That, in substance, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is the history, the facts and the story in connection with the matter which I present to

you.

Mr. WEAVER. I have in mind a case which this proposed amendment does not quite cover. There was an Englishman who came to Asheville, N. C., in the early eighties, and who had a son 2 years of age at that time. I take it the boy was born in England. He lived and died in that immediate section. The boy grew up to manhood, voted, held office, was mayor of our town, held several county offices-you woll recall we passed a bill for his relief; he had a responsible job with the Smoky Mountain National Park Service. It developed we had to discharge him.

Mr. GUYER. The same thing happened in Kansas City; a man came to this country from Scandanavia and brought his son. His father got his first papers, but for some reason never got his second papers. He was a member of the city council, mayor of the city, and was city commissioner for about 8 years.

One day he wanted to be accommodating and appeared as a witness in a naturalization case, and he was found not to be a citizen of the United States. He was running for commissioner again, and of course his name was taken from the ballot.

Mr. WEAVER. The word "contiguous" in there wouldn't take care of that.

Mr. MCCORMACK. This says that must be contiguous, but there must be something for our own protection to show that there was a consciousness on the part of the individual himself. He is a citizen through derivative citizenship, or the naturalization of his father. We have to put some test in there, and we would say that he came in here before July 1, 1924. We have put that in to protect ourselves. That is because of the 5-year statute of limitations being repealed at that time. We have to put it that one who on or before the effective date of this act was a registered voter in any State. That would certainly indicate a consciousness of innocence, as you might say, a manifestation that in good faith he assumed he was a citizen. His father must be a citizen. In those cases their names must be on his application, and other than the fact that there is no entry on the record of the entry of the minor into the country, everything else is all right.

There must be tens of thousands of such cases. Furthermore, it is going to have an effect upon one who came in here where a record was made, wondering whether or not if in fact one was made, and someone asks him to be a witness, and while he can't explain it, he sort of pulls back. He may be afraid to apply for a State position or a Government position.

Mr. CRAVENS. I think that is already covered under title A of the Code. It says that

any person who is not an alien who resides uninterruptedly in the United States for a period of 5 years next preceding July 1, 1920, and who was on that date otherwise qualified to become a citizen of the United States, except he has not made declaration as required by law, but who prior to that time through misinformation * erroneously exercised the rights and duties of a citizen of the United States in good faith, may file, without preliminary declaration of intention, and upon satisfactory proof to the court that he had so acted he will be admitted as a citizen of the United States.

* *

Mr. McCORMACK. That relates to an entirely different class of cases.

Mr. CRAVENS. You mean they could become immediately naturalized? Mr. McCORMACK. They have got to proceed upon the theory that their entry in here is illegal, and they can go and apply for an application, which being 5 years prior to that has been extended now to July 1, 1924. I had a bill bringing it up to 1924, because prior to 1924 the 5-year statute of limitations existed. After that, the 5-year statute of limitations has been repealed-so anyone who comes in after July 1, 1924, and is apprehended, can be deported any time.

Mr. CRAVENS. I have no objection to your amendment, but it is already covered.

Mr. McCORMACK. I don't think it meets this case. That may be utilized, but it means they have got to go through the procedure. That bill was for the benefit of persons who came in here illegally prior to 1921, and later Congress extended it up to 1924. They were good people but could not become citizens, due to the fact that their entry was illegal. They knew it. This applies to the case of children coming in, with no record of entry; the father later becoming naturalized, stating the children's names on the naturalization papers, and the child automatically becomes a citizen, other than the fact that there is no record of entry, and this child has been going along, after maturity, assuming all the obligations and duties of a citizen. It seems to me it would be unwise in these circumstances, with so many tens of thousands affected, to compel them to go through that route. We could take care of it in this manner. It is such a clear case of equity. We should do something about it.

Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. Hobbs is the author of the bill, and he says that he has no objection.

Mr. HOBBS. I think the amendment is very desirable from another standpoint. The distinguished gentleman who has just spoken has given several very valid reasons, but it occurs to me that since the Alien Registration Act of 1940 was passed, there is another very valid and completely compelling reason, to wit, that many thousands of these people who fall in the category which you have pointed out, have now become violators of law because of their misapprehension as to their status, and in perfect good faith.

