Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. GREEN. No, sir. I wish to be given an opportunity to consult the records—I didn't know they had been deported—based on what you say.

Mr. HOBBs. You mean to say you made a categorical statement, saying that they were native-born citizens, without consulting the records?

Mr. GREEN. Upon consulting their family.

Mr. Hores. In other words, you obtained that information, that they were native-born citizens, by consulting their family!

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOBBs. So that if your statement is not borne out by the record

Mr. GREEN. I would be glad to retract it.
Mr. Hobbs. They gave you erroneous information!

Mr. GREEN. I am afraid they did. I would like to check the record. This is the first time I have heard of it.

Mr. Guyer. Who are the Esposito brothers?

Mr. GREEN. They are the ones that held up the man and took the pay roll and afterward killed a policeman on Fifth Avenue.

Mr. Hopes. And both of them have been deported according to the records of the Immigration Service, and they were not supposed to be here. This was one of the reasons why my bill provides that no one who is sent out can come back.

Now, then, you say we deny to a foreign government the right of deportation. The answer to that is so palpably plain that I hats to take up the time of the committee to make it. Of course, I wouldn't and we couldn't if I would, nor would we deny to the foreign govern ment the right in aid of their sovereign power of deportation, the same right of detention which is set out in this bill. What we are trying to do is to make that sovereign power come into its own and mean more than the making of an idle order, by separating the poisonous dregs from the very life of any country.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Hobbs, I think that the intention expressed is rather plain, and the Attorney General made pretty plain bis complaint in his letter to your committee. Our main contention is that in attempting to remedy that situation, the Congress is considering a procedure which is essentially dangerous to our democracy in this country.

Mr. Hobbs. I think you made that perfectly plain.

Mr. GREEN. I mean, I do not in any way wish to reflect upon the right or the intention of the Government

Mr. Hobbs. Now, you have annual conferences of your association. do you not?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobbs. Does the Communist Party sit in all of them?
Mr. GREEN. No.

Mr. Hoops. Do the representatives of the Communist and Socialist Parties sit in all of them?

Mr. GREEN. No, sir.

Mr. Hobbs. At your meeting of January 19, 1938, and December 1937, as reported in the pamphlet, The Foreign Born, there is advertised the fact that they did sit in those meetings. Was there any special reason for that?

Mr. GREEN. No, sir. They came to the meeting and wished to be seated. They sat and listened to the proceedings. They were not represented on any of the committees of the conference, since our organization is nonpolitical. After the meeting they left.

Mr. HOBBs. You say you were born in New York?
Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOBBS. When and where?

Mr. GREEN. New York City, 1913; I think some place on Avenue
B, on April 15, 1913.
Mr. HOBBs. I take it you admit you hardly remember that!
Mr. GREEN. I don't remember being born in April.
Mr. HOBBs. And you are only testifying from hearsay?
Mr. GREEN. Somebody told me once.
Mr. HOBBs. And your name is Abner Green?
Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOBBS. That is all.

Mr. WEAVER. Thank you very much. Is there a witness here who can be heard briefly?

STATEMENT OF RUSS NIXON, NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE,

LABOR'S NON-PARTISIAN LEAGUE

Mr. Nixon. My name is Russ Nixon; I am representative of Labor's Non-Partisan League, and represent John T. Jones, legislative representative of the Congress of Industrial Organizations.

Before I start I want to express our appreciation and the appreciation of our organization for having the opportunity to speak with you for just a few minutes on this piece of legislation. My comments will be relatively brief.

The organizations which I represent, affiliated in the C. I. O., represent more than four and a half million working men and women in this country. Labor's Non-Partisan League in turn represents many thousands of organizations both in the C. I. O. and among other progressive groups.

All of our C. I. O. affiliates have gone on record repeatedly against this measure, H. R. 3, its predecessors and against other measures that seek out the alien and the foreign born for special persecution.

As far back as October 1939, the C. I. O. went on record at its second constitutional convention in vigorous opposition to the principles of such legislation, unanimously adopting a resolution which stated in part:

Certain legislation is now pending before Congress which, while directed at aliens, would strike at the fundamental civil liberties of the American people: Therefore be it

Resolved. That the C. I. 0. hereby expresses its opposition to antialien bills that are opposed to the basic foundations of our democracy which would menace not only the civil liberties of aliens but of all of us.

