigrant 
or visitor's visa to a former member of a subversive organization, 
without regard to a 5-year period of renunciation, their decisions can 
be made on the basis of the facts in each particular case. The length 
of time since repudiation of the subversive ideology, the nature of 
subsequent opposition to such views, the purpose and length of the 
proposed visit to the United States, the alien's field of activity and 
background, and the character of his sponsorship are all factors 
relevant in such considerations. 

Some of the complaints during the Commission's hearings concern- 
ing nonimmigrant visas relate to administration. It was said that the 
consular offices are understaffed and cannot act rapidly enough to 
serve the needs of American universities and other institutions which 
sponsor and invite distinguished visitors for symposia, conferences, 
or other meetings. 

Another suggestion arose out of the embarrassment suffered by 
leading American institutions which invite foreign guests and make 
preparations for their reception, only to find that they are refused 
visas. The Commission was requested to recommend that the law 
provide a preclearance system for professional and scientific persons 
invited to the United States by universities and scientific or other 
institutions. The purpose of this suggestion is to obtain a binding 
commitment in advance from the Department of State that a par- 
ticular scientist or professor would be issued a visa upon application. 
In this way, invitations would be extended only to those whose admissi- 
bility to the United States was assured, and the embarrassments of the 
present situations could be eliminated. The Commission believes that 
this suggestion should be given a trial, unless some more effective 
procedure is devised. 

A matter of great importance to the United States is the status of 
defectors. These generally are official representatives of a totali- 
tarian government who while officially in the United States defect and 
request asylum here. Such persons normally were admitted only be- 
cause of their diplomatic status; having lost such status, the law re- 
quires that, as former subversives, they be deported. Temporary ar- 
rangements now are made to bridge the gap. If the defection of such 
former official is genuine, his contribution to the cause of democracy 
in combating the ideologies which he formerly embraced is usually 
invaluable according to the. highly reliable advice given to the Com- 
mission. The law should permit adjustment of the status of such a 
person so that he may remain in this country and aid in the cause of 

The Commission recommends that arrangements be made to 
expedite the granting of visas to distinguished scientists, scholars, 


and other leaders in the arts, professions, and business, invited to 
the United States for temporary visits by responsible institutions; 
and that consideration be given to the inauguration of a preclear- 
ance system, so that it could be determined in advance whether par- 
ticular individuals would be admitted as temporary visitors. 

The Commission recommends that aliens should be permitted 
to enter the United States for temporary visits, regardless of former 
membership or affiliation with subversive organizations, if the pur- 
pose of their visit is legitimate and if there is no reason to believe 
that they will engage in activities inimical to the United States. 

The Commission recommends that bona fide official defectors 
from totalitarianism be permitted to adjust their status to permit 
them to remain in the United States. 


Chapter 16 


American citizenship is one of the most valuable rights in the world 
today. The manner in which it can be acquired or lost is a matter 
of deep concern to all Americans. It is important that the establish- 
ment of such a basic right shall be clearly defined, and that unreason- 
able conditions shall not defeat the creation and maintenance of citi- 
zenship status. 

American citizenship may be acquired through birth or naturaliza- 
tion. All persons born in continental United States, Alaska. Ha- 
waii, Puerto Kico, Virgin Islands, and Guam, with a few exceptions, 
are citizens of the United States at birth. Persons born abroad to 
American citizen parents derive citizenship through their parents. 
If only one parent is a citizen of the United States, citizenship may, 
subject to certain limitations, be transmitted to the child at birth. 

The privilege of naturalization is open to all resident aliens who can 
prove 5 years lawful residence, good moral character, and attachment 
to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. By law, 
special benefits, such as waiver of some of the residence requirements, 
are provided to certain groups. Among these special groups are 
spouses and children of citizens and aliens with military and maritime 
service. The Immigration and Naturalization Service exercises ad- 
ministrative supervision over the naturalization process, but naturali- 
zation can be granted only by a naturalization court. 

Citizenship can be lost in two ways. The first is denaturalization, 
which applies only to naturalized citizens and subjects them to revo- 
cation of citizenship by court order. The second is called expatria- 
tion and applies to all citizens, native-born and naturalized, making 
them subject to loss of citizenship for certain acts deemed inconsistent 
with the duties and obligations of citizenship. There are 10 such 
types of conduct now specified by statute which cause expatriation, 
including obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, taking a for- 
eign oath of allegiance, renunciation of American citizenship, serving 
in a foreign army, and voting in a foreign election. 

In certain respects the act of 1952 made significant improve- 
ments in the nationality laws. Among these were the complete aboli- 
tion of the racial disqualifications, confirmation of the right to 
naturalization of conscientious objectors on religious scruples, elimi- 
nation of the formal declaration of intention as a prerequisite for 
citizenship and removal of the literacy requirement for older people. 


However, there are some undesirable substantive and procedural 
provisions in the act of 1952 relating to nationality problems. 

It is in the national interest to encourage qualified aliens to become 
American citizens. Naturalization requirements or procedures which 
unreasonably restrict the full integration of qualified aliens into the 
American community are unwise. Obviously provisions which unrea- 
sonably subject American citizens to loss of their citizenship, or which 
discriminate among American citizens by failing to treat them all 
equally, are not in our country's best interest. 


Many witnesses before the Commission were critical of what they 
characterized as "second-class citizenship." The complaint concerned 
provisions of the act of 1952 which give naturalized citizens an 
inferior status to native-born citizens. This situation arises in relation 
to the status of naturalized Americans, and the rights of native Ameri- 
cans who have acquired dual nationality at birth. 

Conduct Subsequent to Naturalization 

Since 1906 the naturalization laws have authorized revocation of 
naturalization after it has become final and fully effective. Denat- 
uralization has no counterpart in the status of the native-born 

Naturalization is a judicial function. In passing upon an applica- 
tion for citizenship, the naturalization court must determine whether 
the applicant has met qualifications prescribed by Congress. If the 
applicant has deceived the court, it seems entirely appropriate that 
the benefits he has improperly obtained should be taken away. A safe- 
guard against hasty or ill-advised action is the requirement that de- 
naturalization can be accomplished only upon order of a naturalization 

Fraud or illegality in the naturalization proceeding directly affects 
the propriety of the naturalization itself and justifies its cancellation. 
However, what happens after the court has granted naturalization is 
another matter. The act of 1952 has introduced new provisions which 
have gone beyond the protection of the naturalization process, and 
have created the possibility of denaturalization on the basis of con- 
duct occurring after naturalization. 

These innovations in the act of 1952 were deplored in testimony dur- 
ing the Commission's hearings. They were characterized as devices 
which, if extended, would jeopardize the status of millions of natural- 
ized citizens. It was pointed out that since native born citizens were 
not subject to such penalties, the statute tended to make the naturalized 
American a "second class citizen." 


There are several examples of this type of provision in the statutes. 
An illustration is the statutory presumption of fraud which authorizes 
denaturalization, in the absence of countervailing evidence, because of 
a naturalized citizen's residence in a foreign country. Such residence, 
subsequent to naturalization, is related back to the naturalization 

This category of presumptive fraud applies to naturalized citizens 
who, within 5 years after naturalization, establish residence in a for- 
eign country. In applying for citizenship, an applicant must swear 
that he intends to reside permanently in the United States. Since 
1906 the naturalization statute has designated as presumptively fraud- 
ulent the naturalizations of persons who establish residence in a for- 
eign state within 5 years after naturalization, and has made their 
naturalizations subject to revocation in the absence of other evidence. 
Approximately 95 percent of revocations of naturalization have been 
on this ground. In 1951, out of an aggregate of 403 denaturalizations, 
384 were for presumptive fraud in establishing residence abroad 
within 5 years after naturalization; and the remaining 19 were for 
actual fraud or illegality. 

The act of 1952 introduces a new ground for denaturalization for 
presumptive fraud, specifying that if within 5 years after naturaliza- 
tion a naturalized citizen joins or affiliates with a subversive organiza- 
tion, membership in which would have barred the grant of citizenship, 
his naturalization is subject to revocation as presumptively fraudulent. 
In such cases it is presumed, in the absence of contrary evidence, that 
the naturalized person was not attached to the principles of the 
Constitution of the United States or well disposed to the good order 
and happiness of the United States. 

Another example of such a provision is the new one in the act of 
1952 which subjects to denaturalization an alien who is convicted of 
contempt of Congress for refusing, within 10 years after his naturali- 
zation, to testify before a congressional committee concerning his sub- 
versive activities. 

These three illustrations differ in one important respect. The 
former two are presumptions which relate to whether the original 
naturalization was obtained by fraud, through concealment of ma- 
terial facts. Both relate to the naturalized person's intentions at the 
time of applying for naturalization, and thus present formidable 
difficulties of proof. 

In the two presumptions mentioned in the statute the conduct which 
follows after the naturalization appears to negate the declarations as 
to intention and belief made by the naturalized person when he sought 
citizenship. Although the loss of citizenship through presumption 
is undesirable, it seems reasonable to assume, until further proof is 
presented, that a naturalized person swore falsely in stating that he 


intended to reside permanently in the United States when he 
actually became a permanent resident of a foreign country soon after 
his naturalization. This presumption can be rebutted, and often 
is, by evidence submitted to consular officers or to a naturalization 
court indicating that the representations in the naturalization applica- 
tion were bona fide. 

So, too, it does not appear unreasonable to assume that a naturalized 
person swore falsely in declaring that he was attached to the prin- 
ciples of the Constitution when he joined a subversive organization 
within a short period after his naturalization. Here, too, the oppor- 
tunity is offered to the naturalized person to prove that he is not 
guilty of deception in connection with his naturalization. 

Although these two directives for loss of citizenship through pre- 
sumptive fraud are aimed only at naturalized citizens, the Commis- 
sion concludes that they relate to the propriety of the naturalization 
itself and represent a reasonable measure of control against fraudulent 

The provision relating to contempt of Congress is of another char- 
acter. As undesirable as the conduct may be, it does not necessarily 
relate to the legality of the original naturalization. 

The punishment of proved subversives is necessary to our national 
security. But where there is no evidence of fraud in the original 
naturalization, the use of denaturalization as such a punishment is 
dangerous to our welfare as a nation because such legislation is a dis- 
turbing step in the direction of insecure citizenship status. The threat 
today to the citizenship of naturalized citizens who defy Congress may 
tomorrow menace the status of all naturalized Americans. The natu- 
ralized citizen who violates the law should be punished, but his punish- 
ment should be no different from that applicable to a native born 
citizen. Denaturalization should not be used as an additional penalty 
for discrimination between native and naturalized citizens. 

The Commission recommends that a naturalized citizen should 
not be subject to denaturalization for conduct subsequent to his 
naturalization, unless such subsequent conduct proves that he 
obtained his citizenship by fraud or illegality. 

Residence In a Foreign Country 

In 1907, Congress provided that any naturalized citizen who resides 
for 2 years in the foreign state from which he came, or 5 years in any 
foreign state, shall be presumed to have lost American citizenship. 

The 1907 act was designed to deal with the difficulty experienced by 
the State Department in affording protection to American citizens 
resident in foreign lands, particularly naturalized citizens who re- 
turned to their countries of origin. The presumption was used only 


to relieve the State Department of the obligation to extend diplomatic 
protection to those naturalized citizens who remained abroad for the 
prescribed period of time. Citizenship was not lost thereunder, how- 
ever, since the courts construed the presumption of loss of nationality 
as one easy to overcome, for example, by returning to the United 
States, regardless of the length or cause of absence. 

In 1940, Congress abolished the presumption and provided for the 
absolute loss of citizenship by a naturalized citizen by reason of mere 
residence abroad : residing for 2 years in the country of birth or former 
nationality, if by such residence he acquires nationality of such state; 
residing for 3 years in the country of birth or former nationality ; or 
residing 5 years in any foreign country. The act of 1952 retains the 
3- and 5-year residence periods for loss of nationality. 

These provisions for loss of nationality, limited to naturalized 
citizens, create a second class citizenship status. Native-born citizens 
have an unrestricted right to travel and remain abroad as long as 
they please. A naturalized citizen may remain abroad no longer than 
5 years. The loss of citizenship under this law is now automatic ; it 
is no longer a mere presumption subject to rebuttal. 

It has been urged upon Congress that naturalized citizens who 
return to their countries of origin or former nationality are apt to 
renew old associations and ways of living and thus lose to a large 
degree, if not completely, their American ties. Furthermore, it is 
objected, such naturalized citizens, although wholly divorced from 
American life by reason of resumption of former residence and ways, 
transmit their American citizenship to their foreign born and reared 
children. This argument, however, does not apply to the provision 
for loss of nationality by naturalized citizens who go to a third country. 
In this respect the situation posed by protracted foreign residence is 
the same for the native born as it is for the naturalized citizen. 
Neither goes back to a former culture or way of life ; the foreign-born 
children of both are equally removed from American customs, tradi- 
tions and ways of life. There is no reasonable distinction between 
native and foreign-born citizens under such circumstances. 

These provisions are detrimental for several reasons. By attaching 
strings to a naturalization order, they create a body of citizens unable 
to do, except on penalty, what other citizens may do. 

Secondly, they undo a judicial determination without the benefit 
and protection of court action. Naturalization is obtained through 
a formal judicial proceeding determined by the entry of a formal 
judgment. All judgments should be clothed with that degree of 
finality necessary to the orderly process of judicial administration. 
Judgments in naturalization should similarly be vested with finality. 
If fraud in obtaining naturalization is suspected, a judicial proceeding 


to set aside the judgment is necessary. The loss of naturalized citizen- 
ship by reason of mere residence abroad should not result from legis- 
lative fiat. 

The Commission recommends that a naturalized citizen may lose 
citizenship by 3 years residence in a foreign country only if the 
country be the one of his birth or former nationality; and that 
in such case the foreign residence should create a presumption of 
the loss of citizenship which, unless rebutted in an appropriate judi- 
cial proceeding, may result in the entry of a judgment terminating 
his citizenship. 

Dual Nationality at Birth 

Under the laws of some countries, the nationality of parents is 
vested in the children, no matter where they are born. Consequently, 
if born in the United States of aliens who are citizens of such a 
country, children would have citizenship in the United States and also 
in the country of their parents. Likewise, if they were born in a 
country where their parents, native or naturalized citizens of the 
United States, maintained residence, they would be citizens of the 
country of their birth and also of the United States. Such persons are 
known as dual nationals. 

The act of 1952 incorporates a new provision, the purpose of which 
is to cause the loss of nationality of a native-born citizen, who at 
birth also acquired a foreign citizenship, if he should reside for 
3 years in the state of his foreign citizenship at any time after attain- 
ing the age of 22 years and seek or claim the benefits of such foreign 
nationality. The full force of this provision is lessened by exempting 
from its operation those dual nationals, who are abroad for certain 
specified purposes and who prior to the expiration of the 3-year period 
of residence, take an oath of allegiance to the United States before 
an American diplomatic or consular officer. 

Witnesses at the Commission's hearings criticized this provision, 
stating that it improperly curtailed the rights of native-born Ameri- 
cans and that such dual nationals should be subject to loss of their 
citizenship only for the same causes that apply to other native citizens. 
The purpose of this statutory provision is to eliminate a status of 
dual nationality in which a person who resides in a foreign country 
and is not in fact identified with the United States uses his American 
citizenship only when it suits his purposes. 

It is not in the national interest to permit retention of dual nation- 
ality by a person to whom American citizenship is only a matter of 
convenience and who has no real tie with the United States. Con- 
sequently, there is merit in the principle which requires the dual 
national under certain circumstances to make an election between his 


nationalities. However, the Commission believes the present statute 
should be revised in several respects. 

The statute does not distinguish between dual nationals who were 
born in the United States to American parents, who live in this coun- 
try virtually their entire lives, and dual nationals who were born 
abroad to American citizen parents and have never been in the United 
States. Americans, born here or abroad, who have spent their forma- 
tive years in the United States and who reside in this country when 
they reach the age of 21 should be deemed to have elected American 
citizenship and should not be treated differently than any other 
citizens. There should be no limitation on the purposes for which 
native Americans can reside in a foreign country, provided they 
have elected to retain their American citizenship. The statute 
should provide greater assurance against retention of two citizen- 
ships by dual nationals residing abroad by requiring them to re- 
nounce their foreign nationality when they take an oath of alle- 
giance to the United States. 

Birth in Territories or Possessions 

All persons now born in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin 
Islands, and Guam, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 
acquire United States citizenship at birth. However, the status of 
persons previously born in those possessions is not clear. Former 
statutes wove a patchwork pattern which left obscure and uncertain 
the status of many inhabitants of such territories, particularly Puerto 
Rico. The act of 1952 did not clarify these obscurities. 

The Commission recommends that the citizenship status of per- 
sons born in the territories and possessions of the United States be 
clarified by explicit statutory provisions. The Commission recom- 
mends also that legislation be enacted to confer citizenship benefits 
upon the indigenous inhabitants of American Samoa, the last major 
possession of the United States to which the protections of American 
citizenship have not been extended. 


It is commonly accepted that every person should have a nationality, 
and that statelessness should be avoided Yet our laws today contain 
many grounds for the loss of American citizenship which have no 
relationship to the acquisition of another nationality. One informed 
witness before the Commission stated that : "We have more grounds 
for revoking citizenship through expatriation than any other coun- 
try." Under our laws a person may lose his American citizenship 
although he has no wish to give it up, and although he does not at the 


250053 0—53 17 " r * x 

same time acquire citizenship in another country. As a result he be- 
comes a stateless person. 

There is a valid and important difference between giving up one's 
nationality by voluntary expatriation, and becoming stateless by 
virtue of legislative mandate. 

In the early days of the country, the United States was the inter- 
national champion of every individual's right to expatriate himself. 
In 1868, Congress declared by statute that the right of expatriation 
is a natural and inherent right of all people. We were then welcom- 
ing and seeking immigrants from the Old World and the refusal of 
European rulers to recognize American naturalization of its former 
subjects was a matter of concern to us. 

But although the United States recognized and espoused the in- 
herent right of all persons to expatriate themselves, our own laws 
were silent as to what actions by our citizenry would result in volun- 
tary expatriation or involuntary forfeiture of citizenship. The 
courts and administrative officers solved such issues as they arose. 
In 1907, Congress declared that any American citizen shall be deemed 
to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in a foreign 
state or has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state. Except 
for statutes providing for loss of the rights of citizenship in time of 
war by deserters or draft evaders, the law remained unchanged until 
enactment of the Nationality Act of 1940. This greatly increased 
the kinds of actions and conduct on the part of American citizens 
which' would effect their expatriation or loss of nationality. The 
act of 1952 continued in the framework of the Nationality Act of 1940, 
with some modifications. The 1952 act lists 10 grounds upon which 
both a native-born or naturalized citizen may lose his nationality, in 
addition to the provisions that deal especially with naturalized citi- 
zens and dual nationals. 

Experience under the 1940 act, according to informed observers, 
has shown that some of the grounds of expatriation have deprived 
American citizens of citizenship as a result of acts committed under 
circumstances which do not warrant such a loss. Perhaps the most 
serious objection to the inclusion of so many grounds for expatriation 
is that the law thus enlarges the class of stateless people. 

Some of the many examples which illustrate this characteristic of 
the law are as follows : 

Service in Foreign Armed Forces 

Prior to 1952, service in the armed forces of a foreign state, without 
express authorization by the laws of the United States, caused expatri- 
ation and loss of American citizenship only if the person had or ac- 
quired the nationality of such foreign state. The act of 1952 makes 
mere service itself an act of expatriation, without regard to whether 


it involved an oath of allegiance to such foreign state or any act or 
course of conduct inconsistent with the duties and obligations of 
American citizenship, unless, prior to entry into such armed forces, 
such service has been officially authorized in writing by the Secre- 
taries of State and Defense. 

Service in foreign armies by American citizens can be motivated 
by many purposes entirely consistent with allegiance to the United 
States. Thus, before entry of the United States into World War II, 
many Americans volunteered for service in the armies of Canada, 
Great Britain, and other nations later allied with the United States. 
Other young Americans serve in foreign armies because of a spirit of 
adventure; still others may serve as technicians. No sound national 
purpose is served by imposing the loss of citizenship unless the service 
is accompanied by an oath of allegiance or is undertaken by one who 
has or acquires the citizenship of the foreign nation in whose army 
he serves. 

The Commission recommends that the law in this respect be re- 
stored to what it was prior to the act of 1952. 

Voting in Foreign Political Election 

The act of 1952 continues without change the provision of the 
Nationality Act of 1940 that voting in a political election of a foreign 
state is a ground for expatriation. Although exercise of the franchise 
in a foreign country ordinarily denotes allegiance to that country ex- 
perience with this provision has proved troublesome. Congress has 
found it necessary to pass legislation excusing such voting in certain 
elections in Italy. The fact is that voting in political elections is not 
always restricted by the laws of foreign countries to their own citizens. 
In the Italian elections a few years ago, for example, a campaign was 
waged from the United States to urge all qualified persons to vote. A 
similar situation occurred in occupied Japan and Germany. Further- 
more, both the courts and administrative officials of the government 
have had difficulty in determining what is a political election. 

This cause for expatriation also creates or may create a group of 
stateless persons. In such cases where eligibility to vote in a foreign 
state even in political elections is dependent only upon the ownership 
of property in the foreign jurisdiction, the act of voting is not incon- 
sistent with allegiance to the United States. 

The Commission recommends that citizenship be lost by 
virtue of voting in the political elections of a foreign state only 
where eligibility to participate in such elections is by the laws of such 
foreign state restricted to its own citizens and where the person 
who so voted had or acquired the nationality of such foreign state. 



Our nationality policy has always sought to foster the unity of 
families among American citizens. However, in some important 
respects the law today disrupts such family unity by its action in 
connection with citizenship. 

Birth Outside the United States to American Citizen Parents 

Since 1790 the laws of the United States have provided for acquisi- 
tion of United States citizenship by children born abroad to parents 
who were American citizens. The obvious purpose was to maintain 
unity of citizenship between American parents and their children. 
For many years only the father could transmit United States citizen- 
ship, but since 1934 citizenship may be derived through either parent. 

When both parents are citizens the statute plainly sanctions trans- 
mission of citizenship to their child at birth abroad. However, when 
only one parent is a citizen the statutory conditions have become 
increasingly restrictive. The act of 1952 requires actual physical pres- 
ence in the United States for 10 years by the citizen parent, prior to 
the child's birth, at least 5 years of which were after attaining the age 
of 14. The purpose of requiring prior residence of the parent to in- 
sure identification with the United States appears sound. But the 
requirement of physical presence apparently would exclude a parent 
who had been out of the United States temporarily, even for a few 
days. The act of 1952 also continues the provision of the 1940 act 
which precludes transmission of citizenship by a native American 
parent under 19 years of age who has lived in the United States his 
entire life, but whose child happened to be born outside the United 
States. Thus, the statute does not confer American citizenship upon 
the child born outside the United States to an 18-year-old native Amer- 
ican soldier stationed overseas or to an 18-year-old native American 
girl temporarily in an adjacent foreign country. 

The Commission recommends that the crucial factor in trans- 
mitting citizenship to a child born outside the United States should 
be the American citizen parent's previous residence, rather than 
continuous physical presence, in the United States. The Commis- 
sion recommends that a child born abroad to a native American 
parent should acquire United States citizenship at birth, without 
regard to the age of the parent or the length of time such parent 
has resided in the United States. 

Alien Spouses of Citizens 

Until 1922 the naturalization laws of the United States provided 
for the citizenship unity of husband and wife. An alien woman who 
married an American thereby became an American citizen. An Amer- 


ican woman who married an alien lost her American citizenship. 
Since September 22, 1922, the citizenship status of husband and wife 
have been independent of each other. 