Mr. McCORMACK. Yes.

Mr. HOBBS. There are many thousands of them now who do not know that there has been no record of their entry, and probably they would fight you if you said they are not citizens, and still they are subject to the penalty in the alien registration statute of 1940. It seems to me that makes it all the more important that some relief be given by law or legalization of their presence here, enabling them to take out naturalization papers in their own right, if they so desire. without any further red tape.

Mr. CRAVENS. Have you any objection to striking out that word "contiguous" so as to take care of the cases Mr. Guyer mentioned?

Mr. McCORMACK. No. The only reason that was in there was because the chances are the acute problem arose from that. I see no reason why, if somebody came here from another country, and meets all the other requirements-you certainly have protection here-why it should not apply to them.

Mr. HOBBS. Let me call the gentleman's attention to this also: That there still is absolute control in this country over whether or not he becomes a citizen.

Mr. McCORMACK. Certainly.

Mr. HOBBS. Because he has to apply for naturalization and has to stand the necessary examination. He has to satisfy the duly constituted authorities that he is fit to be a citizen and all that must be passed upon by the courts, and so there isn't any opening of the gate. Mr. McCORMACK. NO.

Mr. HOBBS. It is just a question of whether or not we will validate their entry under certain conditions.

Mr. McCORMACK. That is validating an entry which, if there was an official record, there would be no question about.

I want to say this, I have referred to the letter from the Acting Attorney General. The Department of Justice did not initiate this matter. It was called to my attention by the secretary of state of Massachusetts, a very honorable public official-not of my political faith, but a man I have profound respect for; a man whose friendship I value and enjoy, and a man who is an outstanding public official. Everybody respects him up our way. He came down and saw the distinguished minority leader, my equally good friend, Mr. Martin, and they came over to my office, and I am presenting this in my individual capacity, and Mr. Martin concurs with me, because we have discussed it. I then took it up with the Department to ascertain their views, which was the natural thing to do, and as a result of that I received this letter.

I want the record to show that the Department did not initiate this case, because some people are quite prone to misunderstand.

Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. WEAVER. The next witness is Mr. Abner Green, of Washington, representing the American Committee for the Protection of ForeignBorn.

STATEMENT OF ABNER GREEN, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF FOREIGN-BORN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in considering the measure, H. R. 3, I wish to preface my remarks with the quotation of two statements made on the floor of the House of Representatives on May 5, 1940, in the discussion of H. R. 5643, Seventy-sixth Congress, introduced by Mr. Hobbs.

The first and most natural concern which we must consider is, who are we concerned with in this measure, and Representative Jerry Voorhis had this to say [reading]:

I am not against the bill because of what it is going to do to these alien people primarily. I am against it for what it is going to do to the United States. That pretty well sums up one of the most serious concerns, and one of the reasons why I am here representing my organization."

Then we come to the second consideration; the excuse that a bill of this nature is going to defend the American people from the alien, and on that same day Representative Lee E. Guyer, also of California, had this to say [reading]:

What I am defending today is the institution of democracy. Gentlemen, I believe that if we follow this thing through carefully, we must conclude that those who are supporting this measure are destroying democracy in the name of defending it. I, for one, will continue to live up to my oath of office, as I see it, and, continue to defend democracy by opposing this measure which belongs along with the dictates issued by Hitler.

There was one other reason advanced for the bill the other day by Mr. Hobbs in testimony, when Mr. Allen, a descendant of the American Revolution, was present here when Mr. Hobbs pointed out that Princess Stefanie, a little while ago, hurried to leave the country after she was threatened with arrest, and I would like to say, gentlemen, that not more than one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent of the aliens who are to be affected by this measure could do what Princess Stefanie did, that none of them, practically, have any money, the two or three hundred dollars required to simply leave the country. It is very easy to say those things, but in fact it is practically impossible to carry

out.

There are one or two other matters which impressed me in corsidering this measure.