This resolution further stated its specific opposition to measures offered at that time to Congress by Representative Hobbs and the now former Representative Dempsey, describing them in these terms:

The C. I. 0. urges the defeat of such measures as the Hobbs and Dempsey bills and the criminal syndicalism bill, and proposes as a sound policy toward aliens a reasonable opportunity to become citizens, with provisions in cases of hardship to those who, through no fault of their own, cannot meet the essential require

*

*

ments, and the adoption of a widespread program of adult education to inculcate the principles of democracy.

This was followed by similar action at the third constitutional convention of the C. I. O., held in November 1940, at Atlantic City, N. J., where the C. I. O. unanimously adopted a resolution saying, in part: Resolved, That the C. I. 0.

condemns such measures as the Hobbs and Dempsey bills and opposes the illegal discriminations against honest and faithful employees on account of their noncitizenship.

This resolution was an outgrowth of the report of John L. Lewis, then president of the C. I. O., to the convention, in which he wrote:

There have now been passed by the House and pending before the Senate two measures directed at aliens which strike at the foundations of our civil rights. These are H. R. 4860, which would provide for deportation of noncitizens who believe in "any changes" in the United States Government, and the Hobbs concentration-camp bill, H. R. 5643, which would set up concentration camps for aliens who in the troubled European situation cannot be sent back to their own countries. Both measures have been opposed by the committee on legislation.

This report of Mr. Lewis was unanimously adopted by the 500 delegates to the third C. I. O. convention, indicating their wholehearted opposition to the principles of the present bill.

The C. I. O. has long maintained that the rights of aliens and foreign-born men and women legally present in our country should be as fully respected as those of citizens or native-born Americans. The organized labor movement takes this position for two basic reasons:

First. Discrimination against a minority group in our country can very easily become discrimination against organized labor and other sections of the population, whether native- or foreign-born.

Second. The organized-labor movement has been aware for generations that attacks on the rights of the noncitizen or the foreign-born are a prelude and cover for attacks on the rights of the labor movement.

The cry of "alien agitator" and the like has been raised against crganized labor's efforts to improve living and working standards ever since the first unions began to strive for such improvements. It has been used against our movement time and again, is the favorite weapon of selfish groups and individuals who seek the defeat of our legitimate ends.

At the same time, the labor movement has noted that many of the more active members and leading officers have been singled out for special attack because of the accident of birth or because of inability to become citizens. We have noted that such attacks are not visited on active union members before they become active in trying to help their fellow members. No one seems greatly concerned over the status of a worker while he is willing to accept low wages and onerous working conditions. As soon as he becomes articulate in protest or action against such conditions, the most careful inquiry as to his status is at once made, and if he should prove to be a noncitizen, he is at once the target of accusation and persecution.

This is particularly evident in the current hysteria against Harry Bridges, democratically elected leader of a union of 30,000 workers in his union, the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen of the C. I. O. He is also the leader of the C. I. O. in the State of California. Bridges was not questioned while he was content to work backbreaking hours for insufficient pay on the docks of San Francisco. It was only when Bridges and the other longshoremen decided to organize to improve their working and living conditions that the question of his citizenship came up.

President Philip Murray of the C. I. O. has accurately described this attack on Bridges, ostensibly directed at him because he is a noncitizen, as an attack on the longshore workers union and ultimately on the C. Í. O. At the beginning of the current deportation hearings against Bridges, President Murray wrote (reading):

It would seem to be clear that the present proceedings against Harry Bridges resulted merely because of an attempted appeasement of the attacks which have come from antilabor sources and which are primarily intent on destroying the International Longshoremens and Warehousemens Union and therefore undermining organized labor as a whole.

The persecution of Harry Bridges is not an isolated case. It is part of a familiar pattern used against the efforts of workers to organize to better their lives and the lives of their families. This pattern of antilabor use of the outcry against noncitizens helps to explain why organized labor, and particularly the C. I. O., has consistently opposed this bill and similar discriminatory legislation.