At the same time our national policy has continued to take into 
account the need for promoting unity in family citizenship status, on 
a voluntary basis. This has been done by granting liberal benefits 
under the nationality laws to the spouses of American citizens. 

The act of 1952 has continued this policy but has introduced unde- 
sirable limitations. For example, it increases the requirements for 
naturalization of spouses of American citizens, many of whom may be 
the brides of American servicemen. The required probationary period 
is lengthened to 3 years and additional residence requirements, includ- 
ing one of physical presence, are imposed. These added restrictions 
were criticized by witnesses at the Commission's hearings. 

The Commission recommends that the spouse of an American 
citizen should be eligible to become naturalized upon completing 
one year of residence in the United States in marital union with the 
citizen spouse, following lawful admission for permanent residence. 

Alien Children of Citizens 

The same considerations of family unity underlie the derivation of 
citizenship by children of naturalized citizens. It is desirable that a 
minor child living with his parents in the United States should acquire 
American citizenship with his parents. The law always has provided 
for such derivation of citizenship by minor children automatically 
upon the naturalization of their parents. In 1940 the maximum age 
at which such a child could derive such citizenship was lowered from 
21 to 18 years and derivation occurred only when both parents, or the 
sole parent, were naturalized. The act of 1952 lowered the maximum 
age of derivation to 16 years. 

There seems to be no valid reason for such curtailment of the rights 
of children. The child cannot himself apply for naturalization until 
he reaches the age of 18, and it seems entirely proper that until then 
his citizenship status should be governed by that of his parents. The 
Commission recommends that the maximum age for acquiring 
derivative citizenship through the naturalization of alien parents 
be restored to the age of 18 years. 



Other unreasonable provisions for the acquisition and loss of citizen- 
ship are prescribed by the act of 1952. 


Definition of Good Moral Character 

The requirement that naturalization applicants must show good 
moral character during the required probationary period of residence 
has been part of our naturalization laws since 1795. Until 1952, how- 
ever, the statute did not define good moral character, but left the defini- 
tion to the courts to interpret. It was ruled that the statute did not 
insist on moral excellence, but required conduct that measured up to 
the prevailing standard of behavior in the community. Although 
opinions differed on some issues, this formula was a flexible one which 
on the whole seemed satisfactory in operation. 

Although the statutory qualifications for citizenship have under- 
gone relatively few changes for nearly 150 years, the interpretations 
placed upon the statute by the courts have been subjected to many 
changes. Long-established precedents have been discarded in favor 
of newer concepts generally more liberal to the applicant for citizen- 
ship. During the last decade the courts increasingly have seemed to 
interpret the statutes in the light of moral trends as conceived by them. 
The result has been a gradual relaxation of earlier more rigorous 

The act of 1952 does not undertake a full definition of good moral 
character, but the statute attempts to describe certain patterns of 
conduct that are not to be regarded as fulfilling the requirement of 
good moral character. In each instance, the new law usually attempts 
to negate a specific court decision. 

Thus, for example, the statute provides that a person who has 
committed adultery during the prescribed period of good behavior 
cannot establish good moral character. In testimony before the 
Commission, the Immigration and Naturalization Service urged 
amendment of this provision for the reason that the variations among 
different states in defining adultery would make this provision diffi- 
cult to administer. Experience in administration has revealed matri- 
monial relationships of long stability and respectability, entered into 
in complete good faith, which are irregular only because of some 
technical defect. The declaration by law that innocent participants 
affected are not persons of good moral character may be contrary to 
the facts. 

This is merely one illustration of the results of the narrow definition 
of moral character in the act of 1952. The Commission recommends 
that the statute continue to require applicants for naturalization to 
establish good moral character, without defining that term. The 
interpretation of this requirement should be left to the courts, as 
it was before the act of 1952. 


Requirement of Continuous Residence 

In requiring specified periods of continuous residence by applicants 
for naturalization the statute always has taken into account the needs 
of aliens whose homes were in the United States but who were neces- 
sarily absent from time to time. 

The act of 1952 made some improvements in the provisions affecting 
such aliens, but in other respects the statutory benefits seem unneces- 
sarily curtailed. The principal objection seems to be to the require- 
ment for periods of physical presence in the United States aggregating 
at least 2y 2 years as a prerequisite to eligibility for citizenship. 

Representatives of Coca-Cola Export Corp. and International Gen- 
eral Electric have pointed out to the Commission that this limitation 
reduces the value of the statute. In their overseas operations Ameri- 
can institutions of research and business concerns frequently employ 
aliens who reside in the United States. It is to the advantage of 
such organizations, to the aliens, and to the Government of the United 
States to permit such aliens to become citizens. But the nature of 
their employment often requires such aliens to remain away from the 
United States for long periods of time. The restrictive provisions 
of the act of 1952 in effect would deny them the benefits of American 

The Commission recommends that the requirement of the act 
of 1952 for continuous physical presence be eliminated in the cases 
of aliens necessarily absent from the United States in the employ- 
ment of an American research or business organization. 

Naturalization of Aliens with Military Service 

For many years the naturalization laws awarded citizenship bene- 
fits to aliens who served in the Armed Forces of the United States. 
The benefits varied for different periods of service, and the statutes 
were confused and obscure. The act of 1952 introduced conditions 
of increased severity. Among these are the new requirements that 
the veteran must prove lawful admission to the United States for 
permanent residence and 5 years good moral character. A separate 
section benefits veterans of World War I and World War II, but 
carries forward an earlier requirement that they must have been 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence if they were not enlisted 
or inducted in the United States. No special benefits have as yet been 
extended to the veterans of the conflict in Korea. 

The Commission recommends that the following groups of alien 
veterans be permitted to become American citizens without being 
subjected to any additional requirements, other than current proof 
of good moral character and attachment to the principles of the 


Constitution of the United States: (1) aliens who have served 
honorably for 3 years in the Armed Forces of the United States at 
any time; or (2) aliens who served honorably in the Armed Forces 
of the United States during World War I or World II; or (3) aliens 
who have served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States 
in the military operations in Korea. 

Denaturalization for Concealment or Misrepresentation 

The Naturalization Act of 1906 provided that naturalization could 
be revoked on the ground that it was fraudulently or illegally pro- 
cured. These grounds for revocation were retained in the law until 
1952. In the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which pre- 
ceded the act of 1952, it was stated that there was confusion in the 
court decisions on what constituted fraud, and the committee therefore 
recommended that the statute authorize revocation for concealment 
of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. That formula was 
adopted in the act of 1952. 

Fraud is a term found in many statutes. The courts have ruled that 
a naturalization is illegally procured when one of the essential statu- 
tory requirements for naturalization is lacking. 

The administration of the prior law seems to have presented no real 
difficulty and there was no suggestion from any administrative source 
that the statute's language needed revision. Moreover, for 46 years 
the Department of Justice had followed a policy of not instituting 
denaturalization proceedings where the violations were minor, and 
where it would not be to the interest of the United States to revoke 
citizenship. Consequently, denaturalization for fraud or illegality 
has been sought in comparatively few cases in recent years. In 1950 
and 1951 a total of only 42 naturalizations were cancelled for fraud 
or illegality. The following table, from the annual report of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service for 1951, lists the causes for 
such revocations during that year. 

Table 15. — ISaturalizations Revoked During 1951 for Fraud 

or Illegality 

Failed to meet residence requirements (false allegations) 5 

Bad moral character (fraud involved) 1 

Misrepresentations and concealments relating to marital and family status— 3 

Bad moral character (no fraud involved) 2 

Dishonorable discharge following naturalization based on military service 

during World War II 2 

Unwilling to bear arms (oath taken with mental reservation) 1 

Naturalization fraudulently or illegally procured 2 

Other grounds 3 


Instead of eliminating supposed "confusion," the requirements of 
the Act of 1952 are likely to result in confusion. In place of a defi- 
nite, widely understood formula, it substitutes a new one — conceal- 
ment of a material fact and willful misrepresentation — which is bound 
to engender uncertainty and provoke litigation. In eliminating 
illegality as a ground for denaturalization, the new Act may make 
it possible for aliens who actually were subversives or criminals at 
the time of their naturalization to escape denaturalization on a claim 
that they were not asked about their subversive or criminal activities 
and consequently made no misrepresentation. 

The Commission recommends that the previous grounds for 
denaturalization be restored so that naturalization obtained by 
fraud or illegality be subject to cancellation. 

Absence of Statute of Limitations 

The Act of 1952, like previous naturalization laws, provides no stat- 
ute of limitations restricting the time during which action may be 
brought to revoke naturalization. There have been instances in which 
denaturalization suits have been brought 20 or 30 years after the 
granting of naturalization. Elsewhere (chapter 13) the Commission 
recommends that a 10-year statute of limitations be established for the 
commencement of deportation proceedings against aliens who enter 
the United States illegally. The same considerations are controlling 
in relation to denaturalization. A person who obtains citizenship 
wrongfully should be subject to revocation of his citizenship. 

The possibility that naturalization may be revoked at any time is a 
threat against the stability of status of all naturalized citizens. Obvi- 
ously, too, the lapse of time may cause significant changes in circum- 
stances as a result of which the rights of innocent third persons may 
become involved. 

The Commission recommends that no proceedings for denatural- 
ization be instituted after the expiration of 10 years following the 
date of naturalization. 

Loss of Derivative Rights 

The naturalization of an alien may result in the automatic vesting 
of citizenship rights in such alien's spouse and children. The revoca- 
tion of the naturalization of the person through whom such citizen- 
ship was derived may have a decisive effect on their claim to derivative 

The law in effect prior to 1940 made no mention of the effect of a 
denaturalization proceeding upon derivative rights. However, the 
courts generally ruled that if the basic right was found to have been 
improperly obtained the derivative rights likewise were expunged, 


regardless of the number of years during which the derivative citizen 
had innocently continued to exercise the rights of American citizen- 
ship. The stringency of this rule was modified by the Nationality Act 
of 1940, which provided that the citizenship of the derivative citizen 
was extinguished only upon a denaturalization for actual fraud, and 
that the derivative rights were not affected when the naturalization 
was revoked for illegality or presumptive fraud. 

The Act of 1952 modified the rule of the 1940 Act. Hereafter 
derivative rights will fall whenever naturalization is canceled on the 
ground that it was procured by concealment of a material fact or by 
willful misrepresentation. When citizenship is canceled for pre- 
sumptive fraud, all derivative rights will be extinguished, except 
where the derivative citizen is residing in the United States at the 
time the naturalization was revoked. 

No public interest seems to be served by withdrawing citizenship of 
a derivative citizen where he himself is free from fault. The rule of 
the 1940 Act was sound and workable and sought to avoid excessive 
disturbance of the status of persons whose American citizenship had 
become vested, and often had endured for many years. 

The Commission recommends that the rule of the law prior to 
the Act of 1952 be restored and that derivative rights of citizenship 
shall be extinguished only when the naturalization from which they 
are derived is revoked on the ground of actual fraud. 


Although the witnesses at the Commission's hearings did not refer 
as often to problems of naturalization as to immigration, there was 
evidence of a belief that the last decade marked a steady improvement 
in the procedures in naturalization cases, in the cooperation main- 
tained with schools and social agencies aiding the applicant for natu- 
ralization, and in the attitude of the administrative officers in dealing 
with naturalization applicants. Satisfaction has been expressed with 
the efforts of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the pro- 
motion of education and training for American citizenship, and for 
encouraging aliens who seek to qualify for naturalization. 

However, the procedure for naturalization, written into law, still 
seems open to objection. 

Procedure in Court 

Since 1926 provision has been made by statute for appointment of 
naturalization examiners, known as designated examiners, to conduct 
preliminary examinations of naturalization applications and to make 
formal recommendations to the naturalization courts. Originally 


such designations were made by the courts themselves. Since 1940 
the designations have been made by the naturalization officials. 

The designated examiner system proved a great convenience to 
the courts, the applicants, and the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. Where the examiner's recommendation is favorable the ap- 
plicant is usually admitted to citizenship without any further inquiry. 
In questionable cases or in cases where the examiner's recommenda- 
tion is adverse the facts are fully presented to the court. 

In 1943 the Immigration and Naturalization Service instituted 
centralized review of the recommendations of the designated natural- 
ization examiners. The purpose was to produce uniformity and 
improvement in such recommendations. The act of 1952 continues 
a requirement introduced by the Internal Security Act of 1950 that 
where the Attorney General's recommendation to the court disagreed 
with that of the designated examiner, both recommendations should 
be submitted to the court. Vesting such authority in the examiner, 
in opposition to the views of his department head, results in con- 
flicting recommendations to the court and in unsound administration. 
The Commission recommends that the only recommendation on 
naturalization made to the court should be the one approved by 
the head of the agency administering the naturalization law or by 
an officer designated to make recommendations on his behalf. 

Neighborhood Investigation 

Another new provision, introduced in the Internal Security Act 
of 1950 and continued in the Act of 1952, requires a personal investiga- 
tion of each naturalization applicant in the neighborhood of his 
residence and employment during the past 5 years. The Attorney 
General may waive such investigation in any case or class of cases. 

In the past, such investigations have been conducted in particular 
cases when preliminary examination has indicated the need for further 
inquiry. The new requirement that there be such investigation in 
every case places a tremendous burden on naturalization officials. 
Moreover, experience has demonstrated that such investigations 
achieve little or no results to justify the effort and cost, and cause un- 
necessary delays in considering the naturalization petition. 

The Commission recommends the elimination of the requirement 
that a neighborhood investigation be conducted as a matter of rou- 
tine in every naturalization case. The naturalization officers should 
be authorized to conduct such investigations whenever they deem 
them necessary, on the basis of information developed in individual 



The immigration laws of the United States deal only with aliens, 
and a person who establishes that he is a citizen of the United States is 
removed from their sphere of operation. But the claim to American 
citizenship by an applicant for entry into the United States does not 
preclude examination by immigration officers in conducting what 
the Supreme Court called "the preliminary sifting process" to deter- 
mine whether a citizenship claim is properly substantiated. Upon an 
adverse determination the claimant is barred from the United States. 
The decision of the immigration officers is subject only to the same 
limited court review as to legality and fairness of the hearing that 
prevails in regard to other immigration determinations. Persons 
whose claims to American citizenship were rejected in deportation pro- 
ceedings were held entitled to an independent judicial determination 
of their citizenship status. 

The Nationality Act of 1940 established a new right to bring an 
action for a declaratory judgment determining a claim to American 
citizenship. It provided that a person outside the United States whose 
application for a passport was rejected could obtain a certificate of 
identity, upon showing that he had a bona fide claim, which would 
enable him to come to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting 
his action for a declaratory judgment. He also was given a right 
to appeal to the Secretary of State if he were refused a certificate of 
identity (see Chapter 11). 

The Passport Division of the Department of State has supplied 
the information that since 1915 and through September 1952, a total 
of 1,346 suits for such declaratory judgment were instituted against 
the Secretary of State. Of these, 855 claimants came from China 
(generally involving claims to citizenship derived through American 
parents), and 491 from other countries (preponderantly involving 
questions of whether American citizens had lost United States citizen- 
ship through expatriation). 

The administrative authorities have stated that many persons were 
using the declaratory judgment device as a means of improperly 
obtaining entry into the United States. However, in such proceedings 
courts often have considered only the evidence of the claimant and not 
the countervailing evidence compiled by administrative officers both 
here and abroad. 

The act of 1952 made substantial revisions in the declaratory judg- 
ment procedure in the Nationality Act of 1940. Persons who are 
within the United States may still maintain an action for a judgment 
declaring them to be nationals of the United States, except that such 
suits may not be maintained when the citizenship claim previously 
was adjudicated in an exclusion proceeding. Persons whose claim to 


American citizenship is denied by an agency of the United States 
Government but who are not within the United States may apply 
for a certificate of identity to come to the United States to attempt 
to establish their claim. Such a certificate of identity may be issued 
upon a finding that the application is made in good faith and is made 
on a substantial basis. The applicant is entitled to an appeal to the 
Secretary of State from a denial of application for a certificate of 
identity. However, a certificate of identity may be granted only to 
a person who previously has been physically present in the United 
States, or to a person under 16 years of age who was born abroad to 
a United States citizen parent. A person who receives a certificate 
of identity may proceed to the United States and apply for admission 
at a port of entry, where his status is determined by immigration 
officers. If such officers rule against his claim to American citizen- 
ship he is entitled to judicial review only in habeas corpus proceedings 
and not through any other form of action. 

The fact that some claimants have abused their privileges does not 
seem to warrant a blanket deprivation of protection to an American 
citizen who happens to be outside the United States. If there are 
abuses, such abuses should be corrected. No American citizen should 
be deprived of his day in court to support his claim against unjustified 
challenge. The limitations of the 1952 act will shut off from many 
American citizens the opportunity to invoke the aid of the courts in 
resisting erroneous denials of their rights of citizenship. 

The Commission believes that there should be opportunity for a 
full court review on issues of United States citizenship, even where 
the citizenship claim is made by a person seeking entry to the United 

On such review, the court should consider the evidence available to 
the administrative officers. 


Chapter 1 7 

Additional Matters for 

The brief time at the Commission's disposal made it impossible to 
give detailed study to many matters brought to its attention during 
the course of the hearings, and subsequently in oral or written com- 
munications. The Commission's primary concern was with broad 
questions of policy affecting the more important phases of immigra- 
tion and naturalization. 

The Commission has made an effort to discuss such other problems 
as in its judgment warranted treatment in this Keport. It has col- 
lected a wealth of information, most of which is incorporated in the 
printed record of its hearings. 

If the Commission's recommendations should be favorably received, 
the next step will be the preparation of a bill to carry them into effect. 
The draftsmen must then assume the task of designing the legislative 
details of the recommendations and of determining what, if anything, 
should be done about the matters which the Commission was unable 
to reach. The Commission hopes that the President, or the appro- 
priate committees of Congress, or perhaps by a joint arrangement, 
will form a group to draft a bill for early consideration by Congress. 

The Commission suggests that additional consideration should 
be given, among others, to the following matters : 


The great American voluntary agencies have played an important 
and increasing role in immigration matters. Nongovernmental 
organizations representing the principal faiths in the United States, 
nationality groups, social service and civic agencies, and others are 
taking part in the process of identifying and selecting aliens overseas 
for immigration to the United States and obtaining sponsorships and 
resettlement opportunities for them in the United States. Their ac- 
tivities touch upon immigration at all stages, and involve close cooper- 
ation with consular officers overseas, immigration and customs officials 
at the ports of entry, and public and private agencies seeking to aid 
the effective integration of the new American to his new life. 

During the past several decades, the American voluntary agencies 
have been particularly concerned with the problems caused by war. 
The conclusion of World War II left a vast, homeless mass of refugees 


and displaced persons in Europe. The United States made an im- 
portant contribution to the solution of this unfinished business of 
World War II by helping to form the International Refugee Organ- 
ization and by accepting a share of such refugees and displaced per- 
sons under the Displaced Persons Act. The American voluntary 
agencies took an active part in providing supplementary food and 
clothing, and other necessities of life, for refugees, displaced persons, 
expellees, escapees, and other victims of the war and postwar up- 
heavals. From this, their interests expanded to the attempt to help 
with a permanent solution of the problem, both in integration of such 
persons into the local economies of the countries where they resided, 
and by emigration elsewhere for a new start in life. 

Perhaps the greatest flowering of this new and important activity 
took place in the Displaced Persons program. In its final report, 
The DP Story, the Displaced Persons Commission says : 

The American voluntary agencies played an indispensable part in the success 
of the DP program. . . . Without their continuous and active participation, the 
program would never have been able to succeed. 

The voluntary agencies were one of the main ways in which recent 
immigration programs to the United States became instruments of 
positive, constructive, and humanitarian national policy. In the kind 
of an immigration policy envisaged by the Commission, the Amer- 
ican voluntary agencies must continue to play an increasing role. 

The precise form of the relationship between the Government, in 
administering the immigration law, and the American voluntary 
agencies, in providing supplementary and complementary services, 
needs to be developed more fully. The part to be played by the volun- 
tary agencies in connection with overseas selection of prospective 
immigrants ; their transportation, reception, distribution, and resettle- 
ment ; and the subsequent responsibility within the United States, are 
all important factors for determination. 

Until some of the issues raised by the Commission's recommenda- 
tions are resolved, it may not be fruitful to attempt a final determin- 
ation of these other issues. However, the Commission believes that 
they are of utmost importance and should be reached as soon as pos- 
sible. The Commission suggests that in the determination of such 
questions, the fundamental objective should be the most effective joint 
utilization of public and private effort and resources in developing 
and administering our immigration laws. 


The suggestion has been made to the Commission that the investi- 
gating responsibilities of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 


ice, particularly insofar as they deal with subversive activities, be 
transferred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As of October 15, 
1952, the Immigration and Naturalization Service had an authorized 
force of 7,204 of whom 907 were assigned to investigations. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has responsibility for the 
protection of the internal security of the United States except where 
the entry or deportation of aliens is involved, in which case the Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Service has the responsibility. The advis- 
ability of placing all such investigative functions in one agency has 
been discussed frequently. There should be a review of the question 
of responsibility for immigration investigations, especially in view of 
the Commission's proposal for a consolidated immigration agency. 


One of the most troublesome problems arising out of the adminis- 
tration of the immigration laws concerns the hundreds of thousands 
of "wetbacks" who illegally cross the border from Mexico each year. 
Because of the recent survey by the President's Commission on Migra- 
tory Labor, this problem was not studied by the Commission, although 
some of the witnesses at the Commission's hearings addressed them- 
selves to this question and urged that adequate appropriations be pro- 
vided by Congress to insure maximum effectiveness in administering 
the immigration laws. 


Witnesses during the Commission's hearings called attention to 
particular procedures or requirements, which would seem to be worthy 
of further study. A few examples are : 

1. The requirement that the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- 
ice establish a centralized list of all aliens admitted to the United 
States. The Attorney General of the United States testified that this 
requirement would place a heavy burden on enforcement officials. 

2. The apparent error, pointed out in the testimony of the Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Service, by which the act of 1952 in effect 
eliminates the proceedings for registry of lawful entry of aliens who 
entered the United States prior to July 1, 1924, although the new act 
continues to provide for such proceedings. This occurred through 
the enactment of the provision of the act of 1952 which retroactively 
made all such aliens subject to deportation, and thus automatically 
disqualified them from the benefits provided by the registry statute. 
This error should be corrected. 

3. The procedure for selecting persons with special skills in grant- 
ing preferred status under the established quotas. It was said that 

250653 O— 53 18 ^ 

this procedure is dilatory and ineffective, and may defeat the purpose 
for which it is established. 

The regulations issued by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service confirm the prediction of that Service to the Commission that 
this provision would be troublesome and difficult. In this connection, 
as elsewhere indicated (Chapter 12), the Commission suggests that 
study be given to the proposals to restore the contract labor prohibi- 
tion eliminated by the act of 1952. 

4. The provision of the law for rescission, without a hearing, of 
suspension of deportation previously granted, upon a finding that it 
was improperly granted. 

5. The adequacy of notice by publication in proceedings to revoke 
naturalization or to cancel citizenship documents. 

6. The problem of travel documents. The Office of the United 
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called attention to the 
difficulties encountered by stateless refugees or displaced persons who 
are unable to obtain official travel documents. It was suggested that 
the United States issue a travel document to such lawfully resident 


Certain difficulties may involve constitutional issues. 

1. The Attorney General of the United States called attention to 
the reenactment in the act of 1952 of a criminal provision relating 
to transporting into or harboring within the United States of certain 
aliens, which a United States district court had declared void for 
vagueness. He urged that this provision be clarified. 

