« ÎnapoiContinuați »
Mr. Hobbs. I want to ask you if you are in accord with my opinion
I that a consular agent now has no discretion?
Mr. LEWIS. Well, of course, the consul has, it seems to me, some element of discretion; that is, he has to appraise the facts and that does involve, it seems to me, some range of discretion in his judgment.
Mr. HOBBs. Of course, he has some criteria established by law.
Mr. HOBBs. Let us be particular about it. Say I am an alien and I live in, we will say, the Caucasians; and I apply to an American Consul for a visa. What is that consul going to go by? Largely the testimony of the alien and his friends?
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobbs. He does not conduct a court, and if I and my friends say that I am coming here to act in behalf of some foreign nation or organization, he just simply refuses to grant the visa. The point I am making is, it is not very much of a hardship to adduce evidence one way or the other, if the policy of the law is to exclude such, then that is the end of it. If, on the contrary, it is our policy to allow them to come in and then try to put them out, that is another matter. If we do that, then I am asking you in the second place, if you do not think that a provision at the end of section 302 should act as some safeguard, and that the provisions of section 304 are a safeguard in conjunction with the others?
Mr. Lewis. You are referring to sections 302 and 304 with regard to the aliens here in this country?
Mr. Hobbs. That is right.
Mr. Lewis. There, of course, you give him the right of court review, including the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. That might be possibly a sufficient safeguard. My personal inclination would be to feel that it would be sound to put the additional safeguards you have included in the first and second titles of the bill, with the rather unusual powers. There has to be action, not only by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, but it must be sustained by this Board; and in addition, of course, in those cases you have the same right of appeal to the courts. Mr. Hobbs. There is no right of classes
Mr. LEWIS (interposing). There is no right of appeal, but there is a right of review on habeas corpus. Mr. HOBBs. That is exactly what section 304 gives us.
Mr. Lewis. You have left out, with respect to the alien subject to deportation on those grounds, any confirmation or finding by this Board. You are not dealing with quite an analogous situation in the first and second titles. It does not involve deportation, but the right to detain, which is similar to an order to detain indefinitely or for your original 12-month period. You do have to have a finding on the application of the Immigration and Naturalization Service that the thing is in the interest of public safety as ordered by the Board for the supervision of deportable aliens.
Mr. Hores. May I point out that there is a vast deal of difference bet ween this section of this title and the other titles of the bill, in this regard. I think it will be perfectly apparent to the gentleman if he will think it over. Here, there is only one fact in issue and that is whether or not the particular alien is here in the interest of, and working for a foreign organization. Now, if you have that submitted to
a quasi-judicial tribunal, the burden of proof is upon the Government to prove that and it might be almost impossible to do it because that involves something that is hidden in the mind and consciousness and secret history of the alien, whereas in the other titles we are talking largely about overt acts which are susceptible of some specific proof, more than in these cases.
Now, then, if we coupled that up with a right of review, which is honest and fair, such as Joe Strecker had, for instance, there is not any danger of doing him an injustice because he can disprove what it would be awfully hard for the Government to prove, and therefore, in this case it seemed to me wise to draw that difference; and from a practical standpoint, I think it is prefectly fair.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Hobbs, I was thinking not so much as a proof of the fact the alien was a representative of a foreign political group or party, as of the question as to whether or not such activity was or was not deleterious to the national safety of the United States. There is a chance offered for the alien to except himself from deportation or exclusion by advancing facts in that regard. There you have, it seems to me, a matter of largely a question of hearing the evidence. A matter of public policy which perhaps a group of men such as you would have on this quasi-judicial board might be in a fairer position to make an appraisal of the situation than the prosecuting or administ rative form of government.
Mr. HOBBs. Well, now, may I say that that provision to which you refer, in the latter part of section 302, was not designed to give hearing on that issue. That was a part of the scheme to be fair, not to close the door upon Edouard Benes or Albert Einstein, and people in that category; not close the door upon a German who was imbued with the ideals of our Government and who did not come here for the purpose of espionage, but it was felt that provision would enable the Attorney General instantly to recognize proof of the bona fideness of the entry. If there is any doubt, the Attorney General proceeds under the title as to exclusion so that provision, coupled with section 304, which preserves the right of habeas corpus seems to me to be, on that simple single issue, sufficient.