I would like to point out, and I think the record should carry the fact, which I imagine most of the members of the committee are aware of, that this bill which we are discussing here and have been discussing for 2 weeks, was reported to the House of Representatives by your committee without public hearings before; that we can say it is almost an accident that I am here being given an opportunity to express myself; that your committee saw fit to send this bill to the House without giving any opportunity to representatives of organizations to come to testify and present their opinions about a measure which is so decidedly controversial. There is the second point, that the United States Senate has a bill which is identical in content, word for word, with H. R. 3. In the United States Senate this bill, introduced by Senator Russell, has been sent to the Senate Immigration Committee. In the House of Representatives it is being considered by the House Judiciary Committee.

Gentlemen, here again, somebody is making a mistake. It cannot appear, at least to me, possible that a measure which is identical in content, can here be considered by two different committees in the two bodies of Congress.

I am here expressing opposition to this measure on the part of my organization, the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born, which, for the past 8 years, has devoted itself to the interests of American democracy by protecting the rights of the foreign-born members of our country.

Our organization opposed the bill introduced by Mr. Hobbs last year. We felt that that bill was decidedly unconstitutional, and we are indeed happy to see that Mr. Hobbs has finally decided to agree with us about that measure, as he has stated here in the past few days, that is not the kind of a bill that we want.

However, we are still opposed to this measure. We are still opposed to the principles involved and to the general procedure ordained by the bill. We are opposed specifically to titles I, II, and III of the present form of H. R. 3; we are not opposed to title IV. However, the merits of title IV are of questionable value, and certainly it does not sanction support for the entire bill. If necessary, and to establish the record, we are prepared to voice our opposition to H. R. 3 in its entirety, all four titles, in order to defeat the first three titles which so decidedly menace the democratic rights of the American people.

In his letter of March 13, 1941, to your committee, the Attorney General pointed to the problem of these aliens, whose deportation cannot be affected in one way or another. That problem exists, gentle

men. I am not here to say it does not exist although I don't believe the problem of itself creates any serious or unavoidable dangers to our democracy. At the very same time, H. R. 3 would not solve that problem. In fact, H. R. 3 would create a great number of additional problems for the American community, and at this point I would like to quote from the first inaugural address of March 4, 1861, from a statement by Abraham Lincoln [reading]:

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all of its benefits, its memories and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you flee from has no real existence? Will you flee to uncertain ills that are greater than all the real ones you flee from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

H. R. 3 would create some very real and much graver dangers to our democracy than the existence of a few hundred or few thousand undeportable aliens create.

These aliens, as has been pointed out before time and time again, are subject to the criminal and other statutes of the country, but there is almost nothing that can limit the ravages of concentration camps, particularly since such a law, once enacted, would create the basis for the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The nondeportable aliens create no threat to the Constitution or the democratic rights of the people with which the law cannot cope.

Here again I would like to quote from that same debate on the floor of the House last year, from the statement made by Representative William Lemke [reading]:

Let us be American citizens and remember that this is not a question or a matter of criminals; it is a question of policy of our beginning to ape some European country.

And I would like to refer to the testimony presented here by Colonel Trevor last week, when he attempted to picture the alien and foreign born as criminals, and I think that essentially was his attempt. We might even say that figures themselves do not lie at any time, but oftentimes liars try to figure.

Colonel Trevor presented the case of one alien who had been here 27 years, and who happened, because of the environment in which he had lived in this country and the experience which he had suffered during his 27 years in this country, to be a criminal. The fact that he was an alien was purely coincidental to his being a criminal. I am not defending him. I am defending the name of the American people, all of whom are immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants.

At the same time Colonel Trevor failed to tell us how old this socalled criminal alien was after living here for 27 years. What would be the feeling of the committee if we said that this man was 30 years old, that he had come here when he was 3 years old?

That may not have been the case in this particular instance, but there have been a great number of such cases. People are criminals because of situations and conditions in this country. They are not criminals because they happen to have been born in some foreign country. That isn't what makes them criminals.

And here again may I refer to the reference last Friday to the Esposito brothers? They are American citizens, they were born in this country. They happened to have, because their parents were immigrants, foreign-sounding names, and though in no defense of the Es