neighbor" policy seems to be actually working in practice. Why should we now offend those countries by passing quota legislation? Furthermore, it seems to me that the idea of reciprocity involved is equally impractical. I have had some knowledge of how those matters worked out in European countries. It worked fairly well between the Scandianvian countries, where conditions were rather similar from country to country; but where conditions vary so greatly as they do between the United States and some of our South American countries, it is my judgment that reciprocity will not work at all, because the two countries are totally dissimilar as to conditions.

I think that covers the comments I would like to make. I will be very glad to answer any questions you may care to ask.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Thank you very much. We appreicate your presence.

STATEMENT OF CHESTER E. TAYLOR, SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL AND AMERICANIZATION DEPARTMENT, YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION, ORANGE, N. J.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You may state your name and occupation.

Mr. TAYLOR. My name is Chester E. Taylor, secretary of the Industrial and Americanization Department of the Y. M. C. A. for the Oranges, N. J. I have been for 18 years engaged in Americanization work among foreigners, and for the last 7 years teaching them the principles of our Government.

Senator MOORE. You have written me letters about it?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. I have also been helping aliens to make out their citizenship papers and following through with them, and inculcating a true understanding of American principles of Government. In cooperation with the judge of the United States district court in Newark, we have formed a sort of ceremony in connection with naturalization which has been in operation for the past year, which lends dignity to the process. It is a very simple ceremony that brings in a prominent citizen, a Representative or Senator or some other citizen who can speak as to what the American system stands for, to address the class for about 10 minutes. The judge explains the meaning of the oath and administers it very simply, and then we have a soloist sing such songs as The Battle Hymn of the Republic. On one of those occasions Senator Moore was our speaker, when he was Governor of New Jersey. We hope he may be with us again.

I am also secretary of a club of European nationals and American boys which comes together for social affairs, and economics, and things of that sort, for the purpose of bringing them into closer relationships and encouraging them to become citizens and aiding those who are foreigners to become more acquainted with our conditions.

I am also secretary of the Secretaries Club of Bloomfield, composed of about 355 secretaries and foremen from sixty-odd industries, mostly in Newark and the Oranges and Bloomfield. In the last couple of years the committee of civic organization has carried on that work, and has developed into a small organization called the Americanization council, which considers not only the conditions of workingmen, but also matters such as these bills and all other things

which have to do with the condition of the working people. We have 42 civic and patriotic organizations. I cite those things to show that for a good many years I have been interested in these matters.

I do not speak as a representative of the Y. M. C. A., because I have had no opportunity to take that matter up with them. We have not had an opportunity to go on record. I am here simply as an interested citizen to show my reaction to these bills.

If you wish, I will take them up in the same order Mr. Warren did. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. It seems to me the bill S. 1363, which authorizes the President to proclaim any group or any single individual alien to be inimical to the public interest, and that when such proclamation is issued the Secretary of Labor shall take into custody such alien or aliens and deport them forthwith-it seems to me that is vicious, in that it delegates what should be a legislative function to the executive branch of the Government. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I would expect that to be held unconstitutional. It seems to me it violates our Constitution in that it does not afford due process of law. There is no opportunity for defense. It is a dictatorial attitude which you might expect to find in Germany or in Italy, but certainly does not belong in the United States. It violates the right of habeas corpus, if the President can be given powers like that. I do not think the President would exercise such a power, and I do not think it would improve the present condition if the Congress should pass it.

Then the second section of S. 1363 provides that the Secretary of Labor shall take into custody and forthwith deport any alien who has been on relief for a period of 6 months, public or private relief. What do they mean by "private" relief? If I have an alien whom I am supporting, or any American citizen is supporting his grandmother or grandfather, is that private relief? Would that not lay them liable to deportation? It is ambiguous in that it does not set up any specific length of time. It might be possible for a person who had been on relief for 1 month a year for 6 years to be subject to deportation.

Further on it says the Secretary of Labor is authorized to facilitate the voluntary departure of any alien who desires to leave voluntarily. What does that word "facilitate" mean? Does it mean the Secretary of Labor is authorized to pay his passage? I do not believe any alien who has been on relief here would voluntarily ask to be sent back to his homeland. I cannot see how anybody who has been fortunate enough to escape from Europe to this country would ever want to go back.