Mr. Lewis. Possibly I would be inclined personally to prefer that additional safeguard. I believe, in the long run, it would work out more wisely.
Mr. HOBBs. I am not saying that you are not right, and I am not saying I am wrong. I am simply asking, and I want your reaction and you have given it to me. In spite of this, you still think it should be left to quasi judicial consideration?
Mr. Lewis. I am inclined to feel that way. In regard to Title 4 which deals primarily with the question of adjusting the status of the desirable alien, the loyal alien, who may have come in illegally, or be subject to deportation on technical grounds, there again I think it will add a great deal; and I said so earlier, to advance the sense of security of the deserving aliens in the country and bring them more wholeheartedly, even than they are now, to becoming citizens through extraordinary effort at this time, and I think it would be a very helpful thing for the Congress to enact some such provision at this time. Attack has been made on it in some quarters, because it is charged in some way this will supplant the quota system. It seems the exact opposite will result, because
great care has been exercised in drafting these provisions to see that every alien in regard to whom discretion is to be exercised, will be subject to the quota, or will be subtracted from the quota for the year he came in; and if the quota is not open at that time, some future quota; and it will mean, naturally, one more alien will be permitted to stay than provided by the quota system; and further, there will be the opportunity to give a chance to the alien who has been tested and proven to be a loyal and useful resident of the country. So I think it will work to unhold the quota system, at the same time. It stretches out the hand of humanity to the deserving group, and a group who we may need in this country, because some of the branches of government, as you know, have already discovered in our defense effort, restrictions which now extend against the employment of aliens in certain fields is working a hardship on the country.
Take in the city of New York, practically one out of every 12 workers is an alien in that city at this time; and if we limit key industries where they cannot operate, we are subtracting from our productive power; and where such aliens are loyal and useful, I think it is of highest importance to make provision in our laws so they can straighten out their status, and become citizens. And it seems to me that is what this title of the bill does; and coupled with the other sections, I think, offers a constructive, fundamental, and natural solution of one of our difficult problems.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is all.
Mr. WEAVER. You think title 4 would give a sense of security to those aliens who are really deportable but really desirable.
Mr. LEWIS. I think it would do a great deal toward doing that.
Mr. WEAVER. Your idea is it would be helpful by extending that discretion to those Mr. Allen referred to as coming from countries and who really love our institutions and really wish to see them perpetuated?
Mr. LEWIS. I think that is true. It puts the whole thing in the hands of the Department of Justice which is able to carefully sift the deserving alien from the undeserving alien. It provides putting all the facts before Congress in a special report, so I think the matter is safeguarded in every way it needs to be, to be sure we get only those who are loyal and useful.
Mr. HOBBs. And is it not true also that if you insist on being hardboiled that title 4 provides the only means of dealing with them under parole or supervision ?
Mr. LEWIS. It does, because until the discretion granted by the Alien Registration Act there was no power lodged either in the Department of Justice, the President or any branch of the Government
ich gave any right to deal with the deserving alien subject to deportation, and what I liked about the bill, as a whole, is the fact that it deals decisively with that problem of the deportable alien and does it once and for all, and will enable us to take steps to clean up this situation and to facilitate the integration of the deserving alien in our population, and take steps that will eliminate the undeserving alien who has not lived up to the rules of the game in accepting our hospitality.
I hope very much you will report the bill favorably.
Mr. Hobbs. May I ask just one additional question ?
Out of your vast experience in such matters, do you not think it is a pretty good compliment to the bill that both extremes are questioning it?
Mr. LEWIS. I think that is an excellent description.
Mr. WEAVER. I do not know how many more witnesses wish to be heard this morning. We are going to hear you all if we can, but you will have to be rather brief, I think.
Mr. Hobbs. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest in accordance with the usual practice of our committee, even though one be cut off from all testimony on account of lack of time, that they have a perfect right to extend their remarks and that the record will be studied by the iull committee and the benefit of your full and complete statement will le given.
