the charge that there had been attempts by officials of the Department of State to collect graft for the issue of fraudulent permits to enter the United States. May I suggest that members of the committee read the record of the House debate. It will be noted that it was on account of these alleged offenses by officials of our Government that an amendment was inserted in the Dies bill which reads "unless the crime related solely to the fraudulently procuring of visas and passports." The effect of this amendment is definitely to weaken the deportation provisions of existing statutes and jeopardize one of the principal reasons for their existence; that is to say, the checking of illegal entry into the United States at the source.

I agreed with the Senator in our informal discussion here yesterday that there are cases where a man might have committed perjury and not realized it. Such cases as that may well be taken care of by private bills. They are certainly most exceptional cases, and a general law cannot be written to take care of every possible exception. May I say that the impression, which has been spread abroad that aliens who are now in the United States in violation of the law, as a class, came here with the connivance of corrupt officials of our Government, is an outrage on the honorable men now in the service of the United States in the Department of State and the Department of Labor. As a citizen, I resent the suggestion that these unsubstantiated charges should be made the basis for the passage of legislation tending to weaken our immigration barriers. If a citizen commits perjury in signing his income-tax return, if convicted, he goes to jail, and properly so, but these aliens who have committed perjury to come into the United States are apparently to be allowed to get away with it. They can get forged papers, and they say they did not know they were forged papers. During the war I had dealings with people of this class and I think I have a fair estimate of the kind of people they are, and that they are people who know what they are doing, although some few of them who are mental deficients may not.

One gentleman appeared before this committee and tsetified about an alien who could not be taught to read. He said when he was shown a word and told what it was, in a very few minutes afterward he did not know what it was. I will venture to say that fellow was a moron and never should have been allowed in this country, and should have been sent home. Why? Because people who are morons breed morons. There is another provision in section 2 upon which I wish to comment. It is the first clause of subsection (a), of section 2, which reads: "has lived continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 10 years." We had testimony yesterday in reference to some of these cases of people who came in here illegally and hid out for 10 years. They say they are of good moral character, and should be given the privilege of becoming citizens, although the first thing they did was to commit a crime, and the second was to hide out. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Was not the testimony in reference to citizenship for these people who came in between 1921 and 1924?

Mr. TREVOR. I think that related to illegal entries. I think the record will show I have not been unjust. I do not want to be. I think the statement related to that. If I am in error, I regret it. The second clause of the same subsection of section 2, beginning in line 16, says:

has lived continuously in the United States for at least one year and has living in the United States a parent, spouse, legally recognized child (or, if the deportable

alien is a minor, and not otherwise falling within either paragraph 1 or 2 of this subdivision, he has a brother or sister) who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence or is a citizen of the United States.

The fact is these people come in and nobody can tell when they came in. Nobody knows whether they have a legally recognized child, or a child that was legally recognized prior to the institution of deportation proceedings. If we had registration of aliens we would know who they are. As that section stands, I would say any alien in the United States can escape the provisions of the deportation law. If they commit a crime to come in, you can rest assured they will commit a crime to stay in and they will forge the papers, or commit perjury, if necessary, to accomplish their aim.

I want to point out that I am in agreement with the proponents of this bill on one point. That is about the question of limitation of discretion to 8,000 aliens. If this limited number is ever adopted in a bill, it will be the basis for future claims of a multitude more. It was frequently said this morning this was a trial balloon, and if it worked they would ask for more. Every one of these witnesses has contended that they all want broad discretionary power given to the Department of Labor to pass upon these cases. That is what they want. That is what they will probably get, if you make the first step easy by passing this bill. When this matter is turned over to the Labor Department, nobody in God's world will be able to find out what kind of people are staying in this country, or anything

about their character.

A member of the House committee, when the digests of illegal entry records were sent down pursuant to the O'Day resolution, found they were not correct. I realize there may be a difference of opinion as to what is material and what is not. I have read copies of some of the original files. I was horrified to see where one woman was turned loose who had a very grave infection of syphilis. She was turned loose in spite of that. This case was mentioned on the floor of the House last year. That is the kind of people that will be left in here if we give power to officials who seem to be more sentimentally interested in these alien individuals than in the general welfare of the community. That is the whole basis of this bill, and we are against it 100 percent.

On page 4, subsection (c) of section 2 provides that, after these aliens have been allowed to stay, we will allow them to become citizens. We have some American citizens who are pretty bad specimens, of course, but here we are opening up the doors to a large body of aliens who committed crimes to come into the country, or crimes after they entered, and then this bill proposes to pave the way to make them citizens of the United States. I think it is absolutely indefensible to degrade our citizenship like that. If we are not going to turn them out, we should at least not admit them to citizenship. When we say they can commit perjury or anything else, even commit a heinous crime, and if they have enough pull with the Department of Labor they can stay and be made citizens, it seems to me we are going entirely too far.

Section 3: We have endorsed the substance of that recommendation made by the Department for years and on occasion suggested that it be made a separate bill so as to secure prompt action by Congress. We also endorsed another feature which appeared in a previous bill sponsored by the Department of Labor to make the limitation of

time during which an alien might be detained 48 hours instead of 24. We think it perfectly proper and necessary for the Department to have this power. It might be introduced as a separate bill and be passed immediately. It ought to be taken out of the other controversial sections.

I speak here for 118 societies, a representative cross-section of the people of the United States. The Junior Order of United American Mechanics represents 500,000 people, according to their national secretary, and, I may add, the finest kind of people in the United States. I think the coalition represents the viewpoint of 80 percent of the people of the United States on this question.

I have already discussed section 5. Section 6 is immaterial. This provision about people entering the United States between 1921 and 1924, if my recollection is correct-Senator Reynolds may remember this-there was some discussion with one of the representatives of labor at that time in which it was brought out that a large number of these aliens were seamen. If you pass that section, then you are opening up a lot of positions on American ships to foreign seamen instead of giving these places to people who are natural-born citizens or lawfully in the country. Nobody knows how many of these aliens there are. We say there is not any merit at all in that provision. Let us have registration first and find out who they are, and then determine what concessions will be made. Of course, if you are going to do any of the things provided in this bill, it is proper to deduct the number of aliens exempted from the quotas. May I suggest, however, that the committee bear in mind that it is possible under the terms of this bill to charge these aliens against quotas running to a 1,000 years or

more.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. That could be done by an amendment. Mr. TREVOR. It would be very difficult to draft, unless you put a limit of time in it. I have been trying to think of something that could be done. At the present moment I do not see how it could be done. This proposal should never be passed until all phases have been more thoroughly studied.

Now, section 9. There is a section for you. That gives the Secretary of Labor the kind of power these alien sympathizers want. The Secretary of Labor can do as she pleases under the provisions of this section of the bill as to any alien heretofore temporarily admitted. These aliens can be permanently admitted if the Secretary wants to do it, regardless of the reason for their exclusion under existing statutes. There is nothing in that provision to allow a review. That would apply to the case of Willie Munsenberg. He went from the steamer to a meeting of about 15,000 Communists where he preached the destruction of our Government. We do not know who these people are that the Secretary might pardon. Nobody can tell who they are or where they are. We object to it 100 percent.

I have only a few more words to say. There has been something said about the American Civil Liberties Union. I will not discuss the merits or demerits of that organization more than to point out that it has been very well characterized as to what it is in the investigation made by a House committee, of which I think Congressman McCormack was chairman, and the committee that Congressman Fish headed. It has been characterized by the Lusk committee in New York as to just exactly what it is. I would like to read a brief statement of what they say about it in National Republic.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. By whom is that published?

Mr. TREVOR. Walter Steele is the publisher of it, here in Washington. If you object to the magazine, we will introduce the original publication of the American Civil Liberties Union. I am not so interested in what the magazine says about the American Civil Liberties Union as I am to introduce in the record the quotation from a document issued by that body. Personally, I think the American Civil Liberties Union is an organization to protect all sorts of undesirable people in the United States. I think some of the people they seek to protect are trying to overthrow our Government. This is what the article says:

The new bill eliminates all of the important provisions opposed by the union, especially the deportation of aliens who do not become citizens within a given period, and aliens who may be "Communists or Fascists.' The best provision of the revised bill, according to the union, gives the Secretary of Labor discretion for the next 4 years to suspend deportations of aliens. The revised measure resembles the main provisions of the Kerr-Coolidge bill, backed by the Department of Labor in previous sessions.

Changes in the Dies bill suggested by the union provided, in brief:

That the Secretary of Labor be given discretion not to deport aliens convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, for which the alien is sentenced to any institution, or the crime of possessing or carrying any firearm, rather than making such deportation absolutely mandatory.

You have heard these witnesses for the bill. This is the same crowd that has fought immigration restriction ever since I can remember. They represent a relatively small part of the population, located chiefly in congested centers. One of the affiliated societies of an organization represented here today supporting the Dies bill, employed, if my recollection is correct, the first professional lobbyist to fight legislation to restrict immigration into the United States as far back as early in the seventies of the last century.

I want to thank you, Senator Schwellenbach, very much for allowing me to go on at this time. I do not want to impose further upon your good nature.

STATEMENT OF MILLARD W. RICE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Mr. Rice, you may proceed. First give your name.

Mr. RICE. My name is Millard W. Rice. I am national legislative representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Mr. Chairman, the members of our organization are composed exclusively of American citizens who have fought in American overseas and foreign wars and are in favor of a more restricted deportation law. Therefore, believing that this particular bill is not aimed toward that objective, our organization is not in sympathy with the general purposes of the bill and does not believe it ought to be enacted into law.

Specifically, it appears that the bill, after mentioning the various legislative enactments, is drawn for the purpose of retaining certain aliens in this country, rather than for the purpose of the deportation of additional aliens. The only additional classification of aliens who would appear to be deportable under this particular bill, and who are not deportable under the present law, are those who might be found guilty of the violation of some State narcotic law. Therefore, it

appears that this bill has an effect different or will have an effect different than it really purports to have, and that is generally assumed. It is really a bill to legalize the retention of aliens in this country rather than to make more strict the deportation of aliens.

Referring to section 1 of the bill, we see no reason why aliens should be exempted from deportation because crimes involving moral turpitude may have been committed by them more than 5 years prior to the institution of proceedings for their deportation. We see no reason for the phrase "after conviction." We feel that it should be retroactive.

We see no reason for subsection 2 of section 1, which exempts those who have been found guilty of the crime of carrying or possessing firearms, except within the last 5 years prior to the institution of proceedings for their deportation. If that is a crime for which they should be deported within that period, they should be deported if it was committed more than 5 years prior to the institution of such proceedings.

Subsection 3 of section 1 is good, and we are in sympathy with it. Subsection 4 of section 1 is bad, in that it practically invites the commission of more than one violation of law before the alien may be deportable. It is a very bad provision, in our judgment.

Coming to section 2, subsection 1 is bad, in that it in effect overlooks crimes committed by aliens who have lived in the United States for more than 10 years. It would give approval to what has previously been prohibited by law and what has previously been declared by law to be grounds for deportation. It is an invitation to aliens in the future to be guilty of similar violations of law, in the implied hope that in future years Congress will not enact further restrictive legislation, which would enable them to remain in this country and become citizens.

Subsection 2 of section 2 is particularly bad, in that it extends this discretionary power to those who have lived in the United States for more than 1 year. No good reason is seen why there should be new discretion extended to such persons because they had parents, or a spouse, or a legally recognized child or brother or sister in this country. There is no such treatment accorded to American citizens who are guilty of crime.

Subsection (b) has a mere deceptive objective, in that there is a limitation of the number who may be exempted from the application of the law. There should be no limitation of the number. The mere statement that there are 3,500 is a deceptive invitation to those who might oppose the bill and think that is going to affect a very small number of people. It might affect many thousands of other people, and there would appear to be no good reason why those in excess of 3,500 should not have the same treatment. Therefore, additional legislation would be urged in their behalf, or continued postponement of the application of the law, because the number of 3,500 may have been exceeded.

Subsection (c) is O. K., provided you have subsection (b) put into effect, but we do not believe it should be, and therefore there is no logical reason for subsection (c).

Section 3 of the bill is good, and we are in favor of it.

Section 4 is necessary for the proper administration of this kind of a bill, if it is to be put into effect.