Taking up S. 1364, the bill for the registration of aliens, I would like to say that I have been 18 years in Americanization work, trying to Americanize Europeans. It seems to me this bill is an attempt to Europeanize Americans. Why should we single out aliens? I do not believe that is what we want in this country. I believe it would be an entering wedge for universal registration or the system they have in Europe, where a man cannot move from one town to another without reporting to the police. I do not believe we want that in America. I do not believe we want to enact legislation which will result in a great inconvenience to a great majority of decent people of the country. I understand the purpose is to detect or apprehend

a small minority of criminals who would not register, anyway. If the intention is to catch the aliens who are here illegally, I do not believe it will accomplish that. For every alien who is illegally here you would, by this bill, inconvenience probably 10,000 who are legally here, and who are decent citizens.

We have a large percentage of foreign-born persons in this country whose names are obviously not of the old American stock. They have a foreign sound. A good many of them have become American citizens. They would be forced to prove their citizenship. They would probably be forced to carry their papers with them at all times in order to refute the accusation that would be brought against them of being aliens. They would be pointed out by people who would say, "you are a foreigner." If he said he was an American citizen, he would immediately be asked: "Are you registered? Where is your registration card?" If the accused man said "I am not a foreigner, but a naturalized American citizen", he would be required to prove it.

Senator MOORE. According to your view, then it would be a hardship to require a citizen to register in order to vote, to require him to give his name and age and residence?

Mr. TAYLOR. It is not altogether a question of registration that

concerns us.

Senator MOORE. If they are fingerprinted their identity can be positively established in any city. I can send fingerprints from California and in half a minute they will know who that person is. Would not that be a good thing to do?

Mr. TAYLOR. I do not object to fingerprinting per se. I would not object to a law that required universal fingerprinting, but think of the financial burden it would call for.

Senator MOORE. Do you not think that is going to come? They are fingerprinting babies now in hospitals.

Mr. TAYLOR. Probably it will come eventually, but I do not believe we can set up a record for 120,000,000 people in Washington and administer it without enormous expense. After a man is registered, if he moves he is required to notify the Commissioner of Immigration of that fact. The average alien would not think about that sort of thing. Turn to section 7 on page 4, which provides [reading]:

It shall be the duty of every alien in the United States, who has been registered as herein before provided, to notify the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization of the United States of every change of address, with a statement as to whether the change of address is permanent or temporary.

How many know whether it is going to be permanent or temporary?

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I think you are right about that.
Mr. TAYLOR (reading):

If the change of address is permanent, it shall be the duty of the alien to turn in his registration card at the nearest post office and make application in accordance with regulations prescribed by the board for the issuance of a new card; and every alien in the United States shall renew his registration annually at such dates as may be designated on his registration card.

If you have your fingerprint records on file, why make him do it. all over again? That would be a nuisance to everybody. If you have one record, let that record stand. If you make it general for everybody, all right, but the expense would be terrific. The President is now urging economy in every possible way. I do not think a bill

like this would hold up his hands in that direction. It would be a tremendous expense. It would require an enormous number of people to take care of it. The postmasters in the United States post offices must be trained to take those fingerprints. I have talked to a number of fingerprint experts and they tell me that not everybody can do that, but they would have to have some training for it. It would be a very great expense. I do not believe it would catch those who are illegally here.

When we realize the number of people in this country of foreign birth, we can see how all-inclusive it is. Every one of them would have to register and carry around a registration card and his citizenship papers to prove his citizenship. During the World War I served on the draft board, and we had a large registration of aliens in northern New Jersey. A great many of them were suspected of aiding the enemy and we endeavored to detect those. We never got 100 out of it. I do not think it would work any better here. We have too big a country. That is enough on this bill.

