10

this gross and misplaced expenditure of time, energy and money to have this individual removed from the land of her birth?

The McCarran-Walter Act abridges the rights of American writers to engage in face to face discussion and confrontation with foreign colleagues, it violates the right of citizens to hear the speakers of their choice and make their own decisions about the ideas with which they are presented, it deters foreign writers and others who hold controversial views from visiting the United States, and finally and perhaps most perniciously - it prevents those who wish to make the United States their new home from adding their often great gifts to the mix of our cultural life.

Suppose the McCarran-Walter Act had been in effect before World War II, when a stream of intellectually and artistically gifted writers, musicians, film-makers, and thinkers poured out of Europe to make their homes here. Many of them were from countries with complex political histories; many of them had led politically complex lives, as commonly happened then and commonly happens now. The whimsies of McCarran-Walter would surely have turned some of them back; we might have lost the gifts of such people as Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Max Ophuls, Bela Bartok, Fritz Lang, Theodor Adorno, Arnold Schoenberg, Erik Erikson, Herbert Marcuse, and Hannah Arendt, to name only a few of the distinguished immigrants who arrived here then. Is it not folly - moral as well as cultural to risk losing even one immigrant of this caliber to this capricious Act?

11

In addition to the deleterious effects of this Act on the First Amendment rights of individuals, the very existence of ideologically-based legislation undermines the effectiveness and moral authority of American organizations such as PEN that are dedicated to promoting free and open communication "within all nations" and "between all nations" as they work to fulfill this mandate and aid writers who are persecuted regardless of national origin. How can we presume to be the "leaders of the free world" and criticize the more egregious practices of other governments when we fail to live up to the standards we set for ourselves that serve as a model for the internationally recognized human rights standards against which all nations are judged?

We believe that the ideological exclusion provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act serve no useful purpose and cause inexcusable damage to individual rights and to the ability of the United States to champion the cause of individual liberties around the world. As writers and U.S. citizens we urge the elimination of those provisions so that we can fully enjoy the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms which are our birthright.

We thank you for the opportunity to present our views to this Committee.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would now like to go to Mr. and Mrs. Eways. Would either of you like to proceed to your story?

STATEMENT OF PHILIP EWAYS, HOTEL MANAGER

Mr. EWAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Philip Eways. I was born in Brooklyn, NY; I served in the Armed Forces and received an honorable discharge. In 1982, I met Leila and in December 1984, we were married.

On our first visit to INS, I had no doubt that my application to have Leila made a permanent resident in the United States would be swiftly approved. Leila had some apprehension that her brief membership in the Finnish Communist Party would cause problems, but I naively convinced her that this was unfounded.

In our presentation to the INS we openly and honestly stated Leila's membership and the context in which it had taken place; namely, that being in the Communist Party in Finland was legal and that it was an open participant in the Finnish political system. Many members are voted into Parliament and their views are respected in many areas of Finland as mainstream views. In particular, Leila's city of birth and university were heavily flavored with Communist opinion and politicians, academics and journalists. Even so, Leila's membership lasted all of three or four meetings over a period of several months and she then openly disengaged herself from any association after that. She saw that her views and beliefs did not correspond to the views of this group.

Leila then went on with her life and found herself in the United States where her beliefs coincided with the views prevalent in our society and system. In the United States she saw a vigorous democracy, dissenting views, popular expression, and freedom of speech and association allowed, encouraged, and protected by our Constitution.

After explaining this to the INS interviewer, it was clear, though, that Leila's apprehension was legitimate. The INS interviewer stated that, "a Communist" could never be granted permanent resident status. I was obviously shocked. This meaningless time in her life as a college student in another country, which she had disavowed, was now going to break up her family and take a wife and child from me. This seemed totally against everything I was taught that my Government stood for.

However, we obviously had work to do. In the 2 years needed to correct the decision to deport my wife, I lost my business and accumulated numerous debts. But, of course, the emotional toll was most severe.

INS told me that we are not separating your family because I could go to Finland also. So the INS could effectively deport my son and me from the land of our birth.

I won't get into the coldness and callousness of INS officials. That isn't the problem as I see it; it's the McCarran-Walter Act that should be revised, if not completely rescinded.

We Americans should be secure enough not to be afraid of any views of any of our citizens or visitors or immigrants and, obviously not to be afraid of a woman to remain with her child and husband because she attended a few meetings as a student in college.