Mr. WEAVER. Of course, that is entirely true. If any witness wishes to prepare a statement, and has not been able to give a full statement orally, he may file the written statement with the clerk here and it will be printed in the record of the hearing and be considered.
Now, we are anxious, of course, to get along with this, but we are equally anxious that anyone desiring to be heard in connection with this bill be given a fair opportunity to do so. Suppose we hear Mrs. Hendrickson and see how we get along?
STATEMENT OF MRS. ALICE HENDRICKSON, RESEARCH ASSISTANT, WISCONSIN STATE CONFERENCE ON SOCIAL LEGISLATION, MILWAUKEE, WIS.
Mr. W'EAVER. Please give to the reporter your name and the name of the organization you represent.
Mrs. HENDRICKSON. Mrs. Alice Hendrickson, research assistant, Wisconsin State Conference on Social Legislation, 161 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. I am here rep
. resenting the Wisconsin State Conference on Social Legislation, which is an affiliated group of 155 organizations representing almost 200,000 people in Wisconsin, the members of church organizations, tradeunions, fraternal and social societies. We have been in existence for about 4 years, and we have devoted ourselves in the past to protecting the rights of the members of our affiliated organizations when they were affected either by State or National legislation.
I was sent here to voice our disapproval of the Hobbs concentrationcamp bill (H. R. 3), and I would like to read into the record of these hearings the resolution which was presented to our conference on social legislation and adopted at Madison, Wis., on February 22-23 of 1911. It is a very simple resolution, and it reads as follows:
Resolred, That we oppose this bill which would set up in free America concentration camps for the foreign-born who are considered undesirable or deportable, but are unable to return to their home countries because of war, change of government, etc.
The next step would be to set up concentration camps for everyoneand that was adopted unanimously at the conference.
I wish to bring to the attention of this body the fact that our position about this measure is predicated upon the fact that if enacted into law it will terrify a large section of our State of Wisconsin, all of them American-born citizens, but the children of immigrants. These American citizens are directly affected by laws that restrict or in any way hamper the rights of foreign-born or their relatives. This, of course, is true on national scale. There are more than 40,000,000 people in this country, one-third of the entire population of this country, who are immigrants or children of immigrants, so these people that are affected by the enactment of alien bills, this is the reason these bills threaten to work havoc with the fabric of our democratic States.
I want to point out, too, there are in the country less than 5,000,000 noncitizens, a fewer number than at any time before in this century. At the same time, 50 percent of those eligible for citizenship have applied already for naturalization, and are anxiously awaiting to be citizens. A great number of these aliens cannot apply for naturalization, being barred by our laws, and in some instances not able to meet the educational and literacy requirements. Another fact to be considered when we are discussing measures such as a concentration-camp proposal is that more than 40 percent of the aliens in this country have American families which are dependent upon them for support-children, wives, and so forth. There would be infinite discomfort and misery to large numbers of innocent people, and that is true particularly in my community.
One final fact, the people against whom the Congress is legislating here are the people who built and made possible this country. In my home State of Wisconsin, and especially in the city of Milwaukee this fact is apparent; and then, obviously a very large proportion of the people, especially in the southern part of Milwaukee, are the people who have worked in the large industries and produced the goods that we use daily.
In testifying against this bill, I believe I should tell the committee here that you are being addressed by one who was not born in this country. I was born in China. I am an American citizen and although I was born in China of missionary parents who were missionaries of the Baptist Church, my ancestors, long residents of Massachusetts, fought in the American Revolution and they were immigrants, too.
My parents, having lived in China, were considered foreigners and aliens and at one time in their career were under some great prejudice in that country and they appreciate the tolerance that should be extended at all times.
As an American, I urge this committee to cast its vote in favor of the proposal for which my ancestors fought and for which I am willing to go on and fight. I am opposed to this measure and I hope you gentlemen will be reluctant to pass any type of restrictive measure in this democracy. This is a free government and this matter should be considered most carefully. In our opinion, this bill would be a discredit to our democracy and democratic conditions and we warn against enacting such legislation, which would establish a precedent for a measure which is alien to our country.
We again would like for you to consider more carefully measures that are proposed for the purpose of guarding against forces which are harmful to our country, but which, in themselves, incorporate procedures which might subvert the principles of democracy which