is going to determine whether I don't like that qualification-who is going to be the judge of whether they are doing it through misinformation, or otherwise?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the reason I took that, that is the existing law. This is section 320 of the existing law

because of misinformation regarding the citizenship status of such person, erroneously exercised the rights and performed the duties of a citizen of the United States in good faith.

Senator HOLMAN. Yes; but suppose, on the contrary, they exercised these functions of citizenship, knowing that they had not compiled and knowing just exactly what their status was?

Mr. BENNETT. Because the law places the burden on them to prove to the court affirmatively that they did this because of misinformation. Senator HOLMAN. Well, if they are perfectly honest about it and were not making any subterfuge at all, wouldn't they be permitted to continue, on that citizenship?

Mr. BENNETT. No, Senator; I do not make my amendment that broad, because I do not want to make it any broader than the existing law.

Senator HOLMAN. Well, it is going to lead to perjury.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, so far it has been on the

Senator HOLMAN. I know of a particular case, and that is why I am questioning about it.

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. It has been in the statute.

Senator HOLMAN. I know of a case where a man has been perfectly honest and truthful about it, and if you are going to take in all these other people I would like to take in a man of character.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, you could change the amendment. I felt I did not want to go further than the existing statute. I am perfectly willing and if it ought to be broadened to cover some existing case I have no objection. I have furnished a copy of the amendment, and I did not think I ought to go any further than the existing law. This confers no rights other than the existing statute, and the only reason that it is necessary at all, if H. R. 6250 is passed in the form in which it is, is because these persons have been living here 20 and 25 years and are technically alien enemies although, as the Attorney General points out, they have got sons in the armed services and everything of that sort and are just as loyal as we are.

Senator HOLMAN. A lot of them haven't, too.

Mr. BENNETT. I beg your pardon?

Senator HOLMAN. A lot of them haven't sons in the armed services. Mr. BENNETT. That I don't know.

Senator HOLMAN. And don't intend to have.

Mr. BENNETT. A great majority of them have. And the Federal Bureau of Investigation, out of 400,000 or 500,000 Germans have only been able to pick out 1,500, which is a negligible percentage. So that is the situation.

Senator MALONEY. Thank you very much.

Senator MALONEY. Mr. Oppenheimer, will you come forward now, please?

STATEMENT OF REUBEN OPPENHEIMER, ATTORNEY, BALTIMORE, MD., COUNSEL FOR AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, with Mr. Finerty I am one of the signers of the brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, which I ask to be placed in the record of this proceeding. Mr. Finerty has already offered it.

As to my qualifications, if any

Senator MALONEY. Will you give us your name, first?

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Reuben Oppenheimer. I am an attorney at 1508 First National Bank Building, Baltimore, Md.; in practice in Baltimore for 20 years.

Senator MALONEY. In what capacity do you appear here, Mr. Oppenheimer?

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. As one of counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Senator MALONEY. Yes; I find your name written in here.

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. I don't know if I have any particular qualifications in the matter. I did write the report on deportation for the Wickersham Commission, and have made some study of immigration and naturalization matters since. I am not engaged in immigration practice. I have represented the Civil Liberties Union in various

matters.

The opposition of the Civil Liberties Union is only to section 8 of H. R. 6250, and my remarks will be quite brief because Mr. Finerty has covered the ground so thoroughly. That section proposes to add a phrase to the present law, section 338 (a) of the Naturalization Code, which is title 8, section 738 (a) of the United States Code.

That section at present provides that it shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts to institute proceedings in the proper court for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such order and certification of naturalization were illegally procured. That is the act as it reads at present.

The proposed amendment in the House bill is to add at the end of that sentence the following words:

or on the ground that his conduct establishes that his political allegiance is to a foreign state or sovereignty.

I propose only briefly to analyze the character and probable effect of this proposed amendment. Let me point out, first, that unlike the other provisions with respect to the revocation of naturalization, or expatriation, it does not refer to any specific act. At the present time the citizenship of either a native-born American or a naturalized citizen can be taken away for certain definite acts; for example, to take just a few, treason or desertion or residence abroad under certain circumstances. But they are all specific acts.

This proposed section, for the first time, would introduce a reason for a grievous act which the Government can do in connection with the rights of citizens which is not possible on a specific act. Furthermore, this section, amending as it does the provisions for revocation of naturalization, does not relate to what took place at the time that naturalization was obtained. It is not in the nature of a presump

tion such as was considered by the Supreme Court in the Luria case. It has no limitation in time; it extends indefinitely.

It marks a radical departure from our entire policy in connection with naturalization, and for the first time does it seek to make a ground for the revocation of naturalization something which is not a concrete act, easily ascertainable and capable of proof, such as residence for an exact period of time in a foreign country, or conviction. of treason in a court of the United States.

But also for the first time, it seeks to introduce a distinction between native-born Americans and citizens who have acquired their citizenship by naturalization.

What would be the probable effect of this act, apart from what we believe to be its unconstitutionality? First, why is it needed? At the present time, if an alien secures his naturalization by fraud, that naturalization can be set aside. And surely if after he has obtained his naturalization by such fraud he indulges in acts or utterances which show that his allegiance is to a foreign country, that is additional proof that his original application was fraudulent. For that, no act is needed, or if an act were thought advisable it could easily be framed in the language of a presumption relating back to the time of naturalization. So the act certainly is not needed for that.

What categories of cases, then, does it cover? Only this, so far as I can see, which is not covered by the present law-the case of a man or a woman who obtains his naturalization in good faith, intending to renounce his allegiance to some foreign country, and afterward for some reason changes his position and gives up allegiance to this country which he has undertaken in good faith and goes back to his old allegiance. Only that. And yet, if that class of cases is to be covered, why is it any worse for a naturalized citizen to become, in effect and in actuality, a subject of a foreign nation, than for a native-born American? Is not a native-born American to be not only as much criticized but as much punished as a naturalized citizen? Why should a distinction be made?

The proposed act, we submit, not only goes too far in certain directions, but in other directions does not go far enough. If Congress determines that certain acts are so serious in effect that, in addition to the criminal penalties already provided by law they should result in loss of citizenship, the same way that desertion from the armed forces or conviction of treason is punished, we submit that such definite act should also be punishable by revocation of citizenship for native-born citizens if naturalized citizens are to be so punished.

I believe that a few months ago-and this may be the reason for that suggestion-in New York a number of naturalized citizens, formerly nationals of Germany, were convicted of sabotage or under the Espionage Act. If such a conviction is to be a ground for revocation of citizenship-and we don't say that it should not, for the protection of our own democracy-then that conviction should apply in the same way, as a like penalty to native-born citizens as much as to naturalized citizens.

Our point there is that there should be no difference; that if a definite act is to be made an additional cause of revocation of citizenship, that additional act and the penalty should apply to all persons who are citizens.

69296-42- --4

If I may take the act in the other aspect, what would be the effectthough we have a great majority of our naturalized citizens who are loyal to the United States, and I think there is no doubt in the minds of Congress that that characterization is true of the tremendous majority of naturalized citizens, they are loyal to the United States; and, if at all, only a very small proportion of them who are notbut what would be the effect of this act, if passed, upon these loyal American citizens? It would defeat, we submit, the very purpose of naturalization, which is to make these persons whom the United States has admitted as citizens at home in our institutions, with all the rights which are given to citizens, not only for the benefit of the individuals but for the benefit of the rest of us. It would largely revoke those rights of free speech and free assembly, because no naturalized person could feel that he could freely express himself upon any international problem without risking that in some time of emergency, some time of excitement, this amendment, if passed, would be invoked to revoke his naturalization-his most prized possession.