Throughout our ordeal-and it was an ordeal-we met many, many people in the United States who could not conceive of such a law, and in Europe this was thought of as a bad joke. Even now Leila is quite afraid to exercise any rights associated with living in America.

I attend public meetings and hear views of different people to get a better understanding of current issues, be they political or social. Leila will not attend anything of a political nature because of her fear that this could be used as a pretext to initiate new proceedings against her and separate her from her family. I'm not one now to say her fears are unfounded.

I do hope you will take our story into your deliberations and change this odious relic, McCarran-Walter, into legislation that will reflect our generosity of spirit and beliefs in freedom of speech and choice and association.

We were able to prevail because of some knowledge of the system and many fine people. There are, I'm sure, thousands of people facing similar difficulties, who cannot find the means and people to combat this legislation.

Of the many people who aided us, I want to thank personally Mr. Lucas Guttentag of the ACLU who gave so much time and effort without remuneration, and also to him and to the ACLU, we will always be in their debt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Eways.

Notwithstanding that help, I understand it was still enormously costly personally to you and your family to have to pursue this litigation.

Mr. EWAYS. Yes, it was.

We did lose-we had a little store, which due to the time and effort needed to help Leila, help our family, I eventually lost it and accumulated many, many debts as I noted. And to this day, we're still in a sense in debt due to this. And without Mr. Lucas Guttentag in the ACLU, obviously we could not have corrected that decision.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Mrs. Eways, did you also wish to supplement your husband's statement?

STATEMENT OF LEILA HURMILA EWAYS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

TEACHER

Mrs. EWAYS. I thank you for this opportunity to come here to give you any information I can to see the awful effects that the McCarran-Walter Act can have on individuals and families.

I am Leila Eways. I live with my husband and my son in Brooklyn, NY. After our marriage in December 1984, Philip and I visited the INS to apply for permanent resident status. As our written statement shows, I had joined the Communist Party of Finland when I was in college, and I attended a few meetings before realizing that my view of the world was really quite opposite to the view of the Communist Party, and that my joining the party had been a result of poor judgment rather than of real knowledge and under

On the other hand, there was no stigma attached to the Communist Party in Finland. In fact, it is an open political force and it is represented on all levels of the government.

To the INS, however, my short-lived membership was sufficient to initiate deportation proceedings against me to separate me from my husband and my baby. It seemed that to the INS I was and I would forever be a Čommunist.

They insisted on using the present tense regarding the affair regardless of the fact that I had denounced my membership 7 years earlier.

I found the outright hostility of the INS officials toward me quite amazing. I have traveled in many countries and nowhere have I ever been questioned about my political beliefs and my political affiliations, much less have I been degraded and humiliated the way I was by the INS.

After a 2-year legal battle we finally prevailed in gaining my permanent resident status. But as Philip mentioned, we did that at quite a cost. We lost our business and we were unable to plan our future as any young family would. We were on the verge of being forcefully separated. Any of you who is a mother and who is a father can maybe understand that feeling.

The INS wanted me to cancel my motherhood and my plan to be a wife, and my plan to be a good member of a society that I had grown very attached to. I have to say that even now that the realization is chilling. They would have done it, they would have ordered me to leave my baby and leave my husband-not because of a crime, and not because I would ever even be able to hurt anything or hurt anyone-but because of something that I had thought I had believed in 7 years earlier.

My husband and I are now both quite disillusioned about what we used to believe the United States stands for. And as Philip said, I will for a long time to come, be fearful of participating in the rights of freedom of speech and choice and association that the people who were born in this country have.

The only thing I want to add, if our case were an exception, I would not be here today. But it is not an exception; many people in similar circumstances have been forced to leave and they are intimidated from even applying for a visa.

It is important to understand that that fact stains the image the United States has in the eyes of the world. Personally, I see so much beauty and talent in the American people, but I feel that restrictive laws such as the McCarran-Walter Act do not do justice to the loyalty and devotion that this Nation has to its heritage.

I think it is important to understand that people from other nations now, as they always have, come with different views and ideas. I do not think that it is reasonable, and it is not rational, and it is not a sign of strength to continue to exclude people because of those differing views.

Today's world is not a closed world-people travel, they get curious about each other and they want to exchange ideas. The Government must keep up with this motion. It must, if not promote, at least it must allow openness and trust of the people.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mrs. Eways.

What is your status today in terms of immigration?