posito brothers, since I, myself, am a native of New York, and have visited the neighborhood where these boys were brought up; again, in emphasis, that it is solely the fact of their life and environment which created criminals of those boys.

At the same time, the foreign born, proportionately, are more law abiding than the native born. Statistics issued annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show this to be the fact, that native-born Americans each commit more crimes proportionately than do foreignborn Americans, which includes noncitizens.

Then there was the reference by Colonel Trevor to "socially deficient aliens." Here we heard expounded a doctrine hoary with age. Any enlightened thinker of today, sociologist, psychologist, economist, would inform this committee that statistics and scientific studies have plainly shown that poor food, bad housing, and unemployment does not make for socially well adjusted human beings. It is not deficiency in human beings that makes for criminality but the society itself which creates the deficiency in the individual. And that deficiency, so-called, is not inherited by the child; it is not transmitted by the parent to the child. Again, we see here expressed, in Colonel Trevor's views on socially maladjusted people, false Nazi social views which the scholars and universities of the world have disproved time and again.

Now, I would like to discuss three basic principles in H. R. 3 to which our organization is opposed.

The first is that of concentration camps. It is true that there is no mention of the words "concentration camps" in H. R. 3. Representative Hobbs has boasted about the fact that the bill does not carry the words "concentration camps," but, gentlemen, this is a concentration-camp measure. And here again I would like to take the words of one of the Members of your House in explaining why we maintain it is a concentration-camp bill.

Last year Representative Vito Marcantonio, of New York, asked that same question. I quote from his remarks on the floor of the House:

What makes a concentration-camp bill? Is it a barbed-wire fence that makes a concentration camp? That doesn't make a concentration camp. If a person is sent by due process to a place that is surrounded with a barbed-wire fence, that is not a concentration camp. What constitutes a concentration camp is the method by which persons are sent to those places. Imprisonment without due process of law is concentration-camp imprisonment. Therefore, inasmuch as this bill confines people without due process of law, it sends people to places of detention without due process of law, I submit we are entirely correct in characterizing this bill as a concentration-camp bill, and we are importing into our country a totalitarian system of criminal procedure which is repugnant to the Constitution, repugnant to the Declaration of Independence, and repugnant to our democratic form of government.

Titles I, II, and III of H. R. 3 provide for concentration camps. The second principle in the bill to which we are opposed is the general question of deportation as provided for herein.

Again in his letter of March 13, 1941, the Attorney General complains about the difficulty confronting his office in his attemnt to prove that the Communist Party of the United States of America is an organization advocating overthrow of government by force and violence. He stated that some courts hold with the Department that aliens who are members of the Communist Party of the United States of America are subject to deportation for such membership, while some courts hold that such aliens are not subject to deportation.

The Attorney General has come to your committee and requested that you lighten his burden. In conforming with this request, as readily as has here been shown in H. R. 3, we feel that the Congress is establishing a practice that is dangerous, since it is a precedent whereby the Attorney General can either convince the court that his interpretation of the law is correct or, not finding it possible to achieve his objectives in the courts, turns to Congress and requests a law to take care of controversial legal points.

Such procedure is essentially undemocratic. At the very same time, the provisions of sections 301 and 302 contradict our democratic principles of government and serve, on the social scene, to make possible political attacks by the Administration in power against members of another legal political party, which today means the Communist Party, and tomorrow may mean the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party, and even the Republican Party.

It is essentially un-American and apes the methods used by Hitler to get himself in power.

At the same time while the Attorney General in his letter to your committee requested a clarification of the law-and I wish to quote here a phrase from his remarks:

all grounds for exclusion and deportation should be clarified by statute.

But I believe that the record should show that the provisons of section 302 are a complete departure from the present law on deportation, that this is new legislation which even reverses the basic intention of past statutes.

You are providing that aliens "who shall act in the United States in behalf of" certain groups shall be deported. This does not provide for deportation for membership in any organization. What does acting in behalf of an organization mean? It can mean anything anyone wishes it to mean. Suppose we considered the example of an alien who is a news vendor? Now, as he has to sell papers in order to support himself, he will sell, let us say, "The Daily Worker," at his newsstand, together with the New York Times, the Washington Post and other papers. Would he be acting in behalf of the Communist Party, even though he may not agree wth the doctrine expounded by the Daily Worker, and may be a firm believer in the New York Times?

At the same time, the bill as drafted does not even carry the word, as is usually expected, of the alien himself knowingly being aware of what he is doing.