2. The failure to grant a hearing when a deportable alien claims 
he will be subjected to physical persecution in the country to which 
he was being deported. It was said that the failure to grant a formal 
hearing is unfair. 

3. The authorization for conducting a deportation hearing in the 
absence of the alien, if it is found that he unreasonably fails or re- 
fuses to attend or remain in attendance at the hearing. 


Various representatives of important business enterprises criticized 
provisions of the act of 1952 as being contrary to national commercial 
objectives in the interest of the United States. 

1. Representatives of maritime and air lines brought to the Com- 
mission's attention various alleged inequities of the immigration laws 
in imposing on them obligations for detention and deportation costs, 


and in subjecting them to penalties for violations of the immigration 
laws by their passengers. 

They also called attention to other provisions which they regard 
as being detrimental to the proper flow of international trade and 

2. Shipping representatives protested the procedure for individual 
examination of alien seamen under the new law. It was said that 
this would create additional financial burdens and would unnecessarily 
hamper maritime operations. The Governments of Great Britain 
and France formally objected to the Department of State that this re- 
quirement would cause serious delay in the operation of ocean liners, 
great expense and deterioration of service to passengers. 

3. A new requirement in the 1952 act apparently requires a $10 fee 
for each worker who is permitted to enter for temporary work. The 
Immigration and Naturalization Service pointed out to the Com- 
mission that this provision would put a heavy, and apparently unin- 
tended, burden upon employers who import thousands of temporary 
seasonal workers for timber cutting, fruit and vegetable harvesting, 
processing, and canning. 


Part VI 



The immigration and nationality law embodies policies and prin- 
ciples that are unwise and injurious to the nation. 

It rests upon an attitude of hostility and distrust against all 

It applies discriminations against human beings on account of 
national origin, race, creed and color. 

It ignores the needs of the United States in domestic affairs 
and foreign policies. 

It contains unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions and 
penalties against individuals. 

It is badly drafted, confusing and in some respects unworkable. 

It should be reconsidered and revised from beginning to end. 


Throughout this Report are various recommendations, appearing 
in the chapters in which particular subjects are discussed. The more 
important ones are briefly restated here, without reference to the order 
in which they appear elsewhere : 

The Quota System 

1. The national origins quota system should be abolished. 

2. There should be a unified quota system, which would allocate 
visas without regard to national origin, race, creed, or color. 

3. The maximum annual quota immigration should be one-sixth 
of 1 percent of the population of the United States, as deter- 
mined by the most recent census. Under the 1950 census, 
quota immigration would be open to 251,162 immigrants 
annually, instead of the 154,657 now authorized. 

4. All immigration and naturalization functions now in the De- 
partment of State and the Department of Justice should be 
consolidated into a new agency, to be headed by a Commission 
on Immigration and Naturalization whose members should be 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 

5. The maximum annual quota of visas should be distributed, as 
determined by the proposed Commission on Immigration and 
Naturalization, on the basis of the following five categories: 


The Right of Asylum 
Reunion of Families 
Needs in the United States 
Special Needs in the Free World 
General Immigration 

6. For the next three years, within the maximum annual quota, 
there should be a statutory priority, implementing the Right of 
Asylum, for the admission annually of 100,000 refugees, ex- 
pellees, escapees, and remaining displaced persons. 

7. The allocation of visas within the maximum annual quota 
should be determined, once every 3 years, by the proposed 
Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, subject to 
review by the President and the Congress. 

Fair Hearings and Procedure 

8. Enforcement functions should be exercised, under the Com- 
mission's supervision and control, by an Administrator. 
Quasi-judicial functions should be exercised, under the Com- 
mission's supervision, by a statutory Board of Immigration 
and Visa Appeals. 

9. The same officials should not be permitted to exercise both 
enforcement and judicial functions. Aliens should be ac- 
corded a fair hearing and procedure in exclusion and deporta- 
tion cases. Hearings in deportation cases should conform 
with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. 
Hearing officers should be responsible only to the proposed 
Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals, which should have 
authority to exercise final administrative review of their deci- 
sions, subject to further review in limited cases by the Commis- 
sion. Aliens should have a right of administrative review, be- 
fore the Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals, from denials 
of visas; and have a clearly defined method of seeking court 
review of orders of deportation. 

Admissions and Deportations 

10. The conditions for admission of aliens into the United States 

bear a reasonable relationship to the national welfare and 
security ; 

be definite in their meaning and application; 

include discretionary authority to waive specified grounds 
of inadmissibility, in meritorious cases; 


provide for exclusions without hearing, for reasons of 
security, only upon direction of the Board of Immigration 
and Visa Appeals; and 

not be based on the so-called criminal judgments of totali- 
tarian states. 

11. The grounds for deportation of aliens already in the United 
States should 

bear a reasonable relationship to the national welfare 
and security; not be technical or excessive; 

not be retroactive so as to penalize aliens for acts which 
were not prohibited when committed ; and 

not require the deportation of aliens who entered the 
country at an early age, or those who have been residents 
for such a long period as to become the responsibility of 
the United States. 

12. In connection with the deportation of aliens, there should be 
discretionary authority to 

allow them to depart voluntarily instead of deportation; 

adjust their status within the United States if they are cur- 
rently qualified to reenter; 

suspend deportation under reasonable conditions; and 

adjust the status of bona fide official defectors from 

13. A resident alien who is not otherwise deportable should not, by 
reason of a brief absence from the United States, be subject to 
exclusion or deportation. 

14. Unless proceedings for deportation and denaturalization are 
brought within ten years, they should be barred. 

15. Arrangements should be made to expedite the processing of 
visas for temporary visitors, including leaders in art, scientific 
and business fields, and the law should apply to such nonimmi- 
grant aliens only such restrictions as are directly concerned 
with the health, safety, and security of the United States. 


16. The security of the United States should be protected by con- 
tinuing to bar the entry of spies and saboteurs. 

Aliens who are present members or affiliates of any totali- 
tarian party, including Communists, Nazis, and Fascists, should 
be denied admission into the United States except where their 

membership is involuntary; or 


affiliations is not knowingly or willingly to further the 
aims and principles of such parties. 

They should be deported except where they 

entered the United States at an early age or have been 
residents for such a long period of time as to have become 
the responsibility of the United States. 

Aliens who are former members or affiliates of any totalita- 
rian party may be admitted provided 

they have repudiated and are now opposed to such totali- 
tarian ideologies; and 

the responsible administrative officers make a finding that 
the admission of such aliens would not be contrary to the 
public interest. 

They should be deported unless 

they have repudiated such doctrines for at least five years. 


17. The law should not discriminate against naturalized citizens but 
should place them in the same status as native-born citizens, 
except where citizenship was procured by fraud or illegality. 
The law should minimize or remove restrictions which create 
statelessness, disrupt family unity, or impose unreasonable con- 
ditions or procedures upon the acquisition or retention of 




I concur wholeheartedly in the policy recommendations in the 
report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Natural- 
ization. I believe that their prompt adoption would be in the in- 
terest of the United States, both in the conduct of its foreign relations 
and in the continued vigorous growth and development of its economy 
and its society. However, in only one small aspect of the report, 
that dealing with the administrative arrangements for the issuance 
of visas overseas, I cannot see eye to eye with my colleagues. 

The Report proposes to set up, in effect, another separate foreign 
service by authorizing the Administrator of Immigration and 
Naturalization to set up visa offices overseas as part of the unified 
program. In view of the importance which the report places on 
the foreign policy of the United States, a view in which I wholly 
concur, I cannot see what is to be gained by separating the admin- 
istration of the proposed program from the agency which is charged 
with the administration of the foreign policy of the United States. 
It may well be that the Department of State is subject to legitimate 
criticism in its activities under the present system for not having 
paid enough attention to the foreign policy aspects of the administra- 
tion of the visa issuing function. But in my judgment the remedy 
for that defect is not to be found in divorcing it entirely from this 
function. It may well be true that in its administration of the 
visa function overseas the Department of State has relied excessively 
upon "experts ;" that is, persons who spend a large proportion of their 
time doing nothing but visa work. If the Department, however, 
has erred in this respect, this tendency should be corrected, not ac- 
centuated, and the participation in the visa function of officers who 
have an over-all responsibility for the conduct of foreign relations 
should be encouraged, not made impossible. 

The same can be said with reference to the problem of placing an 
additional group of United States officials in foreign countries to 
represent the United States of America. I am aware that my col- 
leagues are led to their concept of administration by their view that a 
visa once issued should be final, and not subject to review at the port 
of entry except for identity, physical condition, and security status. 
From this they deduce, by the maxim of "No responsibility without 
authority," the conclusion that the visa issuing function must in turn 
be under the proposed commission. I wholly agree that a visa once 


issued should be final and not subject to review at the port of entry 
except for identity, physical condition, and security status. I wholly 
agree also that there should be an independent Commission on Im- 
migration and Naturalization. I am completely in accord with the 
recommendation that there should be a formal procedure for review 
of consular decisions with respect to visas. However, I do not agree 
that these desirable ends require that persons other than consular of- 
ficers should issue the visas. 

I am reinforced in this view by the fact that in over 200 Foreign 
Service posts there is not an adequate work-load of visa cases to justify 
the establishment of a separate visa office. My examination of the 
statistics shows that almost 50 percent of all visas are issued in posts of 
this kind. The proposed solution — that is, to have the consul, in 
effect, act as a hearing officer but without any power of decision, even 
in a clear case — does not seem to me to be a satisfactory one. Cer- 
tainly it does not seem to be satisfactory to have two separate systems, 
one disposing of 53 percent of the visas and the other disposing of 47 

I believe the proposed Commission should avail itself of the very 
real advantages in using the Foreign Service to accomplish its re- 
quirements abroad, as do some 45 United States Government agencies 
at the present time. The proposed Commission would thus have a 
widespread, flexible, operating service with the particular advantage 
of utilizing its broad experience in foreign affairs. This experience 
will be invaluable in evaluating the intent of the alien, and his social, 
economic, and political background, and in estimating the effect of 
the alien's admission to the United States upon our foreign relations 
and domestic security and development. 

The proposed Commission would have the same responsibility and 
authority, the same freedom in the issuance of substantive guidance 
and direction as it would enjoy with its own employees. It could 
participate with other government agencies, under procedures now 
established under the Foreign Service Act of 1946, in the selection, 
training, assignment, and promotion of Foreign Service personnel, 
and could participate in the day to day administration of the Service 
by the Department of State to the extent necessary to meet its 

Except for this single administrative detail, I am in complete 
accord with the Commission's conclusions and recommendations. 


Order Creating the Commission 



Establishing the President's Commission on Immigration and 


By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United 
States, it is hereby ordered as follows : 

Sec. 1. There is hereby established in the Executive Office of the 
President a commission to be known as the President's Commission 
on Immigration and Naturalization, which shall be composed of a 
chairman, a vice chairman, and five other members, all of whom shall 
be designated by the President. 

Sec. 2. The Commission is authorized and directed to make a 
survey and evaluation of the immigration and naturalization policies 
cf the United States, and shall make recommendations to the Presi- 
dent for such legislative, administrative, or other action as in its 
opinion may be desirable in the interests of the economy, security, and 
responsibilities of this country. The Commission shall give partic- 
ular consideration to: 

(a) The requirements and administration of our immigration laws 
with respect to the admission, naturalization and denaturalization of 
aliens, and their exclusion and deportation, 

(b) The admission of immigrants into this country in the light of 
our present and prospective economic and social conditions and of 
other pertinent considerations ; and 

(c) 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, and the need for authority to 
meet emergency conditions such as the present overpopulation of parts 
of Western Europe and the serious refugee and escapee problems in 
such areas. 

Sec. 3. In performing its functions under this order, the Com- 
mission may prescribe such rules of procedure, and may hold such 
public hearings and hear such witnesses as it may deem appropriate. 

Sec. 4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Gov- 
ernment are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Commis- 
sion in its work and to furnish the Commission such assistance, not 


inconsistent with law, as it may require in the performance of its 

Sec. 5. The expenditures of the Commission shall be paid out of an 
allotment made by the President from the appropriation entitled 
"Emergency Fund for the President — National Defense" in Title I 
of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1953 (Public Law 455, 
82d Cong.), approved July 5, 1952. Such payments shall be made 
without regard to the provisions of (a) section 3681 of the Revised 
Statutes (31 U. S. C. 672) , (b) section 9 of the act of March 4, 1909, 35 
Stat. 1027 (31 U. S. C. 673), and (c) such other laws as the President 
may hereafter specify. The members of the Commission shall receive 
such compensation and expense allowances, payable out of the said 
allotment, as the President shall hereafter fix, except that no compen- 
sation shall be so fixed with respect to any person while receiving other 
compensation from the United States. 

Sec. 6. The Commission shall make a final written report to the 
President not later than January 1, 1953, including its recommenda- 
tions for legislative, administrative or other action. The Commis- 
sion may also make such earlier reports to the President as it may 
deem appropriate. The Commission shall cease to exist 30 days after 
rendition of its final report to the President. 

Harry S. Truman. 
The White House, /September 4, 1952. 

September 4, 1952. 

Statement by the President 

I have today established a special Commission on Immigration 
and Naturalization, to study and evaluate the immigration and natu- 
ralization policies of the United States. 

Our immigration and naturalization policies are of major impor- 
tance to our own security and to the defense of the free world. Im- 
mediately after the war ended, we recognized the plight of the 
displaced persons; we acted to cooperate with other nations and to 
admit a share of these victims of war and tyranny into our own 
country. The displaced-persons program has now been successfully 
concluded, but the free world faces equally grave and equally heart- 
rending problems in the continual stream of refugees and escapees 
from the iron-curtain countries into Western Europe. These people 
add to the pressures of overpopulation in certain countries. Overseas 
migration from Europe has been dammed up by years of war and 
international economic disorder. While we have joined with other 
nations to meet such problems as these, our own immigration laws 
based on conditions and assumptions that have long ceased to exist, 
present serious obstacles in reaching a satisfactory solution. 


Humanitarian considerations, as well as the national interest, 
require that we reassess our immigration policies in the light of these 
facts. The United States must remain true to its great traditions 
and have an immigration policy that strengthens our Nation at home 
and furthers our world leadership. 

The Eighty-second Congress devoted much time and effort to this 
problem, but the bill which it passed was so defective in many im- 
portant provisions that I could not give it my approval. In my veto 
message, I expressed the hope that the Congress would agree to a 
careful reexamination of the entire matter. I suggested that the 
Congress create a representative commission of outstanding Ameri- 
cans to make a study of the basic assumptions of our immigration 
policy, the quota system and all that goes into it, the effect of our 
immigration and nationality laws, and the ways in which they can be 
brought into line with our national ideals and our foreign policy. 
The Congress did not act upon these suggestions. 

I do not believe that the matter should remain where the Congress 
left it. The problems of immigration policy grow more pressing, and 
the inequities fostered by the new law require careful examination. 
I am, therefore, appointing this Commission in the belief that its 
recommendations will enable the next Congress to consider the subject 
promptly and intelligently. This Commission will have the benefit 
of much information already drawn together in the field of immigra- 
tion, including that developed by the committees of Congress in their 
long study of the problem. It should, therefore, be in a position to 
complete its study before the reconvening of the next Congress. 

I have directed the Commission to give particular consideration to : 

(a) The requirements and administration of our immigration laws 
with respect to the admission, naturalization, and denaturalization of 
aliens, and their exclusion and deportation ; 

(b) The admission of immigrants into this country in the light of 
our present and prospective economic and social conditions and of 
other pertinent considerations ; and 

(c) 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, and the need for authority to 
meet emergency conditions such as the present overpopulation of parts 
of Western Europe and the serious refugee and escapee problems in 
such areas. 

The members of the Commission are as follows : 

Philip B. Perlman of Maryland, Chairman. (Formerly, Solicitor 
General of the United States, formerly city solicitor of Balti- 
more, secretary of the State of Maryland, assistant attorney 
general of Maryland.) 

250G53 O— 53 19 ^73 

Earl G. Harrison of Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman. (Attorney, 
formerly United States Commissioner of Immigration and 
Naturalization — and formerly Dean of the Law School of the 
University of Pennsylvania.) 

Monsignor John O'Grady of Washington, D. C. (Secretary, 
National Conference of Catholic Charities.) 

Kev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson of Minnesota. (President, Lutheran 
Theological Seminary of St. Paul, Minnesota; Chairman, Min- 
nesota State Displaced Persons Commission.) 

Clarence E. Pickett of Pennsylvania. (Honorary secretary, 
American Friends Service Committee.) 

Adrian S. Fisher of Tennessee. (Legal Advisor to State Depart- 
ment, formerly General Counsel of Atomic Energy Commission 
and Solicitor of the Department of Commerce.) 

Thomas G. Finucane of Maryland. (Chairman, Board of Im- 
migration Appeals, Department of Justice.) 


The President's Veto Message 






June 25, 1952. — Ordered to be printed 

To the Rouse of Representatives : 

I return herewith, without my approval, H. R. 5678, the proposed 
Immigration and Nationality Act. 

In outlining my objections to this bill, I want to make it clear that it 
contains certain provisions that meet with my approval. This is a 
long and complex piece of legislation. It has 164 separate sections, 
some with more than 40 subdivisions. It presents a difficult problem 
of weighing the good against the bad, and arriving at a judgment on 
the whole. 

H. R. 5678 is an omnibus bill which would revise and eodify all of 
our laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality. 

A general revision and modernization of these laws unquestionably 
is needed and long overdue, particularly with respect to immigration. 
But this bill would not provide us with an immigration policy ade- 
quate for the present world situation. Indeed, the bill, taking all its 
provisions together, would be a step backward and not a step forward. 
In view of the crying need for reform in the field of immigration, I 
deeply regret that I am unable to approve H. R. 5678. 

In recent years our immigration policy has become a matter of 
major national concern. Long dormant questions about the effect of 
our immigration laws now assume first-rate importance. "What we do 
in the field of immigration and naturalization is vital to the continued 
growth and internal development of the United States — to the eco- 
nomic and social strength of our country — which is the core of the 
defense of the free world. Our immigration policy is equally, if not 
more, important to the conduct of our foreign relations and to our 
responsibilities of moral leadership in the struggle for world peace. 


In one respect, this bill recognizes the great international signifi- 
cance of our immigration and naturalization policy, and takes a step 
to improve existing laws. All racial bars to naturalization would be 
removed, and at least some minimum immigration quota would be 
afforded to each of the free nations of Asia. 

I have lonjr urged that racial or national barriers uO naturalization 
be abolished. This was one of the recommendations in my civil- 
rights message to the Congress on February 2, 1948. On February 19, 
1951, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to carry 
it out. 

But now this most desirable provision comes before me embedded 
in a mass of legislation which would perpetuate injustices of long 
standing against many other nations of the world, hamper the efforts 
we are making to rally the men of the east and west alike to the 
cause of freedom, and intensify the repressive and inhumane aspects 
of our immigration procedures. The price is too high and, in good 
conscience, I cannot agree to pay it. 

I want all our residents of Japanese ancestry, and all our friends 
throughout the Far East, to understand this point clearly. I cannot 
take the step I would like to take, and strike down the bars that 
prejudice has erected against them, without, at the same time, estab- 
lishing new discriminations against the peoples of Asia and approving 
harsh and repressive measures directed at all who seek a new life 
within our boundaries. I am sure that with a little more time and 
a little more discussion in this country the public conscience and the 
good sense of the American people will assert themselves, and we shall 
be in a position to enact an immigration and naturalization policy 
that will be fair to all. 

In addition to removing racial bars to naturalization, the bill would 
permit American women citizens to bring their alien husbands to 
this country as nonquota immigrants, and enable alien husbands of 
resident women aliens to come in under the quota in a preferred 
status. These provisions would be a step toward preserving the 
integrity of the family under our immigration laws, and are clearly 

The bill would also relieve transportation companies of some of 
the unjustified burdens and penalties now imposed upon them. In 
particular, it would put an end to the archaic requirement that carriers 
pay the expenses of aliens detained at the port of entry, even though 
such aliens have arrived with proper travel documents. 

But these few improvements are heavily outweighed by other pro- 
visions of the bill which retain existing defects in our laws, and add 
many undesirable new features. 

The bill would continue, practically without change, the national 
origins quota system, which was enacted into law in 1924, and put 

into effect in 1929. This quota system — always based upon assump- 
tions at variance with our American ideals — is long since out of date 
and more than ever unrealistic in the face of present world conditions. 
This system hinders us in dealing with current immigration prob- 
lems, and is a constant handicap in the conduct of our foreign rela- 
tions. As I stated in my message to Congress on March 24, 1952, on 
the need for an emergency program of immigration from Europe : 

Our present quota system is not only inadequate to meet present emergency 
needs, it is also an obstacle to the development of an enlightened and satisfactory 
immigration policy for the long-run future. 

The inadequacy of the present quota system has been demonstrated 
since the end of the war, when we were compelled to resort to emer- 
gency legislation to admit displaced persons. If the quota system 
remains unchanged, we shall be compelled to resort to similar emer- 
gency legislation again, in order to admit any substantial portion of 
the refugees from communism or the victims of overcrowding in 

With the idea of quotas in general there is no quarrel. Some 
numerical limitation must be set, so that immigration will be within 
our capacity to absorb. But the over-all limitation of numbers im- 
posed by the national origins quota system is too small for our needs 
today, and the country-by-country limitations create a pattern that 
is insulting to large numbers of our finest citizens, irritating to our 
allies abroad, and foreign to our purposes and ideals. 

The over-all quota limitation, under the law of 1924, restricted 
annual immigration to approximately 150,000. This was about one- 
seventh of 1 percent of our total population in 1920. Taking into 
account the growth in population since 1920, the law now allows us 
but one-tenth of 1 percent of our total population. And since the 
largest national quotas are only partly used, the number actually 
coming in has been in the neighborhood of one-fifteenth of 1 percent. 
This is far less than we must have in the years ahead to keep up with 
the growing needs of our Nation for manpower to maintain the 
strength and vigor of our economy. 

The greatest vice of the present quota system, however, is that it 
discriminates, deliberately and intentionally, against many of the 
peoples of the world. The purpose behind it was to cut down and 
virtually eliminate immigration to this country from Southern and 
Eastern Europe. A theory was invented to rationalize this objective. 
The theory was that in order to be readily assimilable, European 
immigrants should be admitted in proportion to the numbers of 
persons of their respective national stocks already here as shown by 
the census of 1920. Since Americans of English, Irish, and German 
descent were most numerous, immigrants of those three nationalities 


got the lion's share — more than two-thirds — of the total quota. The 
remaining third was divided up among all the other nations given 

The desired effect was obtained. Immigration from the newer 
sources of Southern and Eastern Europe was reduced to a trickle. 
The quotas allotted to England and Ireland remained largely unused, 
as was intended. Total quota immigration fell to a half or a third — 
and sometimes even less — of the annual limit of 154,000. People from 
such countries as Greece or Spain or Latvia were virtually deprived 
of any opportunity to come here at all, simply because Greeks or 
Spaniards or Latvians had not come here before 1920 in any sub- 
stantial numbers. 

The idea behind this discriminatory policy was, to put it baldly, that 
Americans with English or Irish names were better people and better 
citizens than Americans with Italian or Greek or Polish names. It 
was thought that people of West European origin made better citizens 
than Rumanians or Yugoslavs or Ukrainians or Hungarians or Baits 
or Austrians. Such a concept is utterly unworthy of our traditions 
and our ideals. It violates the great political doctrine of the Declara- 
tion of Independence that "all men are created equal." It denies the 
humanitarian creed inscribed beneath the Statue of Liberty proclaim- 
ing to all nations, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses 
yearning to breathe free." 

It repudiates our basic religious concepts, our belief in the brother- 
hood of man, and in the words of St. Paul that "there is neither Jew 
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, . . . for ye are all one in 
Christ Jesus." 

The basis of this quota system was false and unworthy in 1924. It 
is even worse now. At the present time this quota system keeps out 
the very people we want to bring in. It is incredible to me that, in 
this year of 1952, we should again be enacting into law such a slur 
on the patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large part of our 

Today, we have entered into an alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty, 
with Italy, Greece, and Turkey against one of the most terrible threats 
mankind has ever faced. We are asking them to join with us in 
protecting the peace of the world. We are helping them to build their 
defenses, and train their men, in the common cause. But, through 
this bill we say to their people : You are less worthy to come to this 
country than Englishmen or Irishmen ; you Italians, who need to find 
homes abroad in the hundreds of thousands — you shall have a quota 
of 5,645; you Greeks, struggling to assist the helpless victims of a 
Communist civil war — you shall have a quota of 308 ; and you Turks, 
you are brave defenders of the eastern flank, but you shall have a quota 
of only 225. 


Today, we are "protecting" ourselves as we were in 1924, against 
being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic. 
The countries of Eastern Europe have fallen under the Communist 
yoke — they are silenced, fenced off by barbed wire and minefields — 
no one passes their borders but at the risk of his life. We do not need 
to be protected against immigrants from these countries — on the con- 
trary, we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have 
managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave 
enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them 
against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again. 
But this we cannot do, as we would like to do, because the quota for 
Poland is only 6,500, as against the 138,000 exiled Poles, all over 
Europe, who are asking to come to these shores; because the quota 
for the now subjugated Baltic countries is little more than 700 — 
against the 23,000 Baltic refugees imploring us to admit them to a 
new life here; because the quota for Rumania is only 289, and some 
30,000 Rumanians, who have managed to escape the labor camps and 
the mass deportations of their Soviet masters, have asked our help. 
These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carry- 
ing over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 

In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and 
stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of im- 
migration. We do not limit our cities to their 1920 boundaries — we 
do not hold our corporations to their 1920 capitalizations — we wel- 
come progress and change to meet changing conditions in every sphere 
of life, except in the field of immigration. 

The time to shake off this dead weight of past mistakes is now. The 
time to develop a decent policy of immigration — a fitting instrument 
for our foreign policy and a true reflection of the ideals we stand for, 
at home and abroad — is now. In my earlier message on immigration, 
I tried to explain to the Congress that the situation we face in immi- 
gration is an emergency — that it must be met promptly. I have 
pointed out that in the last few years, we have blazed a new trail in 
immigration, through our displaced persons program. Through the 
combined efforts of the Government and private agencies, working 
together not to keep people out, but to bring qualified people in, we 
summoned our resources of good will and human feeling to meet the 
task. In this program we have found better techniques to meet the 
immigration problems of the 1950's. 

None of this fruitful experience of the last 3 years is reflected in this 
bill before me. None of the crying human needs of this time of trouble 
is recognized in this bill. But it is not too late. The Congress can 
remedy these defects, and it can adopt legislation to meet the most 
critical problems before adjournment. 


The only consequential change in the 1924 quota system which the 
bill would make is to extend a small quota to each of the countries of 
Asia. But most of the beneficial effects of this gesture are offset by 
other provisions of the bill. The countries of Asia are told in one 
breath that they shall have quotas for their nationals, and in the next 
that the nationals of the other countries, if their ancestry is as much 
as 50 percent Asian, shall be charged to these quotas. 

It is only with respect to persons of oriental ancestry that this 
invidious discrimination applies. All other persons are charged to 
the country of their birth. But persons with Asian ancestry are 
charged to the countries of Asia, wherever they may have been born, 
or however long their ancestors have made their homes outside the 
land of their origin. These provisions are without justification. 

I now wish to turn to the other provisions of the bill, those dealing 
with the qualifications of aliens and immigrants for admission, with 
the administration of the laws, and with problems of naturalization 
and nationality. In these provisions, too, I find objections that pre- 
clude my signing this bill. 

The bill would make it even more difficult to enter our country. 
Our resident aliens would be more easily separated from homes and 
families under grounds of deportation, both new and old, which would 
specifically be made retroactive. Admission to our citizenship would 
be made more difficult ; expulsion from our citizenship would be made 
easier. Certain rights of native-born, first-generation Americans 
would be limited. All our citizens returning from abroad would be 
subjected to serious risk of unreasonable invasions of privacy. Sel- 
dom has a bill exhibited the distrust evidenced here for citizens and 
aliens alike — at a time when we need unity at home and the confidence 
of our friends abroad. 

We have adequate and fair provisions in our present law to pro- 
tect us against the entry of criminals. The changes made by the 
bill in those provisions would result in empowering minor immigra- 
tion and consular officials to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in 
determining whether acts constituting a crime have been committed. 
Worse, we would be compelled to exclude certain people because they 
have been convicted by "courts" in Communist countries that know 
no justice. Under this provision, no matter how construed, it would 
not be possible for us to admit many of the men and women who have 
stood up against totalitarian repression and have been punished for 
doing so. I do not approve of substituting totalitarian vengeance 
for democratic justice. I will not extend full faith and credit to the 
judgments of the Communist secret police. 

The realities of a world, only partly free, would again be ignored 
in the provision flatly barring entry to those who made misrepresenta- 


tions in securing visas. To save their lives and the lives of loved ones 
still imprisoned, refugees from tyranny sometimes misstate various 
details of their lives. We do not want to encourage fraud. But we 
must recognize that conditions in some parts of the world drive our 
friends to desperate steps. An exception restricted to cases involving 
misstatement of country of birth is not sufficient. And to make 
refugees from oppression forever deportable on such technical grounds 
is shabby treatment indeed. 

Some of the new grounds of deportation which the bill would pro- 
vide are unnecessarily severe. Defects and mistakes in admission 
would serve to deport at any time because of the bill's elimination, 
retroactively as well as prospectively, of the present humane provi- 
sion barring deportations on such grounds 5 years after entry. Nar- 
cotic-drug addicts would be deportable at any time, whether or not 
the addiction was culpable, and whether or not cured. The threat of 
deportation would drive the addict into hiding beyond the reach of 
cure, and the danger to the country from drug addiction would be 

I am asked to approve the reenactment of highly objectionable pro- 
visions now contained in the Internal Security Act of 1950 — a measure 
passed over my veto shortly after the invasion of South Korea. Some 
of these provisions would empower the Attorney General to deport 
any alien who has engaged or has had a purpose to engage in activ- 
ities "prejudicial to the public interest" or "subversive to the national 
security." No standards or definitions are provided to guide dis- 
cretion in the exercise of powers so sweeping. To punish undefined 
"activities" departs from traditional American insistence on estab- 
lished standards of guilt. To punish an undefined "purpose" is thought 

These provisions are worse than the infamous Alien Act of 1798, 
passed in a time of national fear and distrust of foreigners, which 
gave the President power to deport any alien deemed "dangerous to 
the peace and safety of the United States." Alien residents were 
thoroughly frightened and citizens much disturbed by that threat 
to liberty. 

Such powers are inconsistent with our democratic ideals. Confer- 
ring powers like that upon the Attorney General is unfair to him 
as well as to our alien residents. Once fully informed of such vast 
discretionary powers vested in the Attorney General, Americans now 
would and should be just as alarmed as Americans were in 1798 over 
less drastic powers vested in the President. 

Heretofore, for the most part, deportation and exclusion have rested 
upon findings of fact made upon evidence. Under this bill, they would 
rest in many instances upon the "opinion" or "satisfaction" of immi- 


gration or consular employees. The change from objective findings 
to subjective feelings is not compatible with our system of justice. 
The result would be to restrict or eliminate judicial review of unlaw- 
ful administrative action. 

The bill would sharply restrict the present opportunity of citizens 
and alien residents to save family members from deportation. Under 
the procedures of present law, the Attorney General can exercise his 
discretion to suspend deportation in meritorious cases. In each such 
case, at the present time, the exercise of administrative discretion is 
subject to the scrutiny and approval of the Congress. Nevertheless, 
the bill would prevent this discretion from being used in many cases 
where it is now available, and would narrow the circle of those who 
can obtain relief from the letter of the law. This is most unfortunate, 
because the bill, in its other provisions, would impose harsher restric- 
tions and greatly increase the number of cases deserving equitable 

Native-born American citizens who are dual nationals would be 
subjected to loss of citizenship on grounds not applicable to other 
native-born American citizens. This distinction is a slap at millions 
of Americans whose fathers were of alien birth. 

Children would be subjected to additional risk of loss of citizenship. 
Naturalized citizens would be subjected to the risk of denaturaliza- 
tion by any procedure that can be found to be permitted under any 
State law or practice pertaining to minor civil-law suits. Judicial 
review of administrative denials of citizenship would be severely 
limited and impeded in many cases, and completely eliminated in 
others. I believe these provisions raise serious constitutional ques- 
tions. Constitutionality aside, I see no justification in national policy 
for their adoption. 

Section 401 of this bill would establish a Joint Congressional Com- 
mittee on Immigration and Nationality Policy. This committee 
would have the customary powers to hold hearings and to subpena 
witnesses, books, papers, and documents. But the committee would 
also be given powers over the executive branch which are unusual and 
of a highly questionable nature. Specifically, section 401 would pro- 
vide that — 

The Secretary of State and the Attorney General shall without delay submit to 
the committee all regulations, instructions, and all other information as re- 
quested by the committee relative to the administration of this Act. 

This section appears to be another attempt to require the executive 
branch to make available to the Congress administrative documents, 
communications between the President and his subordinates, con- 
fidential files, and other records of that character. It also seems to 
imply that the committee would undertake to supervise or approve 


regulations. Such proposals are not consistent with the constitutional 
doctrine of the separation of powers. 

In these and many other respects, the bill raises basic questions as 
to our fundamental immigration and naturalization policy, and the 
laws and practices for putting that policy into effect. 

Many of the aspects of the bill which have been most widely criti- 
cized in the public debate are reaffirmations or elaborations of existing 
statutes or administrative procedures. Time and again, examination 
discloses that the revisions of existing law that would be made by the 
bill are intended to solidify some restrictive practice of our immigra- 
tion authorities, or to overrule or modify some ameliorative decision 
of the Supreme Court or other Federal courts. By and large, the 
changes that would be made by the bill do not depart from the basically 
restrictive spirit of our existing laws — but intensify and reinforce it. 

These conclusions point to an underlying condition which deserves 
the most careful study. Should we not undertake a reassessment of 
our immigration policies and practices in the light of the conditions 
that face us in the second half of the twentieth century ? The great 
popular interest which this bill has created, and the criticism which it 
has stirred up, demand an affirmative answer. I hope the Congress 
will agree to a careful reexamination of this entire matter. 

To assist in this complex task, I suggest the creation of a representa- 
tive commission of outstanding Americans to examine the basic as- 
sumptions of our immigration policy, the quota system and all that 
goes with it, the effect of our present immigration and nationality 
laws, their administration, and the ways in which they can be brought 
into line with our national ideals and our foreign policy. 

Such a commission should, I believe, be established by the Congress. 
Its membership should be bipartisan and divided equally among 
persons from private life and persons from public life. I suggest 
that four members be appointed by the President, four by the Presi- 
dent of the Senate, and four by the Speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. The commission should be given sufficient funds to employ 
a staff and it should have adequate powers to hold hearings, take testi- 
mony, and obtain information. It should make a report to the Presi- 
dent and to the Congress within a year from the time of its creation. 

Pending the completion of studies by such a commission, and the 
consideration of its recommendations by the Congress, there are cer- 
tain steps which I believe it is most important for the Congress to 
take this year. 

First, I urge the Congress to enact legislation removing racial bar- 
riers against Asians from our laws. Failure to take this step profits 
us nothing and can only have serious consequences for our relations 
with the peoples of the Far East. A major contribution to this end 
would be the prompt enactment by the Senate of H. R. 403. That 


bill, already passed by the House of Representatives, would remove 
the racial bars to the naturalization of Asians. 

Second, I strongly urge the Congress to enact the temporary, emer- 
gency immigration legislation which I recommended 3 months ago. 
In my message of March 24, 1952, 1 advised the Congress that one of 
the gravest problems arising from the present world crisis is created 
by the overpopulation in parts of Western Europe. That condition is 
aggravated by the flight and expulsion of people from behind the iron 
curtain. In view of these serious problems, I asked the Congress to 
authorize the admission of 300,000 additional immigrants to the United 
States over a 3-year period. These immigrants would include Greek 
nationals, Dutch nationals, Italians from Italy and Trieste, Germans 
and persons of German ethnic origin, and religious and political refu- 
gees from communism in Eastern Europe. This temporary program 
is urgently needed. It is very important that the Congress act upon 
it this year. I urge the Congress to give prompt and favorable con- 
sideration to the bills introduced by Senator Hendrickson and Repre- 
sentative Celler (S. 3109 and H. R. 7376), which will implement the 
recommendations contained in my message of March 24. 

I very much hope that the Congress will take early action on these 
recommendations. Legislation to carry them out will correct some 
of the unjust provisions of our laws, will strengthen us at home and 
abroad, and will serve to relieve a great deal of the suffering and ten- 
sion existing in the world today. 

Harry S. Truman. 

The White House, June 25, 1952. 



The following is a list of the witnesses who testified at the Com- 
mission's hearings or who submitted statements. The descriptive 
information does not necessarily imply that the witness represented 
such organization. 

ABELES, Mrs. Alfred T., Chairman, 
Chicago Area Congregational D. P. 
Resettlement Committee 

ABRAMS, Samuel, President, Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society of Boston 

ACHESON, Hon. Dean, Secretary of 
State of the United States 

ACTON, Norman, Assistant Secretary 
General, International Society for the 
Welfare of Cripples 

ADAMS, Rev. Earl F., Director, Wash- 
ington Office, National Council 
of Churches of Christ in the U. S. A. 

ADAMS, Susan D., Los Angeles Central 
Labor Council, A. F. L. 

ADLER, Rabbi Morris, Vice President, 
Jewish Community Council of 

AGH, L., Chairman in U. S. A., Col- 
legial Society of Hungarian Veterans 
in U. S. A. 

AITCHISON, D., M. D., D. D., D. C L., 
Minister and Medical Missionary, 
Takoma Park, Md. 

AKAGI, Richard, Associate Legislative 
Director, Anti-Discrimination Com- 
mittee, Japanese-American Citizens 

ALINSKY, Saul, the Back of the Yards 

ALLEN, Isabel, Sturgis, Mich. 

ALLISON, SAMUEL K., Professor of 
Physics, University of Chicago and 
Director, Institute for Nuclear 

ALSBERG, Elsa, Executive Director, 
Palo Alto Fair Play Council 

AMBROZIC, Rev. Bernard, Executive 
Secretary, League of Catholic Slo- 
venian Americans 

ANASTASSY, Metropolitan, President, 
Bishops' Synod of the Russian Ortho- 
dox Church Outside Russia, Inc. 

ANDREWS, Mrs. W. H., Garden City, 
New York 

ANDRICA, Theodore, Nationalities 
Editor, The Cleveland Press 

APGAR, Sybil, Manhattan Beach, Calif. 

ARENSBERG, Conrad M., Professor of 
Anthropology, Columbia University, 
New York, N. Y. 

ARONEY, Anthony, Jr., Past Supreme 
Vice President, Order of American 
Hellenic Educational Progressive 

AUCHARD, Rev. Edward D., represent- 
ing Rev. Dr. Ralph H. Jennings 

AVILA, Manuel, Catholic Resettlement 
Committee of the Archdiocese of Los 

AYERS, Rev. Robert H., Chaplain and 
Head of the Department of Religion, 
University of Georgia, representing 
Rabbi Joseph Rudavsky, Rev. Omar 
R. Fink, Jr., Rev. Brunson Wallace, 
Rev. Dow Kirkpatrick, Father Walter 
J. Donovan, and Rev. J. Earl Gil- 

BACON, Eva, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

BACON, Frances M., Los Angeles, Calif. 

BARRON, Mrs. Harriet, American 
Committee for Protection of Foreign 

BARTLETT, Hon. E. L., a Delegate in 
Congress from the Territory of 

BASKIN, Virginia, Vice President, 
Pioneer Women, Brentwood Chapter 

BASSET, W. J., Secretary, Los Angeles 
Central Labor Council, A. F. L. 

BATES, Mrs. Rosiland G., Chairman, 
Southern California Women Lawyers 

BAUER, Fred, Secretary, American Aid 
Society, Inc. 

BAUTZ, Rev. Donald F, Executive 
Director, Lutheran Inner Mission 
Society ; Chairman Washington Area 
Lutheran Resettlement Committee 

BEALS, Ralph L, Professor of Anthro- 
pology, University of California 

BEAN, Louis H., Economist, Office of 
the Secretary, U. S. Department of 

BELOSSELSKY, Serge, Representative 
in Eastern United States of the Fed- 
eration of Russian Charitable Organ- 
izations of the United States 

BERNARD, William, Secretary, Insti- 
tute for International Government 

BESIG, Ernest, Director, American 
Civil Liberties Union of Northern 


B1ER1NGER, Walter H., Chairman, 
Massachusetts Displaced Persons 
Commission and National President, 
United Service for New Americans 

BISHOP, Homer C, Professor of Social 
Work at the George Warren Brown 
School of Social Work of Washington 
University, representing the St. Louis 
Chapter of the American Association 
of Social Workers 

BIXLER, Mrs. M. F., Co-Chairman, De- 
partment of Christian World Rela- 
tions, Cleveland Council of Church 
Women, representing also the Cleve- 
land Church Federation and the Fed- 
eration of Protestant Churches of 

BLACKSHEAR, Mrs. Hinton, Cherokee 
Chapter Regent, Daughters of the 
American Revolution 

BLUMER, Herbert, Orinda, Calif. 

BOOK, Rev. Abbott, Executive Director, 
Northern California, Nevada Council 
of Chui-ches, represented by Charles 
A. Pingham 

BOREN, Rev. James E., University 
Pastor at the University of Minne- 
sota, representing the Committees on 
Social Education and Action of the 
Minnesota Council of Churches and of 
the Presbytery of Minneapolis, Pres- 
byterian Church in the U. S. A. 

BOSLER, Rev. Raymond, Editor, Indi- 
ana Catholic and Record, representing 
the Indianapolis Community Rela- 
tions Council 

BOSS, Charles F., Jr., Executive Sec- 
retary, Board on World Peace of the 
Methodist Church 

BOZZANI, Amerigo, the American-Ital- 
ian Democratic Committee and the 
American Committee on Italian Mi- 
gration, Southern California 

BRADISH, Mrs. Betsy Buell, Brooklyn, 
N. Y. 

BRANNAN, Hon. Charles F., Secretary 
of Agriculture of the U. S. repre- 
sented by Hon. Knox T. Hutchinson 

BREEDLOVE, T. R., Monroe, Georgia 

BREGMAN, Judith, Secretary, Commit- 
tee on Visa Problems of the Federa- 
tion of American Scientists 

BRENNAN, Iva Lake, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

BROCK, Mrs. Maynor D., Executive Di- 
rector, Naturalization Council of Kan- 
sas City, Mo. 

BROWN, Arthur T., the International 
General Electric Co. 

BROWN, Rev. Edward A., Pastor, West- 
lake Methodist Church, Executive 
Director of the American Civil Lib- 
erties' Union, Cleveland Branch 

BROWN, Rev. Ethelred, Secretary, Ja- 
maica Progressive League; Minister, 
Harlem Unitarian Church, New York 

BROWN, Fred A., Wrightsville, Pa. 

BROWN, Mrs. Fred A., Wrightsville, Pa. 

BROWN, Meyer I,., President, Farband 
Labor Zionist Order 

BRUCE, H. D., Madison, Wis. 

BRUMBERG, Walter, Vice President 
and Acting President, Estonian Aid, 

BRUSH, Grace, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

BUCKLEY, Rev. Frederick J., Profes- 
sor of Social Ethics, St. John's Sem- 
inary, Brighton, Mass. 

BUKOWSKI, Peter, President, Cosmo- 
politan National Bank of Chicago and 
former Deputy Administrator, Recon- 
struction Finance Corporation 

BURANT, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Feliks F., 
President, Polish Immigration Com- 
mittee, American Commission for Re- 
lief of Polish Immigrants, Inc. 

BURGESS, Alexander M., M. D., Na- 
tional Chairman, National Committee 
for Resettlement of Foreign Physi- 
cians ; former Chairman, Displaced 
Persons Commission of Rhode Island 

B URGES S, David, Secretary, Georgia 
CIO Council 

BURKE, Helen E., Jersey City, N. J. 

BURNS, Mrs. Carolyn Sinelli, Detroit, 

BURTS, Mrs. Uransom, Honorary Re- 
gent, Cherokee Chapter, Daughters of 
the American Revolution 

BUSH, Herman, the American Federa- 
tion of Polish Jews, Chicago District 

BUSH, Vannevar, President, Carnegie 
Institution of Washington ; former 
Director, Office of Scientific Research 
and Development 

BUSHONG, Rev. Benjamin, Director, 
Department of Mutual Aid, Brethren 
Service Commission, Church of the 

BUTLER, Sally, Director, Legislative 
Research, General Federation of 
Women's Clubs 

CADIEUX, Arthur L., the Minneapolis 
Chamber of Commerce 

CAHILL, William J., Counsel for United 
Friends of Needy and Displaced 
People of Yugoslavia, Inc. 

CAHN, Leni, the International Insti- 
tute, St. Paul, Minn. 

CAIN, Mrs. Norman H., Atlanta, Ga. 

CALHOUN, Emily, Recording Clerk, 
Religious Society of Friends, Atlanta, 

CAMPBELL, Rev. William J., Pastor of 
the Methodist Church of Austin, 
Minnesota, representing also the Jew- 
ish Community of Austin and Frank 

CARMELL, Daniel D., General Counsel, 
Illinois State Federation of Labor, 
A. F. L. 

CARMIN, Mrs. Pearson, Los Angeles, 
Calif., representing Miss Eaton 


CARTY, Rev. Denzil A., Director of St. 
Phillip's Church, St. Paul, represent- 
ing the Minnesota State Conference 
of the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People 

CARUSI, Hon. Ugo, United States Rep- 
resentative of the Office of the United 
Nations High Commissioner for Refu- 
gees, former Chairman, U. S. Dis- 
placed Persons Commission, former 
U. S. Commissioner of Immigration 

CASANOVA, Mrs. Florence J., Brooklyn, 
N. Y. 

CASSAVETES, Nicholas J., New York, 
N. Y. 

CASSIDY, Florence G., Secretary, Mich- 
igan Displaced Persons Commission 
and Secretary, Nationality Depart- 
ment of United Community Services 

CASTEL, Rt. Rev. Msgr. William J., 
Director, Archdiocesan Resettlement 
Bureau of the Catholic Archdiocese 
of New Orleans, and member of the 
State Committee of Displaced Per- 
sons and the New Orleans Resettle- 
ment Committee, representing Rev. 
Albert D'Oiiando, Rev. Dana Dawson, 
Jr., Rev. W. D. Langry, Mrs. Moise W. 
Dennery, Clarence M. East, Jr. 

CELLER, Hon. Emanuel, a Representa- 
tive in Congress from the State of 
New York and Chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee 

CHALLGREN, Mrs. T., and Family, 
Buffalo, N. Y. 

CHALMERS, Paul, Professor and Ad- 
viser to Foreign Students at Massa- 
chusetts Institute of Technology and 
Past President, National Association 
of Foreign Student Advisers 

CHANDLER, Edgar H. S., Director, 
Field Operations for the Refugee 
Service for the World Council of 

CHERNE, Leo, Member of Board of 
Directors of the International Rescue 

CHRISTIANSON, Warren C, Secretary, 
Sitka Chamber of Commerce, Sitka, 

CHURCH, Edward J., Executive Secre- 
tary, Wayne County Council, Veter- 
ans of Foreign Wars of the United 

CIARROCCHI, Msgr. Joseph, Pastor, 
Italian Church of Santa Maria in De- 
troit and editor of the American- 
Italian Weekly La Voce del Popolo 

CLAGUE, Ewan, Commissioner of La- 
bor Statistics, U. S. Department of 

CLAPP, Eugene H., President, Penob- 
scot Chemical Fibre Co. 

CLIFTON, Albert G., Legislative Agent, 
Massachusetts State CIO Industrial 
Union Council 

COFFEY, Reid, United Automobile, Air- 
craft and Agricultural Implement 
Workers of America, C. I. O. 

COHEN, Frederick F. 

COHEN, Mrs. Martin M., Council of 
Jewish Women, Minneapolis Section 
and the Minneapolis Hadassah 

COHEN, Mrs. Morris, Atlanta, Ga. 

COLLINS, John, Assistant Regional Di- 
rector, (Boston) C. I. O. 

COMPTOX, Arthur H., Chancellor, 
Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. 

CONTO, Armando F., General Manager, 
Freez-King Corp. 

COOLIDGE, Hon. Charles A., Assistant 
Secretary of Defense 

COPE, Mrs. Alice, Vice Chairman Mas- 
sachusetts Displaced Persons Com- 
mission, and President of the Win- 
dow Shop 

CORSI, Hon. Edward, Industrial Com- 
missioner of the State of New York ; 
Chairman, New York State Displaced 
Persons Commission; and President, 
American Federation of International 

CORYELL, Charles DuBois, Secretary, 
Federation of American Scientists 

COUNCIL, Mary Lee, representing the 
Hon. E. L. Bartlett 

COUNTS, George S., Vice Chairman, 
Liberal Party of New York State, and 
Professor at Teachers College, Colum- 
bia University 

COWDRY, Mrs. E. V., the St. Louis 
Young Women's Christian Association 
and the Young Women's Christian As- 
sociation Public Affairs Committee of 

COX, Cordelia, Resettlement Executive, 
Resettlement Service of the National 
Lutheran Council 

CRAGUN, John W., Chairman, Admin- 
istrative Law Section, American Bar 

CROXIN, Rev. Bernard C, Director, 
Catholic Resettlement Committee, 
Archdiocese of San Francisco 

CRUZ, Mrs. Margaret, the Advisory 
Committee on Employment Problems 
of Latin Americans 

CUMNER, Genevieve, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

CURTIN, Anna Marie, Information Sec- 
retary, the Americanization League of 
Syracuse and Onondaga County, Inc. 

CURTIS, Edna C, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

CURTISS, Mrs. Charles R., Illinois 
State Regent, Daughters of the Ameri- 
can Revolution 

CUSHING, Archbishop Richard J., 
Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, repre- 
sented by Rev. Daniel McColgan 


D'AGOSTINO, Amerigo, Chairman, 
Committee on Congressional Trends, 
Association of Immigration and Na- 
tionality Lawyers, representing For- 
tune Pope 

D' ANTONIO, Guy J., former Chairman, 
Louisiana State Displaced Persons 

DALTON, Mrs. William H., President, 
National Council of Catholic Women 

DAVENPORT, Russel W., writer, 
former Editor of Fortune 

DAVIE, Maurice R., Professor of Soci- 
ology, Yale University 

DAVEY, Albert O., Jr., Vice President, 
Cleveland Federation of Labor, 
A. F. L., and Editor of The Cleveland 

DAVIS, Esther, Chairman, Displaced 
Persons Sub-committee of the Chicago 
Church World Service Committee 

DAVIS, Hon. James P., Director, Office 
of Territories, U. S. Department of 
the Interior 

DAVIS, Kenneth Culp, Minneapolis, 

DAWSON, Rev. Dana, Jr., Chairman, 
Department of Civil Affairs, New Or- 
leans Council of Churches, repre- 
sented by Rt. Rev. Msgr. William J. 

DAWSON, Rev. Joseph M., Baptist 
World Alliance 

De GRAZIA, Alfred, Associate Profes- 
sor of Political Science and Executive 
Officer, Committee for Research in 
Social Science at Stanford University 

De LACY, Hugh, National Vice Presi- 
dent, Progressive Party 

DEMOPULOUS, George K., the Order of 
the American Hellenic Educational 
Progressive Association 

DENNERY, Mrs. Moise, W., President, 
New Orleans Section, National Coun- 
cil of Jewish Women, represented by 
Rt. Rev. Msgr. William J. Castel 

De PASQUALE, Hon. Luigi, the Rhode 
Island Resettlement Council for Ital- 
ian Immigrants, also representing the 
Rev. Joseph J. Lamb 

DESPOL, John, Secretary-Treasurer of 
the California Council, CIO; Execu- 
tive Secretary, CIO California Indus- 
trial Union Council 

DEVER, Hon. Paul A., Governor of the 
State of Massachusetts, represented 
by Orville S. Poland 

DIAMOND, Charles N., the Order of 
American Hellenic Educational Pro- 
gressive Association in Michigan 

Di GIULIO, Palmer, Member, Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization Committee, 
Supreme Lodge, Order Sons of Italy in 

DILLON, Roy A., former Chairman of 
the Oklahoma Displaced Persons 
Commission ; representing the State 
Personnel Board of Oklahoma and 
the Council of Churches for the State 
of Oklahoma 

DIMITROV, G. M., Secretary General, 
International Peasant's Union 

DINGOL, Solomon, the Committee of 
Editors of American Foreign Lan- 
guage Newspapers 

DONOVAN, Rev. Walter J., Director of 
Resettlement, Catholic Diocese of 
Savannah-Atlanta, and also repre- 
sented by Rev. Robert H. Ayers 

D'ORLANDO, Rev. Albert, Minister of 
the First Unitarian Church, New 
Orleans, represented by Rt. Rev. 
Msgr. William J. Castel 

DOSS, Kathleen R., the Pan-Amerasian 
Co., Seattle, Wash. 

DOUGLAS, Mrs. George T., Chairman, 
International Club of the YWCA of 
Atlanta, represented by Rev. Herman 
L. Turner 

DOYLE, Rev. James E., Executive Di- 
rector, Catholic Resettlement Com- 
mittee of the Catholic Archdiocese of 

DOYLE, Msgr. Michael J., Catholic 
Diocese of Toledo, Catholic Charities 

DRAGICEVIC, Rev. Berto, Executive 
Director, Croatian Refugee Commit- 

DRAPER, Hon. William H., U. S., Spe- 
cial Representative in Europe, Mu- 
tual Security Agency 

DUBLIN, Louis I., Second Vice Presi- 
dent and the Statistician of the 
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., New 

DUDDE, Rev. John H., Pastor, St. 
Paul's Lutheran Church, Liverpool, 
N. Y. 

DULIN, Adolph, Chairman, Relief As- 
sociation for Germans of Prewar Po- 
land, of Detroit, Mich. 

DUMBAULD, Edward, Secretary, 
American Society of Industrial Law 

DURKEE, Harry D., representing the 
Lutheran Resettlement Service in 
San Francisco 

DYBOWSKI, Zygmunt B., President, 
Polish American Congress, Depart- 
ment of Ohio ; former State Adjutant, 
Polish Legion of American Veterans ; 
Editor of the Polish Daily News 

EASBY, Dudley Tate, Jr., Secretary, 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York City 

EAST, Clarence M. Jr., representing the 
Catholic Committee of the South, 
represented by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Wil- 
liam J. Castel 


EASTLUND, Lowell, Department of 
Minnesota Veterans of Foreign Wars 

EATON, Miss, Los Angeles, Calif., rep- 
resented by Mrs. Pearson Carmin 

EDSALL, John T., Chairman, Commit- 
tee on International Relations, Amer- 
ican Academy of Arts and Sciences 

EIDBO, Paul G., the Lutheran Resettle- 
ment Service of North Dakota 

ELLINGTON, E. V., Director of the 
Agricultural Extension Service, State 
College of Washington, represented 
by Walter Zuger 

ELLIOTT, Mrs. Harrison S., Young 
Women's Christian Association 

ELLIOTT, Roland, Director of Immi- 
gration Services, Department of 
Church World Service, National 
Council of Churches of Christ 

EMMET, Christopher, Executive Vice 
Chairman, Aid Refugee Chinese In- 
tellectuals, Inc. 

EMPIE, Paul O, Executive Director, 
National Lutheran Council 

ENGEL, Irving M., the American Jew- 
ish Committee and the Anti-Defama- 
tion League of B'nai B'rith 

ENNIS, Edward J., representing the 
American Civil Liberties Union 

ERICKSON, Mrs. Arthur O, Eveleth, 

FAIRFIELD, Rev. Wynn C, Executive 
Director, Department of Church 
World Service, National Council of 
Churches of Christ 

FALKENBERG, Charles V., Cook 
County Council of the American Le- 
gion, Department of Illinois 

FALLON, Joseph P., Jr., Fallon and 
Fallon, Attorneys, San Francisco 

FARNESE, Andrew N., the Italian 
American Committee for Better Gov- 
ernment of Philadelphia 

FELDMAN, Mrs. Walter, Atlanta, Ga. 

FELTZ, Mr. and Mrs. Harold, Williams- 
ville, N. Y. 

FERGUSON, John H., Cleveland, Ohio 

FERGUSSON, Margaret, Director of 
the International Institute of Cleve- 

FERRARI, Louis, American Commit- 
tee on Italian Migration, California 

FIELD, Mrs. Mildred J., North Holly- 
wood, Calif. 

FINE, Rabbi Alvin I., Board of Rabbis 
of Northern California 

FINK, Rev. Omar R., Jr., Athens, Ga., 
represented by Rev. Robert H. Ayers 

FINNEY, Gerald D., Assistant General 
Solicitor, Association of American 

FINUCANE, James, Associate Secre- 
tary of the National Council for the 
Prevention of War 

FITZGERALD, D. A., Associate Deputy 
Director of the MSA, representing 
Hon. W. Averell Harriman 

FITZGERALD, James E., the Chinese 
Consolidated Benevolent Association 
of New England, the Chinese Mer- 
chants Association, The Chinese Or- 
der of Freemasons, The Chinatown 
Post No. 328 American Legion, the 
Gee How Oak Tin Association of Bos- 
ton, the Wong Wun Sun Association 
of Boston, the Yee Moo Kai, Associa- 
tion of Boston, the Lee Lung Sai As- 
sociation of Boston 

FLEISHMAN, Alfred, the Jewish Com- 
munity Relations Council of St. 
Louis, the Jewish Community Rela- 
tions Bureau of Greater Kansas City, 
the St. Louis and Kansas City Sec- 
tions of the National Council of Jew- 
ish Women 

FLEWELLING, Rod, Montrose, Calif. 

FOLEY, Mrs. Alma, Minnesota Com- 
mittee for Protection of Foreign Born 

FOOTE, Rev. Arthur Unity Church 
(Unitarian), St. Paul, represented by 
Hubert Schon 

FORRO, Rev. Alpar, pastor, St. Em- 
eric's Catholic Church, Milwaukee, 

FOSTER, GEORGE T., Constitutional 

FOWELL, Myron W., Secretary, Massa- 
chusetts Congregational Conference 
and Missionary Society, Boston, 

FREEDHEIM, Eugene H., Co-Chair- 
man of the Legislative Committee of 
the Welfare Federation of Cleveland 

FRETZ, J. Winfield, the Mennonite Cen- 
tral Committee 

FRIEDRICH, Carl, Frofessor of Gov- 
ernment, Harvard University 

FRITCHMAN, Rev. Steven, the First 
Unitarian Church of Los Angeles 

FRUCHTBAUM, L. M., Director, Polit- 
ical Affairs, Freeland League for 
Jewish Territorial Colonization 

FUJII, Ryoichi, Editor, The Chicago 
Shimpo (The Chicago Japanese Amer- 
ican News) 

FULLER, Varden, Associate Professor 
of Agricultural Economics, Univer- 
sity of California, and former Execu- 
tive Secretary to the President's Com- 
mission on Migratory Labor 

FURCOLO, Hon. Foster, a Representa- 
tive in Congress from the State of 

FUZY, William A., the American Hun- 
garian Federation 

GADOWSKI, Mrs. Estelle, President, 
Polish Aid Society, Detroit, Mich. 

250653 0—53- 



GALLAN, Walter, Executive Director, 
United Ukranian American Relief 
Committee, Inc. 

GALLEN, Eduard D., Vice President, 
Latvian Relief, Inc. 

GARDESCU, Mrs. Pauline, Interna- 
tional Institute of Boston and Boston 
Chapter of the American Association 
of Social Workers 

GEISEMAN, O. A., Pastor, Grace 
Lutheran Church, River Forest, 111. 

GEURAS, Peter G., representing Costa 
Meliotis, and the Displaced Persons 
Committee of the Athens Chapter of 
the Order of American Hellenic Edu- 
cational Progressive Association 

GIAMBALVO, Peter C, National Chair- 
man of the Public Relations Commit- 
tee of the Independent Order Sons of 

GIBBONS, Edward H., Los Angeles 
Conference of Civic Organizations 

GIBBONS, Rev. William J., Informa- 
tion Officer and Member of the Ex- 
ecutive Committee, National Catholic 
Rural Life Conference 

GIBBS, J. Rice, Chairman Immigra- 
tion Committee, American Defense 
Society, Inc. 

GIBSON, Hon. Hugh, Director, Inter- 
governmental Committee for Euro- 
pean Migration 

GIBSON, Hon. John W., Former Chair- 
man, U. S. Displaced Persons Com- 
mission ; former Assistant Secretary 
of Labor 

GIGANTE, Nicola, Director, Michigan 
Chapter, American Committee on 
Italian Migration 

GILBREATH, Rev. J. Earl, Athens, Ga., 
represented by Rev. Robert H. Ayers 

GLOCKLE, Mrs. Louise S., Anchorage, 

GOLDSMITH, Samuel A., representing 
the Jewish Federation of Chicago and 
the Jewish Welfare Fund of Chicago 

GOMBOS, Zolten, Publisher of Szabad- 
zag, a Hungarian Daily, represented 
by Bela Nogradi 

GOODWIN, Robert C, Director, Bureau 
of Employment Security, U. S. De- 
partment of Labor, representing the 
Hon. Maurice J. Tobin 

GOUGH, Lewis K., National Com- 
mander, the American Legion 

GRABBE, Archpriest George, Chancel- 
lor to the Private and Bishops' Synod 
of the Russian Orthodox Church Out- 
side Russia, Inc. 

GRAHAM, Chester A., National Farm- 
ers Union and the North Dakota 
Farmers Union, Jamestown, N. Dak. 

GRANOVSKY, Alexander, Professor of 
Ethnology, University of Minnesota, 
representing the United Ukrainian 
American Resettlement Committee of 

GRANT, Edith, Buffalo, N. Y. 

GRECO, Madeline L., Administrative 
Assistant, American Service Institute 
of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania, representing also the 
American-Bulgarian League, Cath- 
olic Slovak Brotherhood, Council of 
Jewish Women, Croatian Fraternal 
Union, Federation of Jewish Philan- 
thropies and United Jewish Fund, 
Greater Beneficial Union of Pitts- 
burgh, Jewish Family and Children's 
Service, Lutheran Service Society, 
Serb National Federation Verhovay 
Association, and Jewish Community 
Relations Council 

GREEN, George, Director of the 
Citizens' Bureau of Cleveland 

GRIFFING, Col. Joel D., Chief 
Planning Officer of the Selective 
Service System, representing Major 
General Lewis B. Hershey 

GROSSMAN, Saul, Secretary, Mich- 
igan Committee for Protection of 
Foreign Born 

GROTEFEND, Rev. Oliver C, Pastor, 
Hope Lutheran Church, President of 
the Lutheran Resettlement Commis- 
sion, Ohio, representing also the 
Cleveland Church Federation and the 
Federation of Protestant Churches of 

GUARDENIER, Blanche O., Brooklyn, 
N. Y. 

GUARDENIER, Lucy H., Brooklyn, 
N. Y. 

GUARDENIER. Mrs. M. Theresa, East 
Springfield, N. Y. 

GUINS, George C, Professor of Politi- 
cal Science, University of Cali- 
fornia, representing the Lutheran Re- 
settlement Service in San Francisco 

GUPTA, Kamini K., Attorney, San 
Francisco, Calif. 

GUTTERMAN, Lester, the American 
Jewish Committee and the Anti-De- 
famation League of B'nai B'rith 

HABBERTON, CoL Benjamin G., Act- 
ing Commissioner of Immigration and 
Naturalization, representing Hon. 
Argyle R. Mackey 

HALL, Douglas. Hennepin County, 
Minn., CIO Industrial Union Council 

HALVORSON, Lloyd C, the National 

HAMILTON, John W., the Citizens' 
Protective Association of St. Louis 

HANDLIN, Oscar, Associate Professor 
of History at Harvard University 

HANSON, Mrs. Vera B., Cranston, R. I. 


HARBACH, Otto A., President, Amer- 
ican Society of Composers, Authors 
and Publishers 

HARBERGER, Arnold C, Professor of 
Economics, Johns Hopkins Univer- 
sity, and former staff member, Pres- 
ident's Materials Policy Commission 

HARD, Mrs. Straiton, National Defense 
Chairman, Atlanta Chapter, Daugh- 
ters of the American Revolution 

HARRIMAN, Hon. W. Averell, Director, 
Mutual Security Agency, represented 
by D. A. FitzGerald 

HARRIS, Mrs. Edna C, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

HARRIS, Helen M., Executive Director, 
United Neighborhood Houses of New 
York and member of the Board of 
Directors, National Federation of 
Settlements and Neighborhood Cen- 

HART, Henry M., Jr., Professor of Law, 
Harvard University, represented by 
Louis L. Jaffee 

HART, Merwin K, President, National 
Economic Council, Inc. 

HART. S. Willy, New York, N. Y. 

HASKINS, Kathryn E., Brooklyn, N. Y. 

HATCH, Sharon L., Executive Secre- 
tary, International Institute of Mil- 
waukee County, Inc. 

HAUSER, Philip M., Professor of Soci- 
ology, University of Chicago 

HAWLEY, Amos, Professor of Sociol- 
ogy, University of Michigan 

HAYAKAWA, S. I., Editor ETC: A Re- 
view of General Semantics 

HAYWOOD, Allan S., Executive Vice 
President, Congress of Industrial 
Organizations, representing Philip 

HEIMS, Edward H., former Chairman, 
Committee on Immigration, Immigra- 
tion Section, Commonwealth Club of 

HEINEMAN, Henry, Chicago Division 
of the American Civil Liberties Union 
and the American Jewish Committee 

HELLER, Leonard H., Refugee Service 
Committee of the Jewish Family Serv- 
ice of St. Paul, Minn. 

HENNING, Mrs. Iva R., State Defense 
Chairman of the Daughters of the 
American Revolution, San Francisco, 
representing the Legislative Commit- 

HENDERSON, Rev. Harold E., Exec- 
utive Secretary, Committee on Dis- 
placed Persons, Presbyterian Church 

HERBERLE, Rudolf, Professor of Soci- 
ology, Louisiana State University 

HERNE, Mrs. Elaine, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

HERSHEY, Major General Lewis B., 
Director of Selective Service, repre- 
sented by Col. Joel D. Griffing 

HERTER, Hon. Christian A., a Repre- 
sentative in Congress from the State 
of Massachusetts 

HERTOGS, Joseph S., San Francisco, 
Calif., Jackson and Hertogs, Attor- 

HOFFMAN, Bernard L., Commander, 
Department of Michigan, Jewish War 
Veterans of the United States of 
America, represented by Samuel J. 

HOFSTETTER, Patricia J., Southern 
California Women Lawyers 

HOLOCH, Robert F., Chairman, Na- 
tional Committee on Public Affairs, 
Steuben Society of America 

HOLTON, J. C, Assistant to the Com- 
missioner, Georgia State Department 
of Agriculture and Secretary of 
Georgia Displaced Persons Committee 

HONG, C. Y., President, Grand Lodge, 
Chinese American Citizens Alliance 

HONG, EDWARD, Chinese Consol- 
idated Benevolent Association of New 

HORTON, Mrs. Mildred McAfee, For- 
mer President of Wellesley College, 
member of the General Board of the 
National Council of Churches of 
Christ in the U. S. A. 

HOSKINS, Lewis M., the American 
Friends Service Committee, Inc. 

HOWARD, Donald S., Dean, School of 
Social Welfare, University of Cali- 

HOWELLS, John N. M., Chairman of 
the Liberal Citizens of Massachusetts 

HULCHIG, Kathleen, Secretary, League 
of Americans of Ukrainian Descent, 
Inc., Chicago Branch of United 
Ukrainian American Relief Commit- 
tee, Inc., and of the Ukrainian Con- 
gress Committee of America 

HUTCHINSON, Hon. Knox T., Assist- 
ant Secretary of Agriculture, repre- 
senting Hon. Charles F. Brannan 

HUTLER, Albert A., Chairman, Coor- 
dinating Committee for the Resettle- 
ment of Displaced Persons in San 

IHRIG, H. William, former President of 
the Steuben Society, in Milwaukee, 

ISHIMARU, Haruo, the Japanese- 
American Citizens League, Northern 
California Regional Office 

JACKSON, Z. B., San Francisco, Calif., 
Jackson and Hertogs, Attorneys 

JAFFE, Louis L., Professor of Ad- 
ministrative Law, Harvard Law 
School, Chairman of the Committee 
on Immigration of the Administrative 
Law Section of the American Bar 
Association ; also on behalf of Henry 
M. Hart, Jr. 

JAVITS, Hon. Jacob K., a Representa- 
tive in Congress from the State of 
New York 


JENNINGS, Rev. Dr. Ralph H., Exec- 
utive Secretary of the Synod of Mis- 
souri, Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., 
represented by Rev. Edward D. 

JERRY, Helen B., Immigrants Protec- 
tive League, Chicago 

JOCELYN, Mrs. Charles, East Spring- 
field, N. Y. 

JOFFE, Boris M., Chairman Pro-Tern, 
Michigan Committee on Immigration 

JOHNSON, Stanley L., Secretary-Treas- 
urer, Illinois State Federation of La- 
bor, A. F. L. 

JOHNSTON, Edgar L., Professor of 
Education, Wayne University, repre- 
senting the National Consumers 

JORY, Nicholas, the American-Hun- 
garian Federation 

KANE, Harry F., Riverside County, 
Calif., Council of the Independent 
Progressive Party 

KEIBLER, Mrs. Druzilla, Regional Sec- 
retary. Lutheran Welfare Council of 
Northern California 

KELLER, Alvin, Commander, Depart- 
ment of Michigan American Veterans 
of World War II, (AMVETS) repre- 
sented by Samuel J. Rhodes 

KELLY, Rev. William F., Director of 
the Social Action Department, Catho- 
lic Diocese of Brooklyn, N. Y. 

KENNEDY, Cleo J., and Frances Ken- 
nedy, Minneapolis, Minn. 

KENNEDY, Hon. John F., a Represen- 
tative in Congress from the State of 

KING, Mrs John, Fairfax, Va. 

KIRKPATRICK, Rev. Dow, Athens, 
Ga., represented by Rev. Robert H. 

KIST, Rev. Andrew, Pastor, St. George's 
Greek Orthodox Ukrainian Church 
of Minneapolis 

KITAGAWA, Daisuke, Rev., Adviser to 
local chapter, Japanese-American 
Citizens League 

KIVIRANNA, Rev. Rudolf, President, 
Estonian Relief Committee, Inc. 

