who were in conflict with the law. It is an alien organization, although headed by a native-born American. Senator ANDREWS. I wish to thank these gentlemen for their attendance. Senator HUGHES. We will fix another day as soon as we can, and you will be notified. Representative DEMPSEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate your kindness and courtesy. Senator HUGHES. I understand that there are others who want to come before the committee the early part of next week. (Whereupon, at 11:10 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.) ''4 DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1940 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, in the committee room, Capitol, at 10:55 a. m., Senator James H. Hughes (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Hughes (chairman) and Andrews. Present also: Hon. Robert R. Reynolds, a Senator in Congress from the State of North Carolina; and Hon. J. J. Dempsey, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico. Senator HUGHES. The committee will be in order. Is there any one here who wishes to speak in favor of the bill? Apparently not. Representative DEMPSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission, before you close these hearings, to put in the record some sworn testimony taken before the Dies committee, which will point out some of the evils this bill wishes to cure. It goes into the question of these aliens who come to our country from foreign lands, and under our existing laws we have no way of getting them out of this country. Senator HUGHES. That was taken before the Dies committee? Representative DEMPSEY. Yes. Senator HUGHES. Without the witnesses being present? Representative DEMPSEY. No; they were on the stand and testified about these very matters. Senator HUGHES. I understand you want to put in evidence before this committee the testimony taken before that committee. Representative DEMPSEY. If you prefer, we can produce the witnesses later. Senator HUGHES. Perhaps the opposition would want to ask them some questions. Representative DEMPSEY. Then at this time I will not press that. If you care to hear the opposition this morning we would like to put in some evidence afterward. Senator HUGHES. Senator Schwellenbach asked for about 10 days to produce witnesses against the bill, and I told him we would go on this morning with what we had and let him introduce his testimony later. Representative DEMPSEY. I have heard from many organizations, such as the D. A. R., who favor the bill and want to be heard. I made an effort to get them here this morning, but was unable to do so. The House will meet at 11 o'clock instead of 12. Senator HUGHES. We have not had so very many asking to be heard. Representative DEMPSEY. I think Senator Hatch wants to be heard in favor of it, and several Members of the House. I do not know whether the people who are here this morning are for or against the bill. Senator HUGHES. I think we might as well go on as far as we can with what we have here today. STATEMENT OF REUBEN OPPENHEIMER, BALTIMORE, MD., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Senator HUGHES. You may state your name. Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Reuben Oppenheimer. I appear in opposition to the proposed legislation. I am here representing the American Civil Liberties Union. Senator ANDREWS. Where are you from? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Baltimore, Md., where I practice law. Mr. OPPENHEIMER, There is natural and proper resentment against aliens who violate the hospitality which the United States have offered them, by endeavoring to overthrow our form of government and the principles for which it stands. There is natural and proper resentment at the attempt on the part of some aliens to introduce into this country communism and nazi-ism and things of that character. I should like, however, to analyze the proposed bill, which was offered, of course, in the best of faith, as a proposed remedy for some conditions existing in this country. It is unnecessary to review before this committee the extent of our present legislation, so far as the alien who advocates the overthrow of the Government by force and violence is concerned. The laws of the United States, at the present time, provide for the exclusion and deportation of aliens who believe in, advise, advocate or are members of or affiliated with any groups or organizations that believe in, advise, advocate or teach 1. The overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, 2. The duty or necessity of political assassination, 3. The unlawful damage or destruction of property. 4. Sabotage. (U. S. C., title 8, sec. 137 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). Representative DEMPSEY. You say anyone coming under those classifications is deportable? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Yes, sir. Representative DEMPSEY. Did not the Supreme Court say, if you change your mind afterward, you cannot be deported? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Yes. Representative DEMPSEY. You may attack the Government with force and violence, and by the time you are brought to trial you change your mind, and that prevents your exclusion under the present law. Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Under that decision, that is the law, which, of course, if Congress wishes, can be amended. Even if amended, the present law applies only to those who believe in and advocate the overthrow of the Government by force of arms. Any aliens coming within those classes is deportable at any time, irrespective of the time of their entry. There are additional provisions for the deportation of aliens, at any time, for advocating or teaching the unlawful destruction of property, or the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials (U. S. C., title 8, sec. 155). The existing legislation is entirely adequate to meet any existing threat of force or violence. What does this proposed bill mean? It does not make exclusion or deportation dependent upon any act of the alien or any incitement of conspiracy of the alien. It is directed to belief and opinions alone. The act proposes to add another section to the fourth section now set forth in section 137 of article 8 of the code. The beliefs and opinions aimed at are not even limited to those which it may be believed are dangerous to American principles, but include any belief or opinion as to any change in the American form of government. Moreover, the belief or opinion need not be that of the alien himself; the alien is to be excluded or deported if he is a member of or assists in any way any organization which has such a belief or opinion, or advocates any such change in the American form of Government. That is the language of the act, which is obviously directed only to beliefs and opinions. Representative DEMPSEY. Do you so construe H. R. 4860? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Yes. Representative DEMPSEY. Have you read the bill? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Yes. Representative DEMPSEY. Does it say that? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. I will get to an analysis of it in just a moment. It is covered by paragraph C of section 1 of the act, and proposes to amend the bill by striking out the word "sabotage", and substituting "any" for "fundamental", so as to read "any change in the American form of government." Representative DEMPSEY. That is not a part of the bill. Mr. OPPENHEIMER. That is not a part of the bill, but that has to be read as part of the general act you were going to amend. Representative DEMPSEY. Under that, would it not be possible for any person to make an address and praise our form of government? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. That is not what I said. Representative DEMPSEY. If you advocate any change in our form of government you are deportable? Is that what you mean? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Not only that, but if you believe in a change in our form of government, whether you advocate it or not. It seems clear to me under the bill that any alien who believes in any change in the American form of government, whether he advocates it or not, or who belongs to any organization which believes in or advocates a change in the American form of government, is subject to deportation. I say, therefore, again, that this bill is directed to belief and opinion. Under this bill any man who has an opinion with respect to the American form of government, is subject to deportation. The terms of the statute are so vague and general that they afford no adequate standards for its enforcement. The Constitution contains no definition of the American form of government, nor have counsel been able to find any decisions of the Supreme Court which define that term. In discussing the meaning of the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. In the case of Duncan v. McCall, 139 U. S. 449, Chief Justice Fuller of the United States Supreme Court said: By the Constitution, a republican form of government is guaranteed to every State in the Union, and the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration, and pass their own laws in virtue of the legislative power reposed in representative bodies whose legislative acts may be said to be those of the people themselves; but while the people are thus the source of political power, their governments, national and State, have been limited by written constitutions, and they have themselves thereby set bounds to their own power, as against the sudden impulses of mere majorities. So that the Constitution is a part of the American form of government, and any change in the Constitution would presumably be a change in the American form of government. An amendment to our Constitution, in view of changing conditions, would be a change in the American form of government. It will be noted that the Supreme Court, in its discussion of what is a republican form of government for the States, points out that the distinguishing feature is the right of the people to choose their own officers and pass their own laws, but that such government is limited by written constitutions. The Supreme Court has refused, under this section of the Constitution, to decide whether or not a State has ceased to be republican in form within the meaning of the guaranty. That question, the Court has held, is a political one solely for Congress to determine (Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 581; Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 233 U. S. 118). One of the distinguishing features of our American form of government is the Bill of Rights, which guarantees to every individual, citizen and alien alike, certain fundamental liberties, including the right of free speech and the advocacy, by peaceful means, of changes in our political system. The proposed bill, by forbidding not only such right of free speech but also opinions on such matters, in itself, would effect a disastrous change in our form of government. Every amendment to the United States Constitution has represented a change in our organic law. The first 10 amendments, constituting the Bill of Rights, can properly be considered as passed in conjunction with the original instrument, but there have been 11 other amendments, some of which enacted drastic changes in our system of government. If the proposed bill had been upon the statute books in the past, an alien would presumably have been excluded or deported if he had believed in or been affiliated with an organization in favor of the thirteenth amendment prohibiting slavery; or the fourteenth amendment prohibiting the States from abridging or infringing the immunities of citizens; or the fifteenth amendment providing that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; or the nineteenth amendment similarly protecting the rights of women citizens; or the seventeenth amendment providing for the popular election of Senators. |