The provisions as drafted are so wide as to practically include anybody that officials desire to have included within that provision.

The third and final point, which I believe is rather basic to the complaint, providing for the introduction and considering of this measure, and that is the right of foreign governments to refuse to accept those who are no longer citizens of that state.

I would simply like to ask one question, without in any way defending any foreign government, but simply as a principle: Why these governments should not have the right to refuse those people who are no longer citizens of their state, and I would like to give the committee an example.

Suppose we take John Brown, who was born in the United States and was taken to Hungary when he was 2 years old. At the age of

318230-41-ser. 2, pt. 2--8

35, after having been convicted of several criminal offenses, he is ordered deported to the country of his birth, the United States of America. I don't think the State Department would take him, because he is not an American citizen.

And here I would like to enter upon the record the different bases upon which American citizens can lose their nationality here in this country, as provided for in our nationality laws:

1. By obtaining naturalization in a foreign state.

2. Renouncing American citizenship before an American consul. 3. When convicted by a court-martial of deserting the naval or military forces in time of war.

4. For an act of treason.

5. For attempting by force to overthrow or bear arms against the Government of the United States.

6. By entering the armed forces of a foreign state after he acquires citizenship in that foreign state.

7. Taking any office or employment with a foreign government for which only citizens of such foreign government are eligible.

8. Voting in an election to determine * ** the sovereignty of a foreign territory.

Gentlemen, would we want any of these people back in our country? And at the same time, would anybody who falls within these different groupings be accepted by our State Department if any foreign country attempted to foist them back on us?

There are bases on which naturalized citizens can lose their American citizenship.

At the same time there is also a point of clarification which we feel should be made in considering and discussing the bill. Title I, section 6, and several other sections of the bill, set forth that aliens affected by the bill shall retain the right to habeas corpus.

I would like to say that this title and this provision is what can be called, in the popular phrase, window dressing. Of course, we realize that the section has been included in an attempt to establish the bill's constitutionality, although at the same time we are not prepared to grant it does conform to the Constitution, even in a technical sense, and I would like to quote here for the record the opinion of Federal Judge Anderson, of the United States District Court for Massachusetts, of April 3, 1935, in the petition of Brooks:

There is no power in this court or in any tribunal in this country to hold indefinitely any sane citizen or alien in imprisonment except as punishment for crime. Slavery was abolished by the thirteenth amendment. It is elementary that deportation or exclusion proceedings are not punishment for crime. This court finds no power * in the immigration authority to require that this or any other alien give a personal bond and report to the Commissioner of Immigration, whatever this phrase may mean. He is entitled to be deported or have his freedom.

We do feel rather strongly that H. R. 3 is not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but our final opinion as to its constitutionality will be formed after advice from attorneys who are versed in constitutional law.

But section 6 of title I, in specifying that the alien shall not be denied the right to petition the Federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus does not protect the alien either in his person or in his rights in the slightest. It is a fact established in practice that the Federal

courts will not consider evidence in deportation cases but will rule only on whether the alien has had a fair hearing. We have tried hundreds of these cases; we have attempted to have Federal courts hear and consider cases of aliens ordered deported, but at all times they have refused, and at all times they will rule only on whether the alien has had a fair hearing.

Habeas corpus therefore does not protect the alien. I am afraid we will have to disabuse ourselves of that notion. At the same time it is up to Congress to protect the rights of the alien, and in this measure the attempt is being made to shift the burden to the Federal courts.

The alien will be at the mercy of the board appointed by the President. The entire procedure herein prescribed, with its specific mention of habeas corpus, becomes a travesty of democratic procedure. The alien, in deportation proceedings, is at no time provided with a jury trial. He is set apart in a special category, for special treatment, and the development of this tendency, which serves as a basis for H. R. 3, is inimical to our democracy.

I wish to voice here the opinion expressed on May 5 last, by the Honorable Abe Murdock, then a Member of the House of Representatives and now a member of the United States Senate

Mr. CRAVENS. Doesn't section 6 itself authorize examination of evidence?

Mr. GREEN. The question is whether the courts will undertake to go through all the evidence in each and every case brought before it. Mr. CRAVENS. This directs the court to do it.

Mr. GREEN. It directs the court, but it is a question of whether the court will have the time, and everything else taken into consideration will not prevent the carrying out of the direction to go into all of the evidence.

Mr. Murdock, last year, in discussing the Hobbs bill, as originally drafted, stated [reading]:

I do not think the time has arrived when we should begin to assail the foundation of our freedom. I do not believe that any excuse whatever can justify an act of Congress which directly or indirectly denied equal justice to any man under the protection of the American flag. Once we begin to tear down the temple of equal justice we have destroyed its symmetry. It can only exist as a whole. If one part is torn away, the rest will surely fall. Let us not, Mr. Chairman talk so loud about a constitution that we cannot hear what it says. Let us not, Mr. Chairman, flaunt our Americanism by forgetting to act like Americans. Let us not, Mr. Chairman, attempt to protect our institutions against foreigners by tearing them down ourselves.

And now, if I may have just a few more minutes of your time, I would like to specifically point out one or two of the provisions in the bill:

Section 2 of title I, for instance, would establish in the Department of Justice a board for the supervision of deportable aliens. Here, gentlemen, we see a situation where the prosecution of a deportation order is carried out by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, in the Department of Justice, and here again we would have the same board a part of the Department of Justice.

This raises a question as to the whole procedure, if we are attempting to be fair, being within the same department of the Government. Again the rules and regulations for supervision and detention are to be drawn up by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, with the approval of the Board. This would still be within the same de

tremes were opposed to this bill. The word "so-called" is my own. phraseology. Mr. Lewis agreed with Mr. Hobbs.

Now, gentlemen, I am opposed to this bill, and I wish to voice my indignation and protest, as well as those of my associates, against this underhanded attempt to disparage the caliber of testimony being presented to this committee of the United States Congress.

In order to answer in part Mr. Hobbs' and Mr. Lewis' insinuation, and also for the sake of the record of these hearings, I would like to enter into my testimony a number of statements:

First is one from the American Civil Liberties Union to the chairman of your committee:

The statement is as follows:

We desire to express to you our opposition to the passage of H. R. 3 by Mr. Hobbs concerning the detention of deportable aliens. Certain provisions of the bill extending the discretion of the Attorney General seem to us highly desirable. But they are outweighed by what to us are exceedingly objectionable features from the standpoint of sound public policy.

These features are:

1. The provision naming certain organizations, membership in which makes an alien automatically deportable. It is far sounder public policy to lay down a general principle on which deportation may be based and to permit the courts to construe it as it applies to particular persons or organizations. The doctrines and beliefs of any party or organizations are subject to change; what may be true at one period of its history may not be true at another. The only fair determination of such changing factors lies in the courts.

We may observe that in practice the provisions of the deportation law affecting opinions have been futile. Comparatively few aliens have been deported on such grounds; and in no case were any overt activities dangerous to American institutions involved.

2. The most serious objections to the bill in our judgment are the provisions in titles I and II permitting the detention of aliens who cannot be deported. No consideration of the public safety requires that they should be segregated. If they commit offenses they can be tried and imprisoned. If they are law abiding they should be free on bond, available whenever deportation is practicable. other treatment of aliens is repugnant to American principles.

Any

3. The provisions for psychiatric and medical examinations of deportable aliens (title I, section 3, subsection 2) seems to us wholly unnecessary, as well as dangerous. In the cases of aliens charged with holding proscribed political beliefs, the provisions could easily become a means of persecution.

4. Subsection 3 of the same title provides for a veritable inquisition into the private lives of deportable aliens. All pertinent information is already available under the registration act concerning all such aliens. Such additional authority can only be a means for harassing this unfortunate section of the alien population. These deportable aliens remain here through no act of their own. The circumstances of war alone prevent their deportation. While under the law they may be undesirable, they are no danger to the country while free under bond awaiting deportation in more normal times. Like all others, they are subject to the penalties of the law for any offenses committed, and require no separate treatment. We trust that you may sufficiently share these views as to support the deletion from the bill of these objectionable provisions.

And, gentlemen, I would like you to listen to some of the following statements: They are quotations from telegrams sent to your committee.

The Greater New York Industrial Union Council, representing 400,000 members of the Committee of Industrial Organizations in New York City, vigorously oppose the Hobbs concentration bill, H. R. 3, and urges your opposition to this undemocratic measure. This bill is wholly un-American in principle. The bill undermines basic civil liberties and represents a dangerous step towards complete destruction.

A telegram from the International Fur and Leatherworkers Union: On behalf of 75,000 members of the International Fur and Leatherworkers Union, strongly oppose Hobbs concentration camp bill, H. R. 3, as an undemocratic