KLECKLEY, Rev. H. D., Chairman, 
G e o r g i a-Alabama Committee, Na- 
tional Lutheran Council 

KLEVIN, Bernhardt J., Professor of 
Social Sciences, Ausburg College, 
Minneapolis, Minn. 

KLIMEK, Adolph, Chairman of the So- 
cial Aid Committee of the Council of 
Free Czechoslovakia 

KLINE, A. B., President, American 
Farm Bureau Federation 

KOVARSKY, Marcel, Executive Direc- 
tor, Jewish Family and Children's 
Service, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

KOVRAK, Stephen J., Polish American 
Congress, Inc., (Eastern Division), 
American Relief for Poland (Phila- 
delphia Division) Polish American 
Citizens' League of Pennsylvania 

KRAMER, Rabbi Simon G., President 
of the Synagogue Council of America, 
and President of the National Com- 
munity Relations Advisory Council 

KRAWCZAK, Rev. Arthur H., Director, 
Detroit Catholic Archdiocesan Re- 
settlement Committee for Displaced 

KREBS, Alfred U., Counsel for the Na- 
tional Federation of American Ship- 
ping, Inc., and also representing the 
American Merchant Marine Institute 

KRIPPNER, Jeanette F., Secretary, Ex- 
ecutive Board of the National Alli- 
ance of Czech Catholics 

KRIZKA, Rev. Martin A., Chaplain, 
Executive Board of the National Al- 
liance of Czech Catholics 

KURAC, Frank, Los Angeles, Calif. 

KUBE, Ella, Los Angeles County Con- 
ference on Community Relations 

KUECHLE, Rev. George, Pastor, St. 
Mark's Missouri Lutheran Church, 
representing the Cleveland Church 
Federation and the Federation of 
Protestant Churches of Cleveland 

KUNTZ, Rev. Werner, Director, Lu- 
theran Service to Refugees of Detroit, 

KURTH, Mrs. Anne, Chairman, Social 
Action Committee, Detroit Archdio- 
cesan Council of Catholic Women 

KUSHIDA, Tata, Regional Director, 
Japanese-American Citizens League 

KUTRUBES, Prakos P., Boston, Mass. 

LADAR, Samuel A., Jewish Community 
Relations' Council of San Francisco ; 
Jewish Welfare Federation of Oak- 
land, including the Oakland Com- 
munity Relations Council and the 
Oakland Welfare Fund; Hebrew Im- 
migrant Aid Society, San Francisco 
Branch ; San Francisco Committee 
for Service to Emigres ; Jewish Wel- 
fare Fund of San Francisco; Anti- 
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 
Regional Office ; San Francisco Chap- 
ter, American Jewish Committee; 
Federation of Jewish Charities of 
San Francisco 

LAGODZINSKI, Mrs. Adele, President, 
Polish Women's' Alliance of America 
and Secretary, Polish-American War 

LAMB, Rev. Joseph J., Director, Dio- 
cesan Bureau of Social Service, Inc., 
of the Catholic Dioces of Providence, 
represented by Hon. Luigi De- 

LAMOXT, Corliss, New York, N. Y. 

LANE, Mrs. Charles N., Brooklyn, N. Y. 


LANGTRY, Rev. W. D., President, New 
Orleans Ministerial Union, repre- 
sented by Rt. Rev. Msgr. William J. 
LANI, Rev. Mathias, Catholic Resettle- 
ment Committee of the Archdiocese of 
Los Angeles 
LARKIN, Rev. William B., Resettle- 
ment, Director, Catholic Diocese of 

LATIMER, Ira H., Chicago Civil Liber- 
ties Committee 

LATOURETTE, K. S., Professor of Mis- 
sions and Oriental History, Yale Uni- 

LEDBETTER, Rev. Theodore S., New 
Haven Jewish Community Council ; 
the New Haven Council of Protestant 
Churches ; the Italian Newspaper, 
Neiv Haven; Medillo-Faugno Post, 
of the Italian-American War Veter- 
ans; and the New Haven Branch of 
the National Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Colored People 

LEE, Mrs. C. A., Regent, Wadsworth 
Trail Chapter, Daughters of the 
American Revolution, Morris', Minn. 

LEE, Lim P., Judge Advocate, Cathay 
Post 384, American Legion of Cali- 

LEETCH, Mrs. W. D., Chairman of 
Legislation, National Society of New 
England Women; the National So- 
ciety, Women Descendants of the An- 
cient and Honorable Artillery Com- 
pany ; and the Women's Patriotic 
Conference on National Defense 

LEHMAN, Hon. Herbert H., a Senator 
in Congress from the State of New 

LELAND, Wilfred C, Jr., the Legisla- 
tive Committee, Minnesota State Con- 
ference of the National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored 

LENOW, John, Vice President, Latvian 
Belief, Inc. 

LEVAN, Louis 1 A., Senior Vice Chair- 
man, Wayne County Council, Veter- 
ans of Foreign Wars of the United 

LEVIN, Samuel, the Amalgamated 
Clothing Workers of America 

LEVINTHAL, Louis E., Hebrew Shel- 
tering and Immigrant Aid Society, 
the United Service for New Ameri- 
cans and the National Council of 
Jewish Women 

LEWIS, Edward R., Winnetka, 111. 

LEWIS, Mrs. Helen A., President, Chi- 
cago Council of Emma Lazarus Clubs 

LEWIS, Joe O, California Farm Re- 
search and Legislative Committee, 
Santa Clara, Calif. 

LEWIS, Read, Executive Director of 
the Common Council for American 

LIEBERMAN, Jacob J., Community 
Relations Committee of the Los An- 
geles Jewish Community Council 

LIGUTTI, Rt. Rev. Msgr. L. G. Execu- 
tive Director National Catholic Rural 
Life Conference 

LIXDER, Hon. Tom, Commissioner of 
Department of Agriculture, State of 

LIU, Mrs. H. H. Chiu, represented by 
Rev. Herman L. Turner 

LIVELY, C. E., representing C. T. 

LODGE, Hon. Henry Cabot, a Senator 
in the United States Senate from the 
State of Massachusetts 

LONGARINI, G. N., Publisher of the 
Italian Daily Newspaper of Boston 

LOWETH, Mrs. Alice F., Co-Chairman 
Department of Christian World Rela- 
tions, Cleveland Council of Church 
Women, representing the Cleveland 
Church Federation and the Federa- 
tion of Protestant Churches of Cleve- 

LUCAS, Charles P., Executive Secre- 
tary, Cleveland Branch, National 
Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People 

LUDERMAN, Florence I., Brooklyn, 
N. Y. 

LUSCOMB, Mrs. Florence H., State 
Chairman of the Progressive Party 
of Massachusetts 

LYNCH, Rt. Rev. Msgr., James J., Di- 
rector, Catholic Charities, Archdio- 
cese of New York 

MacDONALD, Alexander S. and Kath- 
erine, Los Angeles, Calif. 

MACKEY, Hon. Argyle R., U. S. Com- 
missioner of Immigration and Natu- 
ralization, represented by Col. Benja- 
min G. Habberton 

MAGLI, Vito, New York, N. Y. 

MALES, William, Administrative As- 
sistant, Hebrew Sheltering and Im- 
migrant Aid Society 

MARCHISIO, Hon, Juvenal, National 
Chairman, American Committee on 
Italian Migration ; Justice of the 
Domestic Relations Court of the City 
of New York 

MARGAINE, Delia G., Southern Cali- 
fornia Women Lawyers 

MARKEL, Michael F., Legal Adviser, 
Resettlement Service, National Luth- 
eran Council. 

MARTEL, Frank X., President, Detroit 
and Wayne County Federation of 
Labor, A. F. L. 

MARTZ, J. E., President, Kodiak Cham- 
ber of Commerce, Kodiak, Alaska. 



MASINO, Filindo B., President of the 
Association of Immigration and Na- 
tionality Lawyers 

MASLOW, Will, Director, American 
Jewish Congress, Commission on Law 
and Social Action 

MASUR, Jack, M. D., Assistant Surgeon 
General, Chief, Bureau of Medical 
Services, U. S. Public Health Service, 
Federal Security Agency 

MATTHEWS, S. C, the San Diego 
County Farm Bureau 

MAYCOCK, Welburn, the American 
President Lines, Ltd. 

MAYER, R. E., President, Pacific 
American Steamship Association 

McCLOSKEY, Stephen E., representing 
Earl McMann 

McCOLGAN, Rev. Daniel, representing 
His Excellency the Most Reverend 
Richard J. Cushing 

McDONALD, Mrs. Clara, President, 
United Patriotic People of the United 
States of America 

McDONOUGH, Rev. John J., Assistant 
Pastor of the Cathedral of Christ the 

McGRANERY, Hon. James P., Attorney 
General of the United States 

McHENRY, Dean E., Los Angeles, Calif. 

McINTYRE, Most Rev. J. Francis A., 
Archbishop of Los Angeles, repre- 
sented by Rt. Rev. Raymond O'Flah- 

McKAY, Robert B., Associate Professor 
of Law, Emory University 

McMANN, Earl, President of the Boston 
Central Labor Union, A. F. L., repre- 
sented by Stephen E. MeCloskey 

McMURRAY, Lloyd E., International 
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's 
Union and the National Union of Ma- 
rine Cooks and Stewards 

MEAD, Margaret, Associate Curator 
American Museum of Natural His- 

MEINZEN, L. W., President of the 
Board, Lutheran Resettlement Serv- 
ice in San Francisco 

MELIOTIS, Costa, President, Greek 
Orthodox Cathedral of Boston, rep- 
resented by Peter G. Geuras 

MENSALVAS, Chris, International 
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's 
Union and the National Union of 
Marine Cooks and Stewards 

MEYER, Edward L., Chairman of the 
Americanism Committee, Native Sons 
of the Golden West 

MEYERHOFF, Howard A., Administra- 
tive Secretary, American Association 
for the Advancement of Science 

MICHELS, Ruth, Virginia, Minn. 


MIHANOVICH, Clement Simon, Direc- 
tor, Department of Sociology, St. 
Louis University, representing also 
The Very Rev. Paul C. Reinert 

MIKOLAJCZYK, Stanislaw, President, 
International Peasant's Union 

MILLER, Alexander F., Southern Di- 
rector, Anti-Defamation League of 
B'nai B'rith 

MILLER, Mrs. Benjamin, President, 
Women for Legislative Action 

MILLER, Rev. Elwin A., Executive Di- 
rector, Lutheran Service Societies of 
Western Pennsylvania 

MILLER, Mrs. liner Spann, Atlanta, 

MILLER, J. W., Los Angeles, Calif. 

MILLER, Rev. Payson, Secretary, In- 
ternational Relations Committee, 
Connecticut Council of Churches 

MING, Floyd, National Commander, 
Disabled American Veterans 

MINKUNAS, Peter, Executive Director, 
United Lithuanian Relief Fund of 
America. Inc. 

MITCHELL, H. L., President, National 
Agricultural Workers Union, A. F. L. 

MOE, Ht-nry Allen, Secretary-General of 
the Guggenheim Foundation 

MOHAN, Msgr. Frederick G., Catholic 
I>ioeese of Cleveland, Catholic Re- 
settlement Council 

MOHLER, Bruce M.. Director, Bureau 
of Immigration, National Catholic 
Welfare Conference 

MONTGOMERY, Donald, representing 
Walter Reuther 

MONTZOROS, Peter N., 13th American 
Hellenic Educational Progressive As- 
sociation District comprising the 
States of Illinois, Wisconsin and Mis- 

MOODY. Hon. Blair, a Senator in Con- 
gress from the State of Michigan 

MOORE, Forrest G., Foreign Student 
Adviser, Universitv of Minnesota 

MOORE, Mrs. Inez E., Valdez, Alaska 

MOORE, Oran T., President of the 
Board of Directors, International In- 
stitute of Metropolitan Detroit 

MOORE, Stuart, International Institute 
of St. Louis 

MORRISSETT, Irving, Chairman, 
Friends Committee on Legislation of 
Northern California 

MOSCONE, Fred J., Boston, Massachu- 

MOSLEY, Phillip Edward, Professor in 
the Department of Public Law and 
Government at Columbia University ; 
Member of Russian Institute of Co- 
lumbia University; and President, 
East European Fund, Inc. 

MOY, Gilbert B., Executive Secretary, 
Chinese Consolidated Benevolent As- 
sociation of New York 


MURPHY, Florence, Cooperstown, N. Y. 

MURPHY, George B., Jr., Co-Chairman, 
American Committee for Protection of 
Foreign Born 

MURPHY, Mrs. Ruth Z., Executive 
Vice-President, National Council on 
Naturalization and Citizenship 

MURRAY, Philip, President, C. I. O., 
represented by Allan S. Haywood 

MUSSELMAN, Rev. G. Paul, Executive 
Director, Department of Christian 
Social Relations of the Protestant 
Episcopal Diocese of Michigan 

MYLONAS, James C, Representative of 
the Supreme Lodge, Order of Ameri- 
can Hellenic Educational Progressive 

NADICH, Rabbi Judah, Jewish Com- 
munity Council of Metropolitan Bos- 
ton ; the Boston Chapter of the Ameri- 
can Jewish Committee ; New England 
Region, American Jewish Congress; 
New England Region, Anti-Defama- 
tion League of B'nai B'rith ; Hebrew 
Immigration Aid Society ; Boston Sec- 
tion, Jewish Labor Committee ; Dept. 
of Mass., Jewish War Veterans ; 
Bridgeport, Conn., Jewish Commu- 
nity Council; Conn. Jewish Commu- 
nity Relations Council; Hartford, 
Conn., Jewish Federation; and the 
New Haven, Conn., Jewish Com- 
munity Council 

NAGY, Rev. Paul, Pastor of the Free 
Hungarian Reformed Church in 

NAHURSKI, Francis J., District No. 10, 
American Relief for Poland 

NAIRN, J. L., McAllen, Tex. 

NALL, T. Otto, Editor, the Christian 
Advocate, Chicago 

NAMASKY, Mrs. Adolph J., Chairman 
of Chapter 17 of the Lithuanian Re- 
lief Fund 

NASH, Mrs. Herbert G., New York State 
Organization, National Society of the 
Daughters of the American Revolu- 

vard Law School Chapter 

NELSON, Rev. Kenneth E., Executive 
Secretary, Department of Christian 
Social Relations, Protestant Epis- 
copal Diocese of California 

NERVIG, Rev. Caspar B., Pastor, First 
Lutheran Church of Williston, N. 

NEWBOLD, Ruth H., Clinton, Conn. 

NEWHALL, Mrs. W. B., Minneapolis, 

NEWTON, Elsie D., Executive Secre- 
tary, International Institute of Los 

NEWTON, Mrs. Walter S., Brooklyn, 

N. Y. 

NICHOLS, F. W., Acting Director of 
Social Welfare, State of Minnesota 

NICHOLSON, P. G., Detroit, Mich. 

NICOLI, Leon, President, Federation 
of Russian Organizations of the 
United States, representing Federa- 
tion of Russian Charitable Organiza- 
tions of the United States 

NOAKES, Frank L., Director of Re- 
search, Brotherhood of Maintenance 
of Way Employees and the Railway 
Labor Executives Association 

NOGRADI, Bela, Editor, representing 
Zolten Gombos 


NORRIS, James J., War Relief Serv- 
ices, National Catholic Welfare Con- 

NOTE STEIN, Frank W., Director, 
Office of Population Research and 
Professor of Demography, Princeton 

OBRADOVICH, Milan, Displaced Per- 
sons Committee, Serbian-American 
Orthodox Church 

O'CONNOR, Alice W., Secretary, 
Massachusetts Displaced Persons 

O'CONNOR, Hon. Edward M., Consult- 
ant to the Psychological Strategy 
Board, and Former Commissioner, 
U. S. Displaced Persons Commission 

O'DWYER, Rev. Thomas, Catholic Re- 
settlement Committee of the Arch- 
diocese of Los Angeles 

O'FLAHERTY, Rt. Rev. Raymond, Di- 
rector of Catholic Charities of the 
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, repre- 
senting the Most Reverend J. Francis 
A. Mclntyre 

OHMER, Earl N., President, Peters- 
burg Chamber of Commerce, Peters- 
burg, Alaska 

OKAL, Jan, Editor, The Slovak Amer- 

OLSON, Rev. Carl, Church of the Re- 
deemer (Universalist), Minneapolis, 
represented by Hubert Schon 

O'NEILL, Charles A., Executive Secre- 
tary, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 
Acting Catholic Archdiocesan Re- 
settlement Director of Milwaukee 

O'ROURKE, Rev. Edward W., Dis- 
placed Persons Resettlement, Catho- 
lic Diocese of Peoria, 111. 

OSBORN, Gardner, President, Ameri- 
can Coalition 

OSBORNE, W. Terry, Associate Gen- 
eral Secretary, Cleveland, YMCA, 
Cleveland Church Federation and 
the Federation of Protestant 
Churches of Cleveland 


OSSANA, Fred A., President, Twin 
Cities Rapid Transit Company, 
American Committee for Italian 
Migration, Hopkins, Minn. 

PAINTER, Sidney, Professor of His- 
tory, Johns Hopkins University; Of- 
ficer and Director of the American 
Council of Learned Societies 

PANCHUK, John, Chairman, Michigan 
Commission on Displaced Persons, 
United Ukrainian American Relief, 
Inc., and the Ukrainian Federation of 

PANUNZIO, Constantine, Professor 
Emeritus of Sociology, University of 
California, Los Angeles, California 

PAPP, Sandor D., M. D., Joplin, Mo. 

PARRY, Dimitri, the Order of Amer- 
ican Hellenic Educational Progres- 
sive Association of Chicago 

PARTRIDGE, Grace, Northern Cali- 
fornia Committee of the American 
Committee for Protection of the For- 
eign Born 

PASCU, Rev. Danila, Pastor, the Ro- 
manian Baptist Church, Cleveland, 

PASTORE, Hon. John O., a Senator in 
Congress from the State of Rhode 

tional Deputy, Supreme Lodge, the 
Order of Sons of Italy in America 

PERSICHETTI, Albert J., Italian 
American Committee for Better Gov- 
ernment of Philadelphia 

PESCH, Nicholas, President, American 
Aid Societies 

State Council of Churches and the 
Methodist Committee for Overseas 
Relief, Church World Service 

PETLUCK, Ann S., Assistant Executive 
Director of United Service for New 

PEYOVICH, Louis M., Secretary, Ser- 
bian National Defense Council of 

PIHLBLAD, C. T., Professor of Soci- 
ology, University of Missouri, repre- 
sented by C. E. Lively 

PILIEN, Vincent, International Long- 
shoremen's and Warehousemen's 
Union and the National Union of Ma- 
rine Cooks and Stewards 

PINGHAM, Charles A., representing 
Rev. Abbott Book 

PIONEER WOMEN, Yoma Club, Los 
Angeles, Calif. 

PISCITNEETI, Dominic J., Westbury, 
N. Y. 

PLAUT, Rabbi Gunther, Minnesota 
Jewish Council 

PLATEK, V. S., President of the Na- 
tional Slovak Society of the U. S. A. 

PLUSDRAK, Edward E., Polish Amer- 
ican Congress, Illinois Division, and 
American Committee for Resettle- 
ment of Polish D. P.'s 

POLAND, Orville S., representing Hon. 
Paul A. Dever 

POLITO, Anthony V., Hollis, New York 

POLLOCK, Robert A., Junior Order of 
United American Mechanics 

POLOS, George A., the Order of Amer- 
ican Hellenic Educational Progres- 
sive Association 

PONOFIDINE, Mrs. Elizabeth G., the 
International Institute of Buffalo ; 
Board of Community Relations of the 
City of Buffalo, Council of Social 
Agencies ; Diocesan Resettlement 
Committee of Catholic Charities; 
Labor Committee to Combat Intol- 
erance ; Anti-Defamation League ; 
Council of Churches ; Jewish Federa- 
tion for Social Service, Buffalo, New 

POPE, Fortune, Editor and Publisher 
of II Progresso Italo- Americano, rep- 
resented by Amerigo D'Agostino 

PORTER, Everette M., Chairman, Legal 
Redress Committee, Los Angeles 
Branch of the National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored 

I'OSNER, Charles, Council of Churches 
of Greater Cincinnati, the Catholic 
Charities of the Archdiocese of Cin- 
cinnati, the Citizenship Council of 
Cincinnati, and Jewish Community 
Relations Council of Cincinnati 

POTJE, Nicholas, American Aid Society 
of St. Louis 

QUELLETTE, Mrs. Sophie, Receiving 
Secretary, Woman's Polish-American 
Citizens Club, Salem, Mass. 

QUOCK, P. C, President, Chinese 
Chamber of Commerce, San Fran- 
cisco, Calif. 

RAFFERTY, John J., Executive Secre- 
tary, New Jersey State Legislative 
Council of the Catholic Archdiocese 
of Newark 

RAHN, Rev. Sheldon, Director, Social 
Service Department, Detroit Council 
of Churches 

RAMEL, Hubert M., Vice-President, 
Ramsey Corporation ; Member, Exe- 
cutive Board of the National Metal 
Trades ; the National Association of 
Manufactures; St. Louis Chamber of 
Commerce ; Associated Industries of 
Missouri ; and industry member of 
the Regional Labor Management 
Committee of Kansas City, Mo. 

RAUN, James J., Dean of Northwestern 
Lutheran Theological Seminary, rep- 
resenting the Lutheran Resettlement 
Committee of Minnesota 


RAVA, Paul B., Italian Club, Columbian 
Society and Italia War Veterans of 
St. Louis 

RAWLINS, Mrs. Maude, Brooklyn, 
N. Y. 

REAGAN, Mary G., Coca Cola-Export 
Corporation in New York 

REGALBUTO, Samuel B., Italian 
American Committee for Better Gov- 
ernment of Philadelphia 

REINERT, The Very Rev. Paul C, 
President St. Louis University, rep- 
resented by Clement Simon Mihan- 

REISSIG, Rev. Fred E., Executive Sec- 
retary, Washington Federation of 

REUTHER, Walter, President, United 
Automobile Workers, C. I. O., repre- 
sented by Donald Montgomery 

REYNOLDS, Boyd H., Attorney, Los 
Angeles, Calif. 

REYNOLDS, Mrs. Bruce, Chairman of 
the National Defense Committee of 
the National Society, Daughters of 
the American Revolution 

RHEINSTEIN, Max, Professor of Law, 
University of Chicago and Member of 
Board of Directors of the Immi- 
grant's Protective League 

RHODES, Janet R., Valley Stream. 
N. Y. 

RHODES, Samuel J., representing 
Nicholas J. Wagener, Alvin Keller, 
and Bernard L. Hoffman 

RICH, Mrs. Kenneth F., Director, Im- 
migrants Protective League 

RICH, Marvin, the Teamsters and 
Chauffeurs Local 688, A. F. L. 

RITTER, Most Rev. Joseph E., Catholic 
Archbishop of St. Louis, represented 
by Rev. Victor T. Suren 

ROBERTS, Hon. Dennis J., Governor of 
the State of Rhode Island 

ROCKMORE, Abraham, Counsel, He- 
brew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid 

ROE, Mrs. J. Frederick, New York State 
Organization, National Society of the 
Daughters of the American Revolu- 
tion, and the New York City Colony, 
National Society of New England 

ROGERS, Elmer E., Washington, D. C. 

ROGERS, William F., Jr., San Diego 
County Farm Bureau 

ROSIN, David I., Michigan Committee 
on Immigration 

ROSKILLY, Millicent J., Lutheran Re- 
settlement Committee of Minnesota 

ROSS, Fred W., Executive Director of 
the California Federation for Civic 

ROZMAREK, Charles, President, Polish 
American Congress, Printers and 
Publishers, Inc., which publishes the 

Polish Daily Scholar, and Scholar, 
and President of the Polish National 

RUDAVSKY, Rabbi Joseph, Athens, 
Ga., represented by Rev. Robert H. 

RUGETI, Mrs. Dan, Pacific Southwest 
Branch, National Women's League of 
the United Synagogue of America 

RUSSELL, Rev. Fred A., Church of the 
Redeemer (Universalist), Minneapo- 
lis, represented by Hubert Schon 

RUSSELL, Marcia, Minneapolis, Minn. 

SANDROW, Rabbi Edward T., Presi- 
dent, South Shore Jewish Community 
Council, Cedarhurst, N. Y. 

SANOCKI, Mrs. Estelle, Co-Chairman, 
Immigration Committee of the Polish 
Aid Society, Detroit, Mich. 

SARAFF, Sylvia, Beverly Hills Chapter 
of Hadassah 

SAROYAN, Suren M., Vice President, 
American National Committee to Aid 
Homeless Armenians 

SAY, Joseph, Joplin, Mo. 

SAYRE, The Very Rev. Francis B., 
Jr., Dean, Washington Cathedral 

SCALA, Luigi, Grand Venerable of the 
Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, Order 
Sons of Italy in America ; President, 
Columbus National Bank of Provi- 
dence (R. I.) 

SCHMEICKEL, Mrs. Rudy, Secretary, 
Dr. Samuel Presco II Chapter, Na- 
tional Society of the Daughters of 
the American Revolution 

SCHON, Hubert, Executive Director, 
United Labor Committee of Minne- 
sota for Human Rights ; representing 
Rev. Arthur Foote, Rev. Carl A. 
Storm, Rev. Carl Olson and Rev. Fred 
A. Russell, and the Minnesota State 
C. I. O. Council 

SCHREDDER, Mrs. Helen, Los Angeles, 

SCHROEDER, Oliver, Assistant Pro- 
fessor, Western Reserve University, 
representing the Federation of Protes- 
tant Churches of Cleveland and the 
Cleveland Church Federation 

SCHROEDER, Mrs. Zaio Woodford, 
General Federation of Women's 
Clubs, International Affairs Depart- 

SCHULTZ, Frank, CIO United Pack- 
inghouse Workers of America, repre- 
sented also by Rev. William J. Camp- 

SCHULTZ, Mrs. Grace, Los Angeles, 

SEBBA, Gregur, Professor at the 
University of Georgia 

SEGAL, Louis, General Secretary, Far- 
band Labor Zionist Order 


SENTNER, William, Antonia Sentner 
Defense Committee of District 8, 
United Electrical Radio and Machine 
Workers of America 

SEYMOUR, Mrs. B. A., Member, Michi- 
gan Commission on Displaced Persons 

SHEFFIELD, John F., Confederation of 
Mexican Chambers of Commerce of 
the United States of America 

SHELLHORN, Mrs. Arthur L., Na- 
tional Defense Committee, California 
Society of the Daughters of the Amer- 
ican Revolution 

SHILS, Edward A., Professor of Social 
Sciences, University of Chicago 

SHISHKIN, Boris, American Feder- 
ation of Labor 

SHRYOCK, Henry S., Jr., Assistant 
Chief, Population and Housing Divi- 
sion, U. S. Bureau of the Census 

SHUSTER, George N., President, Hun- 
ter College, New York, and former 
Land Commissioner for Bavaria, 

SICKELS, Mrs. Alice L., Executive Di- 
rector, International Institute of Met- 
ropolitan Detroit 

SIENIEWICS, Konrad, Secretary-Gen- 
eral, Christian Democratic Union of 
Central Europe 

SILVER, Rabbi Abba Hillel, Jewish 
Community Federation of Cleveland 
and Organized Jewish Communities 
of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Akron, Toledo, 
and Cincinnati 

SILVER, Harold, Executive Director, 
Resettlement Service of Detroit 

SIMON, Emily Parker, Chairman, Pol- 
icy Committee, Women's Interna- 
tional League for Peace and Free- 

SIMONET, Earl, Manhattan Beach, 

SING, Jack Wong, Chinese Consolidated 
Benevolent Association and Chinese 
Chamber of Commerce of San Fran- 

SISSON, Rev. Rembert, District Super- 
intendent of the Methodist Church of 
the Atlanta District 

SKELLEY, Francis D., National 1st 
Vice Commander and Director of the 
National Americanism Program of 
the Catholic War Veterans of the 
U. S. A. 

SKEMP, Archie A., M. D., La Crosse, 

SKINNER, Frances E., Executive Di- 
rector, International Institute of 
Duluth, Minnesota 

SKUTECKI, Joseph W., President, Po- 
lish American Congress, Inc., Division 
of Michigan 

SLAYMAN, Charles H., Jr., Executive 
Director, American Veterans Commit- 

SMICK, A. A., Chairman, Washington 
State Displaced Persons Commission 
represented by Walter Zuger 

SMITH, Cyril Stanley, Professor of 
Metallurgy and Director of the Insti- 
tute for the Study of Metals, Univer- 
sity of Chicago 

SMITH, Rev. Frederick A., Executive 
Secretary, Lutheran Welfare Council 
of Southern California 

SMITH, Hazel L., Secretary, Kodiak 
Chamber of Commerce, Kodiak, 

SMITH, Mrs. Howard M., State Regent, 
Minnesota Daughters of the American 

SMITH, Louise Pettibone, American 
Committee for Protection of Foreign 
Born, Mass. Chapter 

SMOOK, Roman I., Vice President, 
United Ukrainian American Relief 
Committee and Member of League of 
Americans of Ukrainian Descent 

SMYKOWSKI, B. L., M. D., Bridgeport, 

SNOW, Chester R., Ketchikan, Alaska 

SNYDER, William T., Mennonite Cen- 
tral Committee 

SOBOCINSKI, Raymond Z., Secretary, 
Polish-American Citizens Club, Salem, 

SOBOLEWSKI, Jury, Delegate, Central 
Council of the Byelorussian Demo- 
cratic Republic 

SPAULDING, Mrs. C. W., Owatonna 
Chapter, Minnesota Daughters of the 
American Revolution 

SPERO, Sterling D., Member of Board 
of Directors of the International 
Rescue Committee 

SPIEGLER, Louis E., Jewish War Vet- 
erans of the U. S. A. 

SPONSELLER, Sam, Regional Director 
of C. I. O. 

STANCZYK, Benjamin C, President, 
Central Citizens Committee of De- 
troit, Mich. 

STANTON, Irwin S., Atlanta, Ga. 

STEFANSKI, Adam F., President, Pol- 
ish-American Citizens Club, Salem, 

STEINBERG, I. N., Secretary General, 
Freel and League for Jewish Terri- 
torial Colonization 

STEINFIRST, Donald S., Chairman of 
the Joint Committee on Service to 
New Americans, of Allegheny County 

STEINWITZ, Martha A., Executive 
Secretary of the Board of Directors, 
International Institute, St. Paul, 

STERN, Hon. Robert L., Acting Solici- 
tor General of the United States 

STERNE, Mrs. I. F., President, Atlanta 
Federation for Jewish Social Service 

STIBRAN, Mrs. Theresa A., American- 
Hvngarian Catholic Newspaper 


STORM, Rev. Carl A., The First Unitar- 
ian Society of Minneapolis, repre- 
sented by Hubert Schon 

STRAUS, Anna Lord, Past National 
President, League of Women's Voters 

SUCHMAN, Mrs. Edward, Los Angeles, 

SUREN, Rev. Victor T., Catholic Dioce- 
san Director, St. Louis Resettlement 
Committee for Displaced Persons, rep- 
resenting also the Most Rev. Joseph 
E. Ritter 

SWANSTROM, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Edward 
E., Executive Director, War Relief 
Services, National Catholic Welfare 

SWINGLE, William S., President, Na- 
tional Foreign Trade Council, Inc. 

SWIREN, Max, Chicago Rabbinical 
Association, Chicago, Rabbinical 
Council, Rabbinical Assembly, Amer- 
ican Jewish Congress, Anti-Defama- 
tion League of B'nai B'rith, Hebrew 
Immigrant Aid Society, Jewish Labor 
Committee, Jewish War Veterans, 
Decalogue Society of Lawyers, Far- 
band Labor Zionist Order, Federation 
of Jewish Trade Unions, Hadassah, 
Hapoel Hamizrachi, Hebrew Theolog- 
ical College, Labor Zionist Organiza- 
tion, Mizrachi, Mizrachi Women's 
Organization, National Council of 
Jewish Women, Pioneer Women, 
Union of American Hebrew Congrega- 
tions, United Synagogue, Workmen's 
Circle, Zionist Organization. 

SZUL, Wladyslaw, Chairman of the 
Polish Ex-Servicemen's Association 
for Emigration to the U. S. A. — in 
Great Britain 

TAKACS, Father Gabor, Chief Editor of 
the Hungarian Catholic Sunday 

TANNER, Eloise, M., Executive Secre- 
tary. International Institute of Flint, 

TAYLOR, Lea D., Head Resident, 
Chicago Commons Association ; Past 
President, National Federation of 

THIERMANN. Stephen, Executive Sec- 
retary, San Francisco Regional Office 
of the American Friends Service 

THOMAS, Richard M., Regional Chair- 
man, World Student Service Fund 

THROOP, Allen E., Chairman, Commit- 
tee on Administrative Law, the Asso- 
ciation of the Bar of the Citv of N. Y. 

TIPTON, Stuart G., General* Counsel. 
Air Transport Association of America 

TOBIN, Hon. Maurice J., Secretary of 
Labor of the U. S., represented by 
Robert C. Goodwin 

TOCCO, Horatio, American Committee 
on Italian Migration and the Civic 
League of Italian Americans 

TODARO, C. James, Philadelphia. Pa. 

TOLLETT, G. B., A. B. C. Roofing and 
Siding, Inc., Seattle, Wash. 

TOMEZ, Armando G., Vice President 
and Chairman of the Legislative Com- 
mittee, Confederation of Mexican 
Chambers of Commerce of the United 
States of America 

TOMLINSON, Bishop Homer A., Gen- 
eral Overseer of the Church of God. 
representing also the Pentecostal and 
Holiness Movement 

TOMORUG, Myroslawa, Ukrainian Con- 
gress Committee of America 

TORRIELLI, Andrew, representing the 
Editor of the Sons of Italy Magazine 

TOUSTER, Ben, President, Hebrew 
Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society 

TRICARICHI, Charles S., American 
Committee on Italian Migration of 

TRIER, Edgar L, Committee of Editors 
of American Foreign Language News- 

TRILEVSKY, Mrs. Marie, State of 
Michigan Representative, Tolstoy 

TRIPP, Frank P., Order of American 
Hellenic Educational Association, 
West Coast Region 

TSANG, Yankee P., Editor, The Chinese 

TSANGADAS, Constantine A., Past Na- 
tional President of the American Hel- 
lenic Educational Progressive Asso- 

TURNER, Rev. Herman L., Pastor. 
Covenant Presbyterian Church, At- 
lanta, Ga., representing also Mrs. 
George T. Douglas and Mrs. H. H. 

TWIGGS, Mrs. E. E., Detroit, Mich. 

TYLER, Rev. Samuel, Jr., Episcopal 
Trinity Church, Boston, Mass. 

UVICK, Joseph P., Secretary, American 
Council of Nationalities 

VALDES, George, International Long- 
shoremen's and Warehousemen's 
Union and the National Union of 
Marine Cooks and Stewards 

VALKO, Laszlo, Professor at Washing- 
ton State College, Pullman, Wash., 
representing the American Hun- 
garian Federation, State of Wash- 

VALUCHEK. Andrew, Committee of 
Editors of American Foreign Lan- 
guage Newspapers 

VAN ANTWERP, Hon. Eugene I., for- 
mer Mayor of Detroit, Mich., past 
Commander-in-chief of the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars, member of the Sons 
of the Revolution 

VAN DEUSEN, Rev. Robert E., Na- 
tional Lutheran Council 


VAN KIRK, Rev. Walter W., Executive 
Director, Department of Interna- 
tional Goodwill, National Council of 
Churches of Christ 

VAN ROYEN, William, Professor of 
Geography, University of Maryland 

VAN SCIVER, Wesley, Stamford Chap- 
ter of the Federation of American 

VAN ZANDT, Rev. Philip G., Pastor of 
the Logan Square Baptist Church of 
Chicago, representing also the Chi- 
cago Church World Service Commit- 
tee for the Baptist Denomination 

VIAL, Donald, California State Federa- 
tion of Labor, AFL 

VOLLER, John W., President, Execu- 
tive Board of the National Alliance of 
Czech Catholics 

VONDERWEYER, Mildred E., Presi- 
dent, International Institute, St. 
Paul, Minn. 

VOORHIS, Jerry, Executive Director, 
the Cooperative League of the United 
States of America, Chicago 

VORSPAN, Rabbi Max, President, 
Southern California Region, Rabbin- 
ical Assembly of America 

VOSNJAK, Bogumil, Washington, D. C. 

WAGENER, Nicholas J., Past National 
Commander, Catholic War Veterans 
of the U. S. A., Department of Michi- 
gan, represented by Samuel J. Rhodes 

WAGNER, Walter, Executive Director, 
Metropolitan Church Federation of 
Greater St. Louis. 

WALDMAN, Arthur, Executive Direc- 
tor, United Vocational and Employ- 
ment Service, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

WALDRON, Rev. V. J., Minister of the 
Evangelical Brethren Church 

WALEN, Father Joseph C, Director of 
Charities, Catholic Diocese of Grand 
Rapids, and Editor of the Western 
Michigan Catholic 

WALLACE, Rev. Brunson, Athens, Ga., 
represented by Rev. Robert H. Ayers 

WALSH, Thomas, Catholic War Vet- 
erans of the United States 


WARREN, Roscoe L., Whittier, Calif. 

WARTENWEILER, Mrs. Otto, Vice 
President of the Board, International 
Institute of Los Angeles, and Chair- 
man of the Displaced Persons Com- 
mittee of the Welfare Council of 
Metropolitan Los Angeles 

WASSERMAN, Jack, Legislative Rep- 
resentative, Association of Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Lawyers 

WATERMAN, Alan T., Director, Na- 
tional Science Foundation 

WATSON, Annie Clo, Executive Direc- 
tor, International Institute of San 

WEBB, Mrs. Muriel, National Council, 
Protestant Episcopal Church 

WEIR, Forest O, Executive Director, 
Church Federation of Los Angeles 
and General Secretary, Southern 
Council of Protestant Churches 

WEISIGER, Kendall, Trustee and Sec- 
retary, Rotary Educational Founda- 

WEISS, Mrs. Margaret Weller, Public 
Relations Representative, Small 
Property Owners League 

WEISS, Marguerite, Southern Cali- 
fornia Division of the American 
Jewish Congress 

WEISSKOPF, Victor F., Vice-Chair- 
man, Federation of American Scien- 

WELLS, Alexander T., Past Interna- 
tional President, International Lions 

WELLS, O. B., Chief, Bureau of Agri- 
cultural Economics, U. S. Department 
of Agriculture 

WERK, Frank, National Council of the 
Steuben Society 

WERNER, O. Nicholas, New York 

WESSEL, Bessie Bloom, Professor of 
Social Anthropology. Connecticut Col- 
lege, New London, Conn. 

WETMORE, A., Secretary, Smithsonian 

WHANG, Rev. Sung Tack, Pastor, 
Korea Gospel Church of Los Angeles 

WHITE, Lee A., Director of Cranbrook 
Institutions, Chairman of the Nation- 
ality Department of the United Com- 
munity Services, Member of the 
Michigan Commission on Displaced 
Persons, Member of Board of Direc- 
• tors of the International Institute of 
Metropolitan Detroit 

WHITE, O. Lee, Member of the Georgia 
Fraternal Congress 

WHITE, Walter, Secretary, National 
Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People 

WICHERS, Willard O, Midwestern Di- 
rector, Netherlands Information Serv- 
ice ; Secretary, Netherlands Pioneer 
and Historical Foundation; Director, 
Netherlands Museum, Holland, Mich. 

WIDIGER, S. G., Executive Secretary, 
Lutheran Children's Friend Society of 

WILLEN, Mrs. Joseph, National Coun- 
cil of Jewish Women 

WILLIAMS, Mrs. Alfred N., Massa- 
chusetts State Regent of the Daugh- 
ters of the American Revolution 

WILLIAMS, Carl, San Francisco, Calif. 

WILLIAMS, Franklin "H., Director for 
the West Coast Region of the Na- 
tional Association for the Advance- 
ment of Colored People 

WILLIAMS, George Washington, So- 
ciety of the War of 1812 of Maryland 
and General Society, War of 1812 


WILLIAMSON, Austin, Vice-President 
and General Manager, the Penin- 
sular Occidental Steamship Company 

WILLIAMSON, Samuel, Attorney, 
Houston, Tex. 

WILMETH, James L., Junior Order 
United American Mechanics of Phila- 

WILSON, Elizabeth N., Executive Sec- 
retary, International Institute of 
Gary, Ind. 

WILSON, Mrs. George A., La Canada, 

WILSON, Rufus H., National Legisla- 
tive Director, AM VETS 

WITTE, Rev. Edgar F., Executive Di- 
rector, Lutheran Charities of Chicago 
and Director of the Lutheran Reset- 
tlement Service of Illinois 

WITTKE, Carl Frederick, Dean of the 
Graduate School, Western Reserve 

WOJSOWSKI, Mrs. Katherine, Chair- 
man, Immigration Committee, Polish 
Aid Society, Detroit, Mich. 

WOLF, Rev. Harry, Lutheran Charities 
and Lutheran Resettlement Commit- 
tee of Michigan 

WORRELL, Mrs. Margaret Hopkins, 
National President, the Wheel of Pro- 
gress and National Legislative Chair- 
man, Ladies of the Grand Army of the 

WORSTER, Mrs. Sherman F., Brooklyn, 

N. Y. 
WORTMAN, Viola A., Brooklyn, N. Y. 
WYCISLO, Rev. Aloysius, War Relief 

Services, National Catholic Welfare 

WYNNER, Edith, New York, N. Y. 

YEE, Samuel, Chinese Consolidated 
Benevolent Association and the Chi- 
nese Chamber of Commerce of San 

YONIK, Leon, Editor, Lithuanian Daily 

ZEISEL, Hans, Columbia University, 
New York, N. Y. 

ZELLERBACH, J. D., President of the 
Crown-Zellerbach Corporation of San 

ZIEGLER, Robert, American Legion 

ZIMMER, Albert, American Banater 
Relief (affiliated with the American 
Aid Societies) 

ZMYEWSKA, Mrs. Stasia. President, 
Women's Polish-American Citizens 
Club, Salem, Mass. 

ZUCKER, A. E., Head of Foreign Lan- 
guage Department, University of 

ZUGER, Walter, representing E. V. El- 
lington and A. A. Smick 

ZWERDLING, A. L., Chairman, Detroit 
Chapter of Americans for Democratic 



The Commission's task could never have been completed in the time 
available but for the devotion and skill of its staff. Some of them were 
loaned to the Commission by other agencies of Government. Some 
served for only a short time or for some special task. To all the Com- 
mission expresses its deep gratitude and appreciation. 

Harry N. Rosenfield, 

Executive Director. 
Elliott M. Shirk, 

Assistant to the Executive Director. 
Charles Gordon, 

Counsel. 1 

George Cantor. 
Julian Fahy. 
Eleanor Finger. 2 
Thomas K. Ford. 
Clarence Herdt. 3 
Irving Jaffe. 1 
Vera P. Keuhne. 
Dudley Kirk. 4 
Frederick J. Mann. 4 
Anita Kury Penton. 
Boris S. Yane. 5 

Harry T. Bredenberg. 
Leonore H. Apple. 1 
Julia F. Vavra. 

For the assistance and help of its administrative and secretarial staff 
the Commission is also grateful. 

The General Services Administration has earned the gratitude of 
the Commission for its continuous and cooperative aid in all sorts of 
matters. The Commission is grateful to the Government Printing 
Office for its assistance in preparation of the index to this volume and 
to the hearings volume. 

In addition to the loan of personnel to the Commission, various Gov- 
ernment agencies were extremely helpful in providing information, 

1 On loan from Department of Justice. 

2 On loan from Mutual Security Agency. 

3 On loan from Department of Agriculture. 
* On loan from Department of State. 

B On loan from Department of Labor. 


special reports, statistics, and guidance. This involved special efforts 
of a very considerable magnitude and the Commission is grateful for 
the willing manner in which such cooperation was granted. These 
studies, which contain new and valuable material much of which was 
never previously compiled, appear in the printed record of the Com- 
mission's hearings separately issued by the Judiciary Committee of 
the House of Representatives. 

Special mention should be made of the notable contributions of the 
following Government agencies : 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice. 

Visa Division, and Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, of 
the Department of State. 

Department of Agriculture. 

Department of Labor. 

Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce. 

Mutual Security Agency. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice. 

Central Intelligence Agency. 
In addition to the above agencies, other Government offices such as the 
Office of the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, and various 
divisions of the Department of State, rendered valuable service and 
assistance to the Commission. To all of these agencies, and their 
staffs, the Commission wishes to express its debt of gratitude. How- 
ever, the record should be clear that the Commission alone bears 
responsibility for the conclusions contained in this report. 

In connection with its hearings, the Commission is especially grate- 
ful to the Department of Justice and to the General Services Adminis- 
tration for arranging for the use of Federal courtrooms and facilities 
throughout the country, and to the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service for the splendid and whole-hearted cooperation it gave the 
Commission, especially in assisting in the arrangements for the visits 
of the Commission to various cities in which hearings were held and 
for facilitating the plans through which the Commission was enabled 
to carry through its schedules on time. In addition, the Commission 
is indebted to the State of Minnesota and the City of San Francisco 
for the privilege of using facilities in public buildings for its hearings. 



A Page 

Acheson, Dean; Secretary of State 47, 53, 54, 55, 60, 05 

Administrative procedures: 

Administrative Procedure Act 141, 158 

Consolidation of functions, feasibility of 134 

Duplication of functions 131 

Historical background 127 

Past studies 155 

Miscellaneous problems 257 


Board of Immigration Appeals (Department of Justice) 129 

Duplication of functions 131 

Foreign Service (Department of State) 128 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (Department of Justice) _ 127 
Proposed (by the Commission): 

Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (proposed) 141 

Comparison of present and proposed systems (table) 137 


Location of 138 

Nature of 136 

Independent agency 140 

Operation of proposed system 135 

Plan of organization 141 

Administrator of Immigration and Naturalization (proposed) 141, 143 

Admission of aliens: 

Aliens from United States possessions 183 

Aliens returning to irregular domicile in United States 180 

Ancestry test for Asiatics 16 

Catch-alls, excessively broad 178 

Commission's recommendations 177, 178, 183, 184, 188, 191 


Admissions of crime 188 

Conviction for crime involving moral turpitude 186 

Con vi ction for two offenses 186 

General discussion 185 

Permanent bar for single crime 185 

Discretion in hardships, lack of 178 

Economic qualifications 190 

False representation 189 

Family basis urged 16 

General discussion 175 

Invitees, conferees, to scientific, cultural, etc., meetings 66 

Obsolete requirements 184 

Penalties, excessive or irrational 177 

Qualitative exclusions, development of 176 


250053 O— 53 21 

Admission of aliens — Continued Page 

Returning lawful residents 179 

Subversives 185 

Visitors 66, 70, 182 

Agriculture. See Economic well-being. 

Air Transport Association of America 182 

American Academy of Arts and Sciences 69 

American Federation of Labor 79 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 68 

American Bar Association 164 

American Council of Learned Societies 69 

American Farm Bureau Federation 48 

American Federation of Labor 43, 79 

American Jewish Committee 50 

American Museum of Natural History 92 

Anthropologic and ethnic considerations: 

Assimilability of ethnic groups 12, 93, 96 

Miscellaneous comments 83 

Racism 88, 91 

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith 50 

Appreciation expressed by Commission 303 

Archbishop of Catholic Archdiocese of Boston 117 

Asia-Pacific triangle. See Asiatics. 
Asiatics (see also names of specific countries) : 

Ancestry test for 16 

Asia-Pacific Triangle 16, 88, 90 

Exclusion of 45, 52 

Quota 113 

Refugees 64 

Asylum for political refugees 70, 118 

Atomic Energy Commission 68 

Attorney General 18, 176, 186 

Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure 157 

Bail 171 

Baptist World Alliance 80 

Beals, Prof. Ralph L.; professor of anthropology, University of California- _ 92 

Bills, private. See Legislation. 

Board of Immigration Appeals (Department of Justice) 129, 160 

Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals (proposed) 127, 141, 143, 160 

Board of Passport Appeals ( Department of State) 151 

Board of Review (Passpoit Division, Department of State) 150 

Bureau of the Census 42, 106 

Bush, Dr. Vannevar, president, Carnegie Institution of Washington 68 

Business problems 258 


Ceiling on immigration. See Quotas. 

Celler-Hendrickson bill, failure of 82d Congress to take action on 5 


Chinese Exclusion Act 85 

Quota 16 

Refugees .. 56 



Chinese Exclusion Act 85 


Commission's recommendations 238, 

240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 253 

Denaturalization 18 

Disruption of family unity: 

Alien children of citizens 245 

Alien spouses of citizens 244 

Birth outside the United States to American citizen parents 244 

Dual nationality at birth: 

Birth in territories or possessions 241 

General discussion 240 

Service in foreign armed forces 242 

Statelessness 241 

Voting in foreign political elections 243 

General discussion 235 

Handicaps to acquiring and maintaining: 

Absence of statute of limitations 249 

Continuous residence 247 

Denaturalization for concealment or misrepresentation 248 

Good moral character 246 

Loss of derivative rights 249 

Naturalization of aliens with military service 247 

Naturalizations revoked during 1951 for fraud or illegality 248 

Judicial procedures to establish 252 

Naturalization procedures: 

Neighborhood investigation 251 

Procedure in court 250 

Second-class citizenship: 

Conduct subsequent to naturalization 236 

Miscellaneous comments 18 

Residence in a foreign country 238 

Clague, Ewan; Commissioner of Labor Statistics 34 

Cleveland, Grover; former President of the United States 86 

Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. See President's Com- 
mission on Immigration and Naturalization. 
Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (proposed) : 

Administrator of Immigration and Naturalization (proposed) 143 

Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals (proposed) 141, 143 

General discussion 127 

Hearing officers 143 

Miscellaneous comments 17, 117, .122 

Plan of organization 141 

Chart 143 

Transfer of employees and records to, from existing agencies 142 

Commonwealth Club of San Francisco 41 

Communism in Italy 62 

Conclusions of Commission 263 

Congress of Industrial Organizations 43, 48, 79 

Consular officers: 

Decisions of, no appeal from 17 

Miscellaneous comments 131 

Corsi, Edward; New York State Industrial Commissioner 34 



Cox, Cordelia; National Lutheran Council 80 

Coxe, Tench ; former Assistant Secretary of State 85 

Criminality among immigrants 95 

Cultural aspects of immigration: 

Contribution by immigrants to American life xiv, 23 

Outstanding immigrants 24 

Cushing, Most Reverend Richard J.; Archbishop of Boston 49 


Davenport, Russell W. ; former editor of Fortune 47 

Dawson, Dr. Joseph M.; Baptist World Alliance 80 

Demographic aspects of immigration (see also Surplus populations) : 

Aging of United States population 37 

Immigration and the population structure 39 

Men and women, proportion of 39 

Immigrants, 1901-50 (tabic) 40 

Population of United States 41 

By race (table) 77 

1920 and 1940, by "origin" (table) 107 

1920 and 1950, by race (table) 107 

Denaturalization. See Citizenship. 

Department of Agriculture 32, 33, 42, 79 

Department of Interior, Office of Territories, Director of 183 

Department of Justice (see also Attorney General) 127, 129, 138 

Department of Labor 32, 138 

Department of State 128, 135, 138, 150, 151 

Deportation of aliens: 

As an aspect of exclusion: 

Statute of limitations 197 

Technical violations 196 

As a punishment: 

Difference in treatment of aliens and citizens 201 

Excessive penalties 202 

Retroactive penalties 202 

Wrongdoers produced by our society 201 

Commission's recommendations.. 202, 203, 204, 205, 200, 208, 211, 215, 216 

Deportations 1949-51 (table) 195 

General discussion 193 

Hearings and appeals. See as main entry. 
Judicial review. See as main entry. 

Miscellaneous comments 17 

Narcotic drug addicts 206 

Public charges 206 

Reentry doctrine 199 

Relief in deportation cases: 

Adjustment to permanent residence status: 

Preexamination 209 

Special legislation 215 

Suspension of deportation 211 

General discussion . 207 

Voluntary departure 207 

Subversives 203 

Used as a penalty 18, 204 


Deportation of aliens — Continued 

Violators of: Page 

Criminal statutes 203 

Registration requirements 205 

Dimock Committee 156, 163 

Discrimination against: 

Asiatics 88 

Inhabitants of possessions of United States 184 

Race 14, 54, 78, 88, 90 

Southern and eastern Europeans 12, 14,88, 100 

Displaced Persons Act 8, 46, 56, 58 

Displaced Persons Commission 44, 58 

Displaced persons program: 

Financing of 51 

Miscellaneous comments 56 

Nationalities of recent immigrants to United States 9 

Pipeline cases 6 

Resettlement 8, 44 

Special legislation 108 

Draper, William H.; U. S. Special Representative in Europe 47 

Duplication of administrative functions 131, 135 


Easby, Dudley, T.; secretary, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York 

City) 69 

Eckerson, Mrs. Helen F.; Chief, Statistical Branch, Immigration and 

Naturalization Service 106 

Economic well-being: 

Absorptive capacity of United States for immigration 41, 78, 94, 190 

Attitude of organized labor 79, 95 

Attitude of religious organizations 80 

Adverse effect of uncontrolled immigration 29 


Food production 42 

Manpower needs 31, 32, 36 

Assets brought by immigrants 23 

Immigration and income (chart) 27 

Contributions by recent immigrants to United States 9 

Immigration and unemployment (chart) 28 

Industry, manpower needs 32 

Labor : 

Manpower needs 30, 31,32 

Attitude of organized labor 43 

Migratory (see also Wetbacks) 30, 257 

Materials standards 42, 80 

Miscellaneous comments 26 

Unemployment 36, 95 

Women in the labor force 36 

Young workers 37 

Eisenhower, President-Elect 60 

Elliot, Roland; Church World Service H 

Empie, Dr. Paul C; executive director, National Lutheran Council 49 


Escapees (see also Refugees) : 

Asylum for. See Asylum for political refugees. Page 

Financial assistance to 59 

Miscellaneous comments 15, 51 , 5S 

Resettlement of 59 

Exclusion of aliens: 

Aliens excluded from United States, by cause, year ended June 30, 

1951 (table) 134 

Asiatics 45, 52 

Criminals 15 

Hearings and appeals. See as main entry. 
Judicial review. See as main entry. 

Miscellaneous comments 17 

Public charges 43 

Subversives l 15 

Executive Order 10392 271 

Expellees. See Refugees. 


Families, reunion of 119 

Federal Security Agency 139 

Fisher, Commissioner Adrian S. ; additional views of 269 

Food production. See Economic well-being: Agriculture. 

Foreign Minister of France 65 

Foreign Minister of United Kingdom 65 

Foreign policy: 

America's leadership, responsibilities of 46 

Delays in visa procedures become Communist propaganda material. _ 66 

Effect of immigration policy upon xiii, 45, 52, 61, 66, 68, 70 

In Africa 55 

In Asia 52, 53 

In Caribbean area 54 

In Europe 55 

Statements by representative American leaders 47 

Lessons of history 45 

McCarran-Walter bill source for Russian propaganda 52 

Programs of action 50 

Foreign Service (Department of State) 128 

Fortune magazine 111 


de Gasperi, Prime Minister, of Italy 62 

General Federation of Women's Clubs 48 


Expellees 56, 58 

Quota 103 

Surplus population 61 

Gibson, Hugh, Director, Intergovernmental Committee for European 

Migration 61 

Grant, Madison; former anthropologist, American Museum of Natural 

History 92 

de Grazia, Prof. Alfred; executive officer, Committee for Research in Social 

Sciences, Stanford University 93 

Great Britain, quota 103 


Greece: Page 

Refugees 56 

Surplus population 63 

Green, William; former president, American Federation of Labor 43 

Guggenheim Memorial Foundation 69 

Gutterman, Lester, American Jewish Committee and Anti-Defamation 

League of B'Nai B'rith 50 


Hamilton, Alexander 84 

Hand, Judge Augustus 201 

Harberger, Prof. Arnold C; President's Materials Policy Commission 80 

Harriman, W. Averell; Mutual Security Director 47 

Harris, Helen M.; National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood 

Centers 96 

Hart, Prof. Henry M., Jr 147 

Hauser, Philip M.; professor of sociology, University of Chicago 53, 79, 93 

Haywood, Alan, Congress of Industrial Organizations 48 

Hearings and appeals: 

Board of Immigration Appeals 129 

Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals (proposed) 141, 143, 160 

Commingled judicial and prosecuting functions 161 

Commission's recommendations 160 

Uncertain status of 160 

Commission's recommendations 145 

Deportation of aliens 153 

Exclusion of aliens 145 

Present procedures 152 

Hearing officers 158, 162 

Issues involved 154 

Judicial review: 

Bail 171 

Commission's recommendations 145, 164, 170 

Denial of visa 170 

Deportation of aliens 162, 168 

Exclusion of aliens 162, 170 

Miscellaneous comments 18, 161, 167 

Review of consular decisions: 

Commission's recommendations 145, 152 

Miscellaneous comments 145 

Precedents for 148 

Present system 146, 149 

Review of cases involving claims of American citizenship 150 

Hearings of the Commission. See President's Commission on Immigration 
and Naturalization. 

Henderson, Rev. Harold H.; Presbyterian Church, U. S. A 80 

Hendrickson bill 5 

Historical background: 

Administrative procedures 127, 155 

Ceiling on immigration 75 

Effect of immigration policy upon foreign policy 45 

Miscellaneous comments 23, 29 

National origins system 83 

Sources of immigration (table) 26 


Hoover Commission on Organization of Executive Branch of Government. _ 17, 

132, 138 

Hoover Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (1931) 155 

Hoover's National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement 

(Wickersham Commission) 96, 133, 155 

Horton, Mrs. Mildred McAfee; National Council of Churches of Christ.. 49 

Hughes, Charles Evans; former Secretary of State 45 

Humanitarian considerations xii, 6, 8 

Hutchinson, Knox T., Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 32, 42, 79 

Illiteracy among immigrants 95 

Immigrants, number and selection of. See Quotas. 

Immigration Act of 1924 87 

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952: 

Codifies all immigration legislation since 1917 5 

Reenacted over President's veto 12 

Statements of approval generally undocumented 12 


Ambiguous and vague 18 

Attorney General's comments 18 

Basic objections in testimony summarized 13 

Inadequate xi 

Miscellaneous comments 17 

Opposition widespread and rather determined 7 

Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish organizations unite in opposition. 9 

Russian propaganda material 52 

Executive Order 10392 271 

General provisions 88 

President's veto and repassage over xi, 5 

Text of veto message 275 

Statement by the President 272 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (Department of Justice) 127, 138 

Immigration Commission of 1907 86, 91, 93, 94, 95, 157 

Immigration laws, administration of (see also Administrative procedure).. 16 
Immigration policy: 

Beliefs of the Commission xiv 

Flexibility needed 71 

Functions desired xi 

Unanimity of thought evinced by most organizations and individuals. 11 
Immigration to United States: 

Asiatics (table) 102 

1920-40, by nationality "origin" (table) 107 

1930-51, by regional origins (table) 106 


Mexico 31 

Northern and Western Europe (table) 101 

Puerto Rico 30 

Southern and Eastern Europe (table) 101 

West Indies 30 


Immigration to United States — Continued 

Historical background: Pasra 

Colonial period 83 

Early 19th century 85 

Through World War I 85 

Since World War I 86 

Present law 88 

Immigrants admitted (by area) : 1900-1951 (table) 102 


Nature of 8 

Sources of 25 

Table 26 

India, refugees 64 

Insanity among immigrants 96 

Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration 51, 58, 61 

International Refugees Organization (IRO) 51, 57, 58 

Ireland, quota 103 


Birthrate 62 

Communism in 62 

Emigration 62 

Quota 103 

Refugees 56, 58 

Surplus population 61 

Unemployment 62 


Jackson, Robert, Supreme Court Justice 225 

Jaffe, Prof. Louis L 147 

Jamaica, quota 16, 90 

Japan, quota 16, 90 

Japanese Exclusion Act 90 

Jerome, Prof. Harry 27 

Johnson, Representative Albert 92 

Joint congressional committee 3 

Judicial review. See Hearings and appeals. 

Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives xii 


Kline, A. B., American Farm Bureau Federation 48 

Kuntz, Rev. Werner, Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church 49 


Labor. See Economic well-being. 

Laughlin Report 91, 92 

Legal problems 258 



Displaced persons 6, 16, 108 

General discussion 107, 109 

Intelligence operatives 108 

Overseas enlistees 108 


Legislation — Continued 

Emergency — Continued Page 

Refugees xi 

Sheepherders 108 

War fiancees 107 

Long-range 6 

Private bills 108, 215 

Lincoln, Abraham 85 

Literacy test 87 

Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod 49 


Madison, James 26 

Manchester Guardian 67 

Manpower needs. See Economic well-being; Military manpower needs. 

Materials Policy Commission 42, 80 

McCarran- Walter Act. See Immigration and Naturalization Act. 

Mead. Margaret, anthropologist, American Museum of Natural History.. 92 

Mexican wetbacks. See Wetbacks. 

Meyerhoff, Howard A., American Association for the Advancement of 

Science 68 

Military-manpower needs 35, 38 

Moe, Dr. Henry Allen; secretary, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial 

Foundation 69 

Mohler, Bruce M.; director. Bureau of Immigration of the National Cath- 
olic Welfare Conference 50 

Mortgaged quotas. See Quotas. 

Mutual Security Act of 1952 51 

Mosley, Prof. Philip E.; president, East European Fund, Ford Foundation. 60 

Moulton. Dr.Harold G 80 

Murray, Philip; former president, Congress of Industrial Organization s__ 43, 213 


National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 55 

National Catholic Welfare Conference 50 

National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America.- 4P 80 

National Farmers' Union 33 

National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers 96 

National Grange 33 

National Lutheran Council 49 

National origins system: 

Abolition of, recommended by Commission 117 

American Indians excluded from basis ' 14, 76 

Assumptions behind: 

Theory of economic harm 94 

Theory of inferior personal qualities 95 

Theory of superior races 91 

Based on con cept of biologically distin ct races 14 

Based on fear 15 

Commission's recommendations 97 

Criticized {miscellaneous comments) 52 

Departures from, in act of 1952 88 

Results 101 


National origins system — Continued Page 

Discrimination deliberately planned 88 

Discriminatory features detailed 88 

Effects of 103 

Failure of 105, 108 

Historical background 83 

Incompatible with American ideals 13 

Inflexible 15 

Necessary legislative bypassing 107 

Negroes excluded from basis 14, 76 

Operation 99 

Results 101 

Suggestions to the Commission : 

Abolish national origins system, proposals to 115 

Retain national origins system, proposals to 112 

Total annual quota, proposals concerning 111 

National Science Foundation 68 

Naturalization. See Citizenship. 

Negroes 14, 30, 54, 76 

Netherlands, surplus population 61 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 51, 62 

Notestein, Prof. Frank Wallace; director, Office of Population Research, 

Princeton University 79 


O'Connor, Edward M.; Psychological Strategy Board 47 

Organization for European Economic Cooperation 51 

Overpopulation. See Surplus populations. 


Painter, Prof. Sidney; director, American Council of Learned Societies 69 

PICMME 51, 58, 61 

Pipeline refugees. See Displaced persons program. 

Poland, quota 103 

Pooling of unfilled quotas. See Quotas. 

Population. See Demographic aspects of immigration. 

Presbyterian Church, United States of America 80 

President of the United States: 

Executive Order 10392 23 

Message of March 24, 1952 6, 59 

Statement by the President on immigration and naturalisation 272 

Veto Message on McCarran- Walter Act 5 

Text of 275 

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization: 

Appreciation expressed 303 

Conclusions and recommendations in detail 263 

Establishment of a commission urged by all religious faiths xi 

Executive Order 10392 establishing 271 


Arrangements for 3 

Diversity of organizations often represented by one individual 9 

Miscellaneous comments xii 

National leaders testify 11 


President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization — Con. 

Hearings — Continued Page 

Printed record, scope of 4 

Schedule of 3 

Types of organizations and individuals testifying 7 

Witnesses, list of 285 

Membership ii, 273 

Scope of activities xi, 23 

Statement by the President upon establishing 272 

President's Committee on Administrative Management 156 

Private bills. See Legislation. 

Public Law 414, 82d Congress. See Immigration and Nationality Act. 


Queen Juliana, the Netherlands 61 

Quotas (see also names of specific countries) : 

Adjustment of status, quota charges for (table) 105 

Allocation of, consensus of testimony 13 

Annual immigration quotas of act of 1924 compared to those of act of 

1952 (table) 99 

Asiatics 113 

Ceiling on immigration : 

Commission's recommendations 77, 81, 118 

Flexible 112 

Historical background 75 

Miscellaneous comments 16, 80 

One-sixth of 1 percent of total United States population (latest 

census) 77, 118 

Should reflect needs and capacity for absorption of United States. 13 

Suggestions to the Commission 111 

Abandon numerical limitations 111 

Adjustment of basis of computation 113 

Allow free movement in designated free-trade areas 111 

Pooling of unfilled quotas 112 

Stop further immigration 111 

154,000 14 

250,000 13, 43, 81 

300,000 81 

400,000 80 

Colonies in Western Hemisphere 113 

"First-come-first-served" basis 115, 121 

Flexible 121 

Four different versions of quota system (table) 76 

Miscellaneous proposals 114 

Mortgaged 14, 113 

Table 104 

Nonquota status: 

Commission's recommendations 122 

Sheepherders 31 

Western Hemisphere immigrants 46, 88 

Reduction of, through special provisions 105 

Restrictions of no significance during depression 29 

Subquotas for colonial dependencies in Western Hemisphere 88 


Quotas — Continued Page 

Substitution of regional quotas for national quotas 114 

Systems of preferences 115 

Unfilled 14, 103 

Pooling of 14 

Unified quota system (recommended by Commission) : 
Allocation of visas within annual maximum: 

Asylum, right of 118 

Families, reunion of 119 

General discussion 122 

General immigration 121 

Needs of United States 119 

Special needs of free world 120 

General discussion 117 

Nonquota immigrants 122 

Numerical limitation on quota immigrants 118 

Restrictions upon immigration 123 

Waiting lists 103 

Table 104 


Racism. See Anthropologic and ethnic considerations. 

Recommendations of Commission 263 

Reed, Senator David A 89 

Refugees (See also names of specific countries): 

Arab 64 

Asiatics 64 

Displaced persons. See Displaced persons program. 
Escapees from iron curtain countries. See as main item. 

European 64 

Expellees 15, 56 

Miscellaneous comments 15, 57 

Political, asylum for. See Asylum for political refugees. 

Republican Party in 1864 85 

Restrictions upon immigration 123 

Reuther, Walter; president, Congress of Industrial Organizations 187 

Review of consular decisions. See Hearings and appeals. 

Roosevelt, Theodore; former President of the United States 94 


Sayre, Very Reverend, Francis B., Jr.; dean, Washington (Episcopal) 

Cathedral 80 

Schroeder, Mrs. Z. W.; General Federation of Women's Clubs 48 

Scientific advancement impeded by visa delays 67 

Comments by leading scientists 68 

Second-class citizens. See Citizenship. 

Secretary of Labor's Committee on Administrative Procedure 130 

Security aspects of immigration: 

Commission's recommendations 221, 222, 226, 228, 231, 232 

Economic considerations. See Economic well-being. 

Exclusion of subversives. See Ex elusion of aliens. 

Exclusion without hearing 228 

Former membership and affiliation with subversive organizations 226 


Security aspects of immigration — Continued Page 

General discussion 217 

Investigation 256 

Invitees, conferees, to scientific, cultural, etc., meetings. See Admis- 
sion of aliens. 
Military manpower needs. See as main item. 

National security demands a positive immigration policy xiv 

Nonimmigrants 231 

Present members and affiliates of subversive organizations 222 

Screening 218 

Spies and saboteurs 220 

Senate Judiciary Committee 89, 129, 133, 146, 157 

Servan-Schreiber, Jean Jacques 67 

Shils, Prof. Edward A., University of Chicago 69 

Shiskin, Boris; American Federation of Labor 187 

Silver, Rabbi Abba Hillel 50 

Solicitor General (acting) , of the United States 169 

Straus, Anna Lord, former president, League of Women Voters 48 

Subcommittee of Senate Committee on Expenditures 57 

Supreme Court 158, 159, 161 

Surplus populations (see also Demographic aspects of immigration) : 

Asia in general 63 

Commission's recommendations 120 

Europe in general _ 63 

General discussion 61 

Miscellaneous comments 15 

Movement of 51 

Remedy for 65 

Swanstrom, Msgr. Edward E.; executive director of War Relief Services, 

National Catholic Welfare Conference 50 

Synagogue Council of America 117 


Taft, William Howard; former President of the United States 86 

Tobin, Maurice J. ; Secretary of Labor 32, 34, 78 

Truman, Harry S.; President of the United States 59 

Tyler, John ; former President of the United States 85 


Unemployment. See Economic well-being. 

Unified quota system (recommended by Commission). See Quotas. 

Union Party (Republication Party in 1864) 85 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 51, 57, 58 

United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA).. 51, 58, 61 

"Uranium Curtain" 67 


Van Kirk, Dr. Walter W.; National Council of Churches of Christ in the 

United States of America 80 

Van Vleck Study (1932) 155 

Veto Message of President Truman 275 

Visa Division (Department of State) 122 

Visa procedures, delays in 06 



Visitors, admission of 66 

Voluntary agencies 255 


Washington, George xiii, 84, 117 

Waterman, Dr. Alan T.; director, National Science Foundation 68 

West Germany. See Germany. 

West Indies, quota 54 

Wetbacks 31 

White, Walter, secretary, National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People 54-55 

Wickersham Commission 96, 130, 155 

Wilson, Woodrow; former President of the United States 86 

Witnesses, list of 285 

Wittke, Dr. Carl; dean, Graduate School of Western Reserve University-. 97 

Wong Yang Sung case 157 

Zellerbach, J. D 48 



Boston Public Library 
Central Library, Copley Square 

Division of 
Reference and Research Services 

Social Sciences 

The Date Due Card in the pocket indi- 
cates the date on or before which this 
book should be returned to the Library. 

Please do not remove cards from this