Let me be concrete and take some possible specific instances: An Englishman who has become naturalized may in some discussion with to criticize the Government for not giving more aid to England, and wish to criticize the Government as an American citizen; yet he would be stultified in the free expression of his views because such criticism might be construed as a violation of this act. Or take another example, a naturalized German who came over before Hitler, at the beginning of the Hitler regime to find the refuge which our shores offer and he has become a good American citizen. When this war is over-and, as we confidently expect, we are victorious-the question of the kind of peace we want will come up, and that is a question in which all citizens are expected and wanted to give their views, because only out of a free discussion can we establish any true faith in our democracy. And the question comes up whether Germany should be crushed as far as possible and deprived of maintaining economy and substance on the one hand, or on the other hand given access to certain resources, natural resources, and to try or an attempt be made to set up Germany as a useful member of the society of nations. That question may be discussed. Is a naturalized German to be prevented from expressing his views on that question, if they are in favor of a more liberal treatment of Germany, because he happens to be a naturalized rather than a native-born citizen? And those examples could be multiplied.

There is a double harm in it, we submit, not only in the restriction of free speech among the naturalized citizens, but in the introduction into our whole system of government of an attitude which deliberately suppresses free speech. Because all of us as citizens are entitled to hear, as much as we are entitled to speak. The Bill of Rights is two-edged; that is, for those who wish to speak and those who wish to listen. Fundamentally, of course, is a recognition of the great constitutional policy of free speech and free assembly for all. And this act, we submit, would be the greatest blow at the very kind of free speech, the very essence of free speech for which we are fighting. Thank you.

Senator MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Oppenheimer. Mr. FINERTY. Before Mr. Oppenheimer concludes his testimony, could I speak to him?

Senator MALONEY. Yes; surely.

Mr. FINERTY (after conferring). Thank you very much. Senator MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Finerty and Mr. Oppenheimer. I would like to say for the benefit of those here that it is my intention to close this hearing shortly before 12 o'clock. There are some important matters to come up in the Senate and I expect all members will want to be there. We will meet again tomorrow unless the subcommittee objects.

We can, it seems to me, briefly hear someone else now. How much time to you intend to take?

Mr. FLEISCHMAN. About 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST FLEISCHMAN, ATTORNEY, NEW YORK CITY, REPRESENTING WORKERS DEFENSE LEAGUE

Mr. FLEISCHMAN. My name is Ernest Fleischman. I am an attorney, at 305 Broadway, New York City. I represent the Workers Defense League, and since this is the first time this league has appeared before this particular Senate committee, I want to identify it. It is a national nonpartisan organization in defense of labor's rights.

Of course, many people would immediately say, "Well, maybe it is a communist organization." I want to put it on record that it is not, and I will submit a copy of the talk I will give and on the back of the first page is a list of the board of directors and the members of the national executive board. I may also state that Mr. Finerty, who spoke before, is appearing for the Workers Defense League in one particular case, and since he is well known as being opopsed to communism and the Communist Party, I hope that will sufficiently identify the character of the organization.

I appear on behalf of the Workers Defense League, a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to the defense of labor's rights.

The Workers Defense League urges the deletion of section 8 from H. R. 6250. Said section provides that any naturalized citizen may have his citizenship canceled at any time if it is proved that "his utterances, writings, actions, or course of conduct establishes that his political allegiance is to a foreign state or sovereignty." The objections to this bill are numerous, but I will stress only the dangers of this bill as it affects labor's rights in the United States.

There are over 10,000,000 naturalized citizens in the United States, and it is common knowledge that most of them have entered the ranks of labor and depend upon their continued employment for a livelihood. The recent phenomenal expansion of the Government's personnel, together with the growth of our defense industry and the further requirements for licenses in many trades and professions, has made citizenship an indispensable requirement for many types of employment.

Senator HOLMAN. May I interpose a question? I am interested in your statement of more than 10,000,000 aliens in this country. And my question is; is that the census? What is your authority for that? Mr. FLEISCHMAN. The World Almanac of 1942.

A noncitizen finds his field of employment restricted as never before, and when he has devoted himself to the acquisition of certain skills, the revocation of his citizenship will literally take away his opportunity of earning a livelihood. Thus a threat to revoke his citizenship would be as powerful a weapon as the threat of a revocation of a work