Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

TO RECONCILE NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE

WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1932

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

Washington, D. C. "The committee this day met, Hon. Samuel Dickstein, chairman, presiding.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. The committee will please come to order.

I tried to get a larger room, and I am still hoping that we can get a larger room in which to continue the hearing. I realize this is too small a place for so large a meeting, and if the hearing continues beyond 12 o'clock, I am going to put forth my best efforts to secure a larger room in which to continue the session this afternoon.

This hearing will continue consideration of H. R. 297 and H. R. 298, and I understand the testimony this morning will be in opposition to these bills.

I would like to give everybody a chance to be heard, so you will bear in mind that there are a good many witnesses. I do not wish to take away the time of anyone but simply want you to remember that others are to be heard.

Who will be your first witness?

Mr. LLOYD. I am appearing for the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies. The witness who was to appear first apparently has not come in, so I will open

for them. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Just give your full name and the organization for which you appear. STATEMENT OF DEMAREST LLOYD, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD, AMERICAN COALITION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES Mr. LLOYD. My name is Demarest Lloyd, vice chairman of the board, American Coalition of Patriotic Societies. The committee is perhaps somewhat familiar with our organization; it is composed of some 75 of the leading patriotic societies of this country. If the chairman desires, I will read that list. The CHAIRMAN. You may, if you wish.

. Mr. Lloyd. If the committee please, I have a copy of that, which I can leave with the stenographer.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may read it and submit the copy to the stenographer.

Mr. LLOYD. Yes.
(The list above referred to is as follows:)

85

LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS IN THE AMERICAN COALITION OF PATRIOTIO SOCIETIES

Allied Patriotic Societies (Inc.).
American Defense Society.
Anglo-Saxon Federation of America.
American Legion Auxiliary.
American Security League.
American Vigilants Alliance.
American Vigilant Intelligence Federation.
American War Mothers.
American Women's Legion.
Bergen County (N. J.) Women's Republican Club.
Better America Federation.
Congress of States Societies.
Dames of the Loyal Legion of the United States.
Daughters of America, National Council.
Daughters of the American Revolution, National Society.
Daughters of the Defenders of the Republic.
Daughters of the Revolution, National Society.
Daughters of the Revolution, New Jersey State Society.
Daughters of the Union, 1861–1865, National Society.
Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War.
Disabled American Veterans of the World War.
Elizabeth Parcells DeVoe Chapter United States Daughters of the American

Revolution.
Englewood (N. J.) Women's Republican Club.
The Government Club (Inc.).
Immigration Restriction Association.
Immigration Study Commission.
Industrial Defense Society.
Junior American Vigilant Intelligence Federation.
Junior Order United American Mechanics, New Jersey.
Ladies Auxiliary, Order of Independent Americans.
Ladies Auxiliary, Veterans of Foreign Wars of United States.
Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic.
Leonia (N. J.) Women's Republican Club.
Mayflower Descendants-General Society.
Military Order of the World War.
Military Society War of 1812.
Minute Men of America (Inc.).
National Immigration Legislative Committee.
National Patriotic Council.
National Patriotic League.
National Security League.
National Society of New England Women.
National Sojourners, National Society.
National Sojourners, Manhattan Chapter No. 86.
National Sojourners, New York Chapter No. 13.
National Women's Relief Corps.
Naval & Military Order of the Spanish American War.
New York City Colony, Society of New England Women.
Order of Independent Americans.
Patriotic Builders of America (Inc.).
Patriotic Order of Americans, National Camp.
Patriotic Order Sons of America, National Camp.
Patriotic Women of America, National Society.
Protestant Women's Civil Federation,
Reserve Officers' Training Corps Association of the United States.
Ridgewood Unit of Republican Women (Inc.).
Service Star League (Inc.).
Society- of Native Born of United States of America (Henry Clay Council No.

179).
Society of New York State Women..
Society of Colonial Wars in the State of New York.
Sons of the American Revolution, National Society.
Sons and Daughters of Liberty, National Council.
Sons and Daughters of the Pilgrims, National Society.
Southern Vigilant Intelligence Association (Inc.).

Union of Republican Women, Sangamon County, Ill.
United Daughters of the Confederacy, New York Chapter.
United States Air Force Association (Inc.).
United States Daughters of 1812, National Society.
Veteran Corps of Artillery of the State of New York.
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (Americanization committee).
Veterans of Foreign Wars of United States, National Society
Westchester Security League.
Women's Patriotic League of America.
Women of Army and Navy Legion of Valor, United States of America.
Women Descendants of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, National

Society,
Women's Pioneer Aircraft Association of Chicago, Ill.

COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

American Legion.
Junior Order of United American Mechanics, National Council.

Mr. LLOYD. In behalf of this organization, I would like to present the following resolution:

Resolved, That the advisory board of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies is emphatically opposed to any modification of our laws, or Constitution, whereby an alien may secure citizenship with any qualification as to his loyalty and duty to serve in the armed forces of the United States in times of war; and be it further

Resolved, That the advisory board of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies urge upon Congress the enactment of positive legislation that will make the granting of citizenship to any alien seeking naturalization, with any reservation whatsoever as to his or her obligation to serve in or with the armed forces of the United States in time of war, absolutely impossible.

Mr. Dies. How many organizations does this society represent?

Mr. LLOYD. We represent all of the organizations named. Seventy-five organizations comprise the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies. I was going to define exactly what the organization is.