The most emphatic objection of the C. I. O. and the labor movement in general is concentrated on the two sections of the bill, the one providing for imprisonment of nondeportable noncitizens, and the other providing for the deportation of noncitizens acting in behalf of any foreign political party, or group.

The first section I have cited would work cruel hardships on many noncitizens, hardships comparable to those practiced in the concentration camps of Europe that all humane people condemn. It would single out noncitizens as a distinct class for special punishment—a procedure in flat contradiction of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The founders of this free Nation did not intend to reserve liberty only to citizens. They clearly stated that the protections they drew up applied to all persons, not only to those in fortunate possession of citizenship.

In doing so, they recognized a basic factor in liberty that the labor movement has continued to base itself upon ever since; that liberty is indivisible, that freedom cannot be granted to one section of the population and denied to another without a net loss in the freedom of all.

The founders of this Nation were wise in putting this fundamental truth into our Constitution. Under its protection, the millions of noncitizens who came to this country were able to play their part in building up its wealth and its greatness. With that great principle swept aside, as this measure would do, we would repudiate the democracy on which our Nation is built.

It is said by many that this provision is needed only to take care of criminal noncitizens. We submit that there are sufficient laws at present on the statute books to amply care for any undesirable alien elements that may be within our borders. We submit that the present law, which would mean severe hardship to thousands of innocent noncitizens, is not needed to catch the few who may be unwelcome.

It is our belief that this section of the proposed bill is similar to other repressive laws that have been used against organized labor in the past. These laws have been enacted frequently on the plea that they are designed only to deal with unlawful activities. Invari

ably it has been found that ample statutes already exist, and that the real purpose of new measures is directed against labor.

This can be clearly seen by the company that H. R. 3 is keeping. While this and similar antialien measures are considered, Congress is also confronted with a multitude of proposals designed to destroy the rights of all labor, designed to destroy the basic right to organize, bargain collectively, speak freely, act for the redress of grievances.

Such repressive legislation against a minority of our population is the inevitable accompaniment of an atmosphere of hysteria such as we see so much about us today. This atmosphere is used to disguise attacks on the rights of the people that could not be promoted in more normal times. It is used as a mask for attacks on not only the rights of labor but also on the hard-won gains labor has accumulated over periods of many years.

Our objections, as I said, also center on the section providing for deportation of noncitizens acting in behalf of “any foreign government or foreign political party or group.” It is true that this section

-302 in the bill-names certain specific organizations. But it is also true that this section, by including the phrase “foreign group," is capable of the broadest interpretation that could be easily directed against labor.

All major labor organizations in this country have traditionally had, and still have, connections with the organized labor movement in other countries. All labor organizations are careful to avoid discriminating against noncitizen workers who are otherwise eligible to membership under this section expressing a policy of concern or interest to its affiliates in another country. The repeated experience of the labor movement shows that this interpretation is far from impossible.

For example, the United Mine Workers of America has affiliates in Canada. Are noncitizen members to be subject to deportation because the United Mine Workers takes action or formulates a policy in the interests of those Canadian affiliates?

It is clear that this bill will act to discriminate against organized labor. It is clear that the bill is not needed, that it will serve only as additional evidence of a desire to curb civil rights in this country and ultimately to worsen the freedom and the living standards of the working men and women of this Nation.

For these reasons, the Congress of Industrial Organizations is in absolute opposition to H. R. 3 and all similar repressive legislation.

Mr. CRAVENS. I don't know whether it was in your statement, or quoted from one of these resolution, but there was some charge of dis. crimination between American citizens and aliens legally in the United States.

Mr. Nixon. Yes; I think that was in one of the earlier resolutions.

Mr. CRAVENS. Don't you appreciate, after reading this bill, it is not aimed at all, or cannot operate at all, against aliens who are in the United States legally? It is only aimed at those who are illegally in the United States and are not only subject to deportation, but where it has been ordered?

Mr. Nixon. A correct interpretation of the bill is that it only applies to those aliens illegally in the country, it would not apply to Harry Bridges?

Mr. CRAVENS. Not unless he is in this country illegally.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »