from which they came? What attitude would they have that would justify them in criticising the United States for doing something that really amounts to about half of what their own country does and what their own people have to go through?

Mr. WARREN. Registration of a sort does exist in other countries. Take France, for example. I do not suppose there is an American who goes to France who does not complain against the French system of registration. It is inconvenient, embarrassing, and a nuisance generally. It is one of the things you have to tolerate when you go to France. They complain about that very business of registration. Certainly no American would desire that kind of registration in the United States. I would not. It would really accomplish very little. Theoretically, it helps to locate the criminal. Actually, the criminal would avoid any such registration. I have had the experience of trying to find people in Germany through registration. Unless you can say specifically where the person lived last, or when he lived there, he cannot be located. I think that is equally true of France. Just because France has registration, I see no reason why we should have it.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You are getting away from the question or embarrassment and objection that people have. It is difficult for me to understand how any alien can have any legitimate reason to object to an action on the part of our Government, when his government has a more drastic requirement for American citizens who go there.

Mr. WARREN. I think there is a point there. I think it must be admitted that many aliens will find it less inconvenient than the requirements of their own country. I agree with that. But because they have been accustomed to it in their country of origin, it does not seem to me that removes the fact that it is an unnecessary embarrassment and inconvenience. In my judgment, it would accomplish very little, nothing in proportion to the expense involved.

S. 1365 provides for new classes of deportation, in addition to those already covered by existing law. Subsection 1 of the first section of the bill provides that any alien shall be deported who commits a crime for which the punishment may be for 1 year, regardless of whether he is so sentenced. There are many minor crimes, many traffic violations, in which the maximum punishment is 1 year. The actual offense may be of a very minor nature. A person may receive a suspended sentence, or may be placed on probation, and yet the punishment provided for the offense involved may be 1 year or more.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. What traffic violations, for example, have a penalty of 1 year?

Mr. WARREN. I do not think I can answer your question, Senator. It seems to me no one cay say, without an extensive study, what crimes in all the States are punishable by 1 year's imprisonment as a maximum. I am not competent to say. But certainly there are many crimes in which the maximum is 1 year, and which are of a minor nature. I am sorry, but I cannot answer that question categorically, and I think it would require an extensive study of State and Federal laws to determine how inclusive that provision would be. It seems to me that the present law is adequate on the subject of the major crimes. There are other provisions included in the present Dies bill in the House that seem to me to be more reasonable than the provision of this particular bill.

The second subsection seems to me to be surplus legislation. The individuals to be deported under the provisions of that section are already deportable under existing law. As I understand that subsection, it refers to certain time limitations of 5 years with respect to certain classes included here that are now deportable. Under our 1924 law anyone is deportable at any time for these reasons. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Do you refer to subsection 4? Mr. WARREN. No; subsection 2.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. That is in reference to the time limitation?

Mr. WARREN. That is in reference to the time limitation. It seems to me that after a person has been granted a vise by our consular officer and has complied with the various provisions, we have had an opportunity to look in his circumstances. Then later on, if it is discovered that he does not comply with section 3, there should be some reasonable time limit on it, such as is provided in the present law of 5 years for certain classes.

I will go on now to subsection 4.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Have you any objection to subsection 3, relating to violations of the narcotic laws?

Mr. WARREN. No; except that I think for the sake of consistency the provisions for the deportation of violators of the State narcotic laws should be the same as for violators of the Federal nartotic laws. I am not sure that this provision will bring about that consistency. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. My understanding is that all it does is to extend the provision for violating the Federal laws.

Mr. WARREN. I think it may go further. I am not certain as to that. I would rather refer that to others.

Subsection 4, it seems to me, goes altogether too far. There are some unfortunate persons who have become users of narcotic drugs, originally under the recommendation or prescription of a physician. They may have consulted a private physician and may have, as a result of such consultation, gone to a private institution for care. They may have been lawfully committed to such an institution, because the institution required control over the patient as a part of his treatment. He may go voluntarily to a private institution on the recommendation of his own physician. To deport such a person, it seems to me, is simply to add one more trouble to those he already has. I think it goes altogether too far.

I think the same in general may be said about subsection 5. Certainly, we would all be in favor of deporting the professional smuggler. On the other hand, I know from experience there are many cases in which parents or brothers or sisters may, by a mere suggestion to one of their own relatives, technically violate the law in a way that it may be said they assisted such person to evade it. To make them deportable simply adds confusion to the whole situation. I would certainly be in favor of any law that would discriminate carefully between the professional smuggler and the action of a concerned parent for the admission of his own child. We occasionally find parents who are so concerned that they may technically violate the law. It is not justified, but, nevertheless, it does not seem to me that we are justified in deporting an occasional offender of that sort. But I feel that we should use every effort at our command to deport the professional smuggler.

I have no particular objection to subsections 6 and 7, except that they both appear to me, offhand, to be rather badly drawn.

Section 2 provides for a temporary stay of deportation for a period of a year, to be reported by the Department of Labor to the Congress as to those persons to whom a stay is granted. That is a section in which we are terribly interested, and we do not believe that section will meet the admitted problem which the Government faces.

When

For one reason or another, there are certain families in which individuals are deportable for technical or minor violations of the law. The theory of section 2 obviously is that a temporary stay might be granted, and that such cases be reported to Congress, with the implication that Congress would act within the period of 1 year. we take into consideration the number of private bills that have been presented to Congress, I think it shows beyond question it is not practicable to expect that Congress will act helpfully in those cases which come up to it within that time. The extreme hardship cases that we know of have been before Congress for at least 3 years, and no solution has yet been found that is acceptable to the majority.

My own judgment is that inevitably, if we set up categories of persons who are to be deported under our laws, we are creating hardship cases. The infinite varieties of the human behavior in families obviously create these hardship cases. It is virtually impossible, and I say that from 25 years' experience in social work, to write down any law specifically and in detail which will cover all the persons who should be deported.

In my judgment, it is necessary that every factor present in the family situation be taken into account. There is the length of residence of the individual, the rights of his family, his conduct since he has been in the country. He may have entered the country in violation of law 15 or 20 years ago, and his conduct may have been exemplary ever since. He may have a wife and children who are American citizens. The problems of those three factors present in every case are infinite in their multiplicity. As a result of these things I have mentioned a great number of these so-called hardship cases are created. The only solution I can see now is that directions be given to administrative officers within certain limitations to exercise their individual judgment in individual cases. I do not believe the provisions of this section will prove practical or meet the problem.

Section 3, it seems to me, is again too badly drawn, and should designate more specifically the particular members of the staff of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who are to be given the power to detain persons for investigation for this temporary period until it can be determined whether a warrant shall issue.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Why?

Mr. WARREN. It seems to me that is a very serious responsibility, and that it should be restricted in its application. We all recognize the contention of the Department that certain officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service should have that authority, but to give it generally it seems to me is going too far.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. It says "designate." Suppose you say "designated for that purpose by the Commissioner of Immigration.' Would you have any objection to that?

Mr. WARREN. That is the way it reads now. It would give the Commissioner broad power to designate all of his staff, if he so chooses, as it is now worded.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes; that is true.

Mr. WARREN. Without pressing the point unduly, it seems to me that is not required, and should be restricted to supervisory employees to be thus designated.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I would like to make this observation at this point: Since I have been here, this being my third year, the attitude of both sides of this immigration question seems to me to be so unreasonable that I have just about come to the conclusion that it is impossible to get any kind of immigration legislation, because of the attitude that both sides take on the question. We have a very definite need for a tightening up of our laws in regard to deportation. Everybody admits it. If both sides would agree to certain things in respect to this legislation we would get much further.

We have a very definite need for taking care of these hardship cases. The side appearing here this morning recognizes that need, and the other group does not want to have anything done about it at all.

It seems to me that the people who are interested in the problem of immigration in this country should be able to reach some sort of agreement. Both sides should be able to get together, and agree on something.

I cannot see anything wrong about letting anybody the Commissioner of Immigration wants to designate have the authority to detain an alien for 24 or 48 hours. There is no harm there to anybody. Your group seems to be reasonable about that, but the other group on the day before yesterday was unreasonable and wants to keep all aliens out. The result is that we cannot get any immigration legislation, and lots of people are hurt, and the country is hurt by reason of the fact that there are a lot of aliens who should be deported, but we get nothing done because each side is totally unreasonable. I cannot see any reasonable objection to this provision. I think anybody who objects to it is absolutely unreasonable.

I think you people should get together and not insist upon 100 percent of your ideas, and the other side insist upon 100 percent of their ideas. I am becoming more and more convinced that there are no two groups in this country so absolutely unfair to the other side as both groups are on this question. We will never be able to take care of these hardship cases in which you are interested until your side and the other side are willing to concede reasonable points. I think Congress is very anxious to work out some solution of this problem, but there seems to be no middle of the road.

I probably should not have interjected this idea.

Mr. WARREN. I think it is very helpful, Mr. Chairman. 1 was under the impression that our side had made a number of concessions. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I just point to that because it seems to me you are all unreasonable. We know the Commissioner will not designate all of his employees for that purpose. You have faith in the Commissioner, and in the Secretary of Labor, in respect to these hardship cases. You know the Commissioner would not designate every employee in the Immigration Service to do that work, but merely those who are competent to do it.

Mr. WARREN. May I say, in some justification of our point of view, that for years in previous administrations we have seen the immigration and deportation laws administered in such a highly technical manner that I think we have some justification for being concerned

about a law granting such a power. We are trying to compromise in this particular instance by suggesting that supervisory officials be designated. If it is essential to reach an agreement it seems to me we could come together on that point.

Senator MOORE. The person who may be designated by the Commissioner of Immigration does not adjudge the case. He merely detains the alien. A police officer does not decide whether a man is guilty or not. He detains him. That is all the power granted here. Mr. WARREN. A few years ago a whole group of people who were gathered in a hall were taken and detained unnecessarily.

Senator MOORE. That is the law now, is it not?

Mr. WARREN. No. That has been discontinued. We do not want to return to it. It would be possible, it seems to me, for a very energetic and ambitious administration to carry such power altogether too far under such a section. That is our judgment. It certainly is our feeling on the more important features of the legislation that, if an opportunity for compromise is offered, we are just as anxious as the Congress or the committee to find some solution of the problem. In respect to the so-called hardship cases, it seems to me we have tried to find some middle-of-the-road method by giving way quite extensively on the additional criminal provisions of the section. are sure that infinite hardship would follow some of these sections, but we have accepted them.

We

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I will agree that you are more willing to concede than the other side is.

Mr. WARREN. Our people have been willing to compromise. We have felt there should be a solution. If sometimes we may seem to be unreasonable, you must take into account the extreme measures that are proposed, that are to be taken seriously, and must be opposed just as vigorously as they are presented. That is very unfortunate. We all regret it. Speaking for myself, I want to assure you that I, for one, will try to find a middle-of-the-road way. We regret exceedingly if we appear to be extremists. It must be remembered that we are discussing extreme legislation.

S. 1366 provides for quota reduction. I see no necessity for quota reduction at this time. The quotas have been reduced to the extent provided in this bill by administrative procedure. It seems to me this provision is unnecessary. The administrative method of handling the situation is infinitely more elastic and can be made to respond to changed economic situations.

There is no evidence that I can see that immigration at present, at least, has anything to do with our unemployment problem. Under the administrative machinery only those are being admitted who are to join immediate fireside relationships. No new seed immigration in any volume is being admitted. During the period of the depression there has been a greater exodus than entry of aliens. To provide that quotas should be reduced as much as 90 percent seems again to take an extreme position which would work unusual hardships with respect to certain countries. I would prefer to refer the matter of the technical figures to those who are to follow.

I also see no particular need for applying quotas to present nonquota countries. At the present time the present administration has been following certain policies which, I think, in the judgment of all, have brought us much closer to our neighboring countries. The "good