I will turn now to S. 1365, which provides for the prompt deportation of habitual alien criminals and other undesirable aliens now in the United States, and to prevent unnecessary hardship or separation of families. I will take that up section by section. Subsection 1 provides that any alien shall be deported who

at any time after entry is or has been convicted of an offense which may be punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or more, or of a crime involving moral turpitude, even though a sentence of imprisonment may not have been imposed, the said deportation to be made by the Secretary of Labor forthwith at the time he is released from confinement or placed upon probation, or is pardoned.

There are many crimes on our statutes, I have no doubt, that are punishable by a term of imprisonment for 1 year or more. I feel that is not big enough to warrant such a penalty. We have had a lot of people during the past 6 or 7 years who have had a tough time to get along. If some fellow, in order to feed his family, should commit a petty theft, it might mean his deportation, as I understand it.

You may not be interested, but this bill says he must be deported even though he is not convicted by a jury or the judges do not think it necessary to sentence him. That section might be all right if it carried with it an appeal clause.

Senator Moore, you know when you were Governor that cases came before you for executive clemency, where the man had been found. guilty, and he could not prove by evidence admissible in court that he was not guilty, but you had the privilege of exercising executive clemency in the light of that newly discovered evidence which convinced you, although it would not have been admissible in a court of law, that you should pardon that man. There is no such provision here. It even says that after a man has been released from confinement or is placed on probation or is even pardoned, he is to be deported. There is no discretion vested in anybody from the President down.

Subsection 2 provides that any alien may be deported who

belongs to one or more of the classes of aliens excluded by section 3 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, and the act for the exclusion and expulsion of anarchists and similar classes approved October 16, 1918, as amended by the act approved June 5, 1920.

That even wipes out the present limitation of 5 years in becoming a public charge. Under the present law an alien is not deportable if

147479-37-6

he becomes a public charge after he has been here for 5 years. This wipes that out. He would be deportable at any time.

I know of cases of men and women who have been here for years, who have been self-supporting, self-respecting, decent folks, many of them with large families, who never felt they had earned enough money that they could spare the few dollars necessary to pay the fees for naturalization. By the time they thought they could do it, and with many of them that was about 1928 or 1929, a good many of them sent in applications that could not be acted upon before July 1, 1929, at which time the rates were jumped by Congress in some cases as much as 1,000 percent. Those fees became prohibitive from 1930 to 1937. I know of cases of people who got jobs and the first thing they did was to apply for citizenship. They could not do it before.

Some folks I know of who are the last to resort to charity have been compelled to accept relief in some form. Sometimes it was for hospitalization for confinement, and sometimes it was just for a short period until he could get another job. I have known of cases where they even paid back to the public welfare the money that had been advanced. Those people, without any question, would come under this subsection and would be deported.

I have no objection to subsection 3, which applies to violations of the narcotic laws. It extends the provision for deportation of violators of the Federal narcotic law to violators of State narcotic laws. I have no objection to that.

In relation to subsection 4, which applies to persons who have been lawfully committed to a public or private institution as a habitual user of narcotic drugs, the only question there is that he might put himself in a private institution to be cured. Of course, if he has been lawfully committed to a public institution as an addict and cannot be helped, perhaps the best way is to get rid of him and send him back, although he may have acquired the habit in America.

There is certainly no objection to the deportation of smugglers, but in subsection 5 it seems to me there is an ambiguity. In the first part it says anyone shall be deported who "knowingly and for gain encouraged, induced, assisted, or aided anyone to enter the United States in violation of law." Fine. By all means, let us throw out the smugglers who make money out of it, the Mexicans who come across the border, or anybody else. But in the next sentence it says "or after passage of this act knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, or aided anyone to enter the United States in violation of law." I know of families who had some other members of the family on the other side. The most natural thing in the world is to write and say "We wish you were here." There might be some cases where they were able to come in as visitors, and then wanted to remain. Under this section these people might be deportable for having "knowingly encouraged."

Of course, nobody can object to subsection 6. Anybody engaged in espionage for a foreign government, the sooner we get rid of them the better.

Subsection 7, in relation to possessing or carrying a concealed or dangerous weapon, may open the way to exploitation, making it possible for an enemy to plant a gun on an alien who does not understand the law. He may not even know it is against the law. I believe there