The American Coalition of Patriotic Societies is a coordinated society composed of some 75 affiliated groups, patriotic organizations, and fraternal organizations. The advisory board of this organization is composed

of the chief officer and one delegate from each of those societies. And this advisory board, holding a meeting, determines matters of general policy, as it did here, determines the policy of the organization and what action it wanted to take with reference to immigration restriction, with reference to what stand it will take upon any matter. So this represents the majority vote of all of the organizations, because the representatives, the advisory board of the coalition, determines the policy and that policy is carried out through the board.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. When was that resolution which you just read passed!

Mr. LLOYD. That was passed at a meeting held in Washington.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. When?
Mr. LLOYD. In October.

Mr. DIES. Is it or is it not a fact that several other organizations have passed some resolution, a similar resolution to the one you read?

Mr. LLOYD. Yes; I think there are three others. I think there would be some 78 all told. We represent 75. There are some of these organizations that have not yet had their annual meetings, but on this issue their platform or established policies indicate their attitude.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can save you some time. I have some hope that we can get through this morning. This is a subject that could be debated forever, but I have studied the subject for some time and intensively during the last 24 hours, and it seems to me that the issue is very clear.

Mr. CABLE. You stated in the resolution that you were opposed to any modification of the law or the Constitution.

Mr. LLOYD. Yes.

Mr. CABLE. Now, as I understand the contention of the proponents of the measure, it is their desire simply to eliminate question 24, used by the Bureau of Naturalization. You did not refer to that in your resolution. How do you stand on that question?

Mr. LLOYD. Well, of course, that is so much worse.
Mr. CABLE. But you did not express yourself in the resolution.
Mr. LLOYD. No.

Mr. Dies. The resolution, you mean, does not refer directly to question 24!

Mr. Lloyd. Well, in the light of the naturalization law, and its interpretation, as given by the Labor Department, and the Supreme Court of the United States, I take it as a matter of course that this covers it. The representatives are unequivocally in favor of maintaining the law so that an alien can not thus escape in regard to bearing arms.

Mr. CABLĖ. That is just my point.
Mr. Lloyd. The regulation was passed by the Labor Department.

LLOYD
This was considered at the time the resolution was passed.

Mr. CABLE. You did not even say that in your resolution.
Mr. LLOYD. Well, it was simply to try to save space.
Mr. CABLE. I simply wanted to know what your position was.

Mr. LLOYD. There is not any doubt about how the societies feel, I can assure you.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to be very unfortunate at a time like this, when there are such serious troubles and so much to do that your time and that of the members of the committee should be occupied with this sort of a question. I do not see how anybody who has read the Constitution of the United States and the naturalization law and the Supreme Court decisions in the Schwimmer and Macintosh cases could have come here and put on the sort of a show that they had yesterday.

I am going to leave the legal aspects of this case to those who are better qualified to analyze the reading of the statute and the holding of the Supreme Court, but it seems to me that the case is very clear. As I say, I will leave that to them.

Before I say what I have to say, I would like to take up two or three points that came out yesterday which require an answer, as they might cause some confusion.

There was one speaker who said it was very dangerous to raise questions regarding the Constitution on account of serious differences of opinion regarding the fifteenth and eighteenth amendments. Now, in the first place, I think they are wrong in so far as the Constitution is concerned, as one of the legal members will show. But, from the point of view of the opponents, and from the point of view of those who are defending the Nation, there is a great distinction and a clear distinction between the fifteenth and the

eighteenth amendments, and this question of national defense. It is a fair statement—unfortunately it is so—that there are very serious differences of opinion between the citizens of this country on those two amendments to the Constitution. It may be that if that question were submitted, there would still be a serious disagreement between them, but on the question of national defense there is not. On this question of national defense I do not think there is anyone in the country who could truthfully say that sentiment is not overwhelming on one side. There is no serious difference of opinion whatsoever. There is a small minority and a very noisy minority, that would try to make you feel that there is considerable difference of opinion; but there is not any great difference of opinion on this question of national defense.

Another thing that was brought out was the statement that this is an interpretation of the naturalization law as it is now and this interpretation would not keep out the dishonest alien, but would only prevent the sincere one from entering. It is interesting in that connection to note that some of the people who were here yesterday represented the communists. They represented an extreme radical element, and in a way, that is justified; I think it is a fair statement to say that they represented a radical foreign element. There were a few statements that the radicals, despise the modern idealist, and I think that is so, but if you will study the present day, and perhaps a little history, you will see that they line up finally in their operations; there is a working agreement between them and I think that can be proved in a very brief statement.

The French Revolution was not started by the reds. The French Revolution was started by a lot of moderate idealists, among whom were a great many of tħe aristocracy. The reds crashed in later and took charge, so the result was about the same.

The same thing is true in Russia. It was not the Bolsheviks who started that revolution, but a number of well-meaning but in many cases misguided people.

Liberals strive to break down the structure of a government and then they are swept aside by the militant radicals who then take charge.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lloyd, your discussion is very interesting, I am sure, to all of us. If you will pardon me, just a moment, for

a interposing

Mr. LLOYD. Of course.

The CHAIRMAN. The question here raised, and there seems to be but one question, and that is whether or not question 24 of the application shall be removed at the time of the application.

Mr. LLOYD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Personally, I have no objection to continuing the discussion. I am sort of neutral here. I am not on one side or the other. But, do you not think you should confine your discussion to that particular point? Do you not think we will get further? I am willing to sit here as many hours as you wish. Mr. LLOYD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I am simply suggesting that it would facilitate the hearing if you can confine the discussion to question 24; whether it should be removed from the application.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »