such a radical departure that it will provide a genuine threat to the safety and security of these United States of America of ours in the present troubled era.

We had to write restrictions into the immigration laws in 1917, and on through 1924. We set up quotas in order to protect this country against an inundation of foreigners. I am not now speaking of foreigners being obnoxious. Every one of use are descendants of immigrants. We do not need to argue that question at all. Every sensible person knows that at one time we were a wilderness, without a government. But today we have the finest system of government in the world, and we have in this country today probably one-third of our total population of foreign stock; which means either foreign-born or one parent foreign-born. In 1930 the figures were a little better than one-third, better than 40,000,000. We have been told by the Department of Labor, which originally had jurisdiction of these matters, that the alien was a vanishing race. We would not have expected to find an alien in this country by 1940 if we had listened to their propaganda. We find through the alien registration over 5,000,000, which was a million and a half more than the Department of Labor had estimated we would have here at that time, and God alone knows, how many did not register. No one knows.

Going to subsection (d). That section would weaken section 19 of our basic immigration law which I referred to a moment ago, by cutting out certain exemptions which are set up in that act. It is another relaxation. There is not a single tightening in the whole bill.

For God's sake! if you are going to pass any part of this substitute bill, cut out title IV entirely, if you believe we should have restrictive and selective immigration; if you believe we should deport undesirable aliens.

Coming to section 402, of title IV, and I am done. Here we find another very radical departure from existing laws. We are giving here, for the first time, to the Attorney General the authority to grant a change of status from that of a nonimmigrant to that of an immigrant:

for permanent residence to any alien who applies for such change of status within 2 years after the effective date of this act, and who shall make a satisfactory showing

Window dressing! That etcetera in there is window dressing, nothing more or less.

What is the effect of it? This section 402 is your refugee section. Hitler sends them in sealed trains down across France to embarkation ports in Portugal and Spain, like so much cattle, and at a profit. It is a heinous procedure. Hundreds of thousands of those unfortunates in concentration camps in France, and France is begging us to take them. Even England is asking us to take a portion of those she has in concentration camps. There are now thousands and thousands of these refugees down here in the West Indies and Latin America, and some in Canada, ready to come across the border when and if this bill is enacted. They can come here as visitors, or as students, and although they have to take an oath that they are coming for that purpose and only intend to remain for a certain period of time, as required by law, or permitted by law, they can overstay in violation of their oath and in violation of the law. Under section 402 they are forgiven and the Attorney General can change their status from that of a nonimmigrant

under which they entered to that of an immigrant and they can be charged up, as provided in section 401, to the unused back quotas and to future quotas.

Now, gentlemen of this committee, this matter has been brewing, this title 4 has been brewing and passing through the minds of certain people in this country who have relatives and kindred over there, who have a commendable desire to relieve them of suffering, and get them into this country. This is the manner in which they seek to impose their desires upon this Congress and upon the people of this country. I submit that we have too many unfortunates of our own to take care of to permit hundreds of thousands of others to come into this country. We have still, with unprecedented employment in this country, more unemployment than they have in any other country. Those you would permit to enter here and become citizens would either force some American citizen now holding a job out of that job, or we would have to create a job somewhere, which job ought to be created for some unemployed American citizen. You cannot bring them in here and let them starve. They have to work; they have to take their places in our social and economic order somewhere, and I submit this is no time for such a violent change from our established procedure in handling these problems.

Why grant to the Attorney General such unprecedented power to change the law? That is what it means. You will have a change here in your quota laws, and also the status of aliens who come to this country. Radical proposals! I don't know, you don't know, how many have come into this country, and you are forgiving them everything concerned with their illegal entry in here. If you let them come in, it does not make any difference if they have connived or consorted with some corrupt Government official, or with some steamship company running an underground system to bring them into this country. You are forgiving them. Do not think others will not come in here. They too will ask and get this forgiveness and your own problems will be multiplied.

I am reliably informed that during the last 3 years we had 505,005 aliens come into this country as visitors, nonimmigrants, and everyone of those could have over-stayed his time if he had wanted to, and if this law is changed as proposed, or this bill is passed, the Attorney General would have the authority to forgive them for violating that law, and change them from a nonimmigrant status to that of an immigrant, going back to section IV, and keep filling up your unusued back quotas until they are filled, and then go into the future.

In other words, there is absolutely no limit to the number that can come in, gentlemen, because we do not know what limitations of time God Almighty will place upon this earth and the human family, and this law is broad enough to carry us down to whatever time that is. Therefore, it is not a wild statement nor an exaggerated statement to say there is positively no limit to the number that can come in and be forgiven.

For these reasons, among others, I think this committee should not report this substitute bill of the Department of Justice, but that it should report the original bill of my friend, Sam Hobbs, which is a desirable piece of legislation, and would reach about every thing that we want to reach and that Sam Hobbs wanted to reach. Do not try

to usurp the powers and the duties of the Immigration Committee by taking up this substitute bill; that is what you would be doing. This committee is not concerned with quota systems and the granting of visas and deportation proceedings and so forth, or naturalization proceedings. That is properly a function of the House Immigration and Naturalization Committee.

If you have any doubts about the radical change in this bill, I am going to read you the title of the original bill, H. R. 3, I quote:

To invest the circuit courts of appeals of the United States with original and exclusive jurisdiction to review the order of detention of any alien ordered deported from the United States whose deportation or departure from the United States otherwise is not effectuated within 90 days after the date the warrant of deportation shall become final; to authorize such detention orders in certain cases; to provide places for such detention, and for other purposes.

And this substitute bill as reported out of this committee provides an amendment of the title so as to read:

A bill to provide for the supervision and detention of certain deportable aliens; to establish a board for the supervision of deportable aliens; to provide for the relief of certain aliens from deportation; and for other purposes.

I am through.

Mr. WEAVER. Are there any question? Mr. Hobbs.

Mr. HOBBS. Yes; I would like to ask a few. I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman how many of the 505,000 aliens who were admitted within the last 3 years under visitors' visas returned in compliance with their visas?

Mr. STARNES. I cannot give you those figures. I will have to get them. I will be glad to supply them for the record. Offhand, I cannot give that information to you.

Mr. HOBBS. I would like to ask the gentleman how many sealed trains have been run from either Germany or France.

Mr. STARNES. I do not know the number. My information is based on press accounts, which are apparently authentic, because there has been no denial. And was also based upon information given to me by American citizens who were residing in France during a portion of this time, and some of whom reached Portugal and were unable to come to the United States for quite a period of time, because refugees from European countries had booked all the accommodations in certain instances months ahead. It comes from press dispatches, which I assume were trustworthy, because there has been no denial in any quarter, and, secondly, from American officials who were over there, and who informed me they speak from personal knowledge of the facts.

Mr. HOBBS. The State Department advises me, and will advise you, if you will inquire, that there has been only one of those trains. Mr. STARNES. Only one of those trains?

Mr. HOBBS. Only one, and that was for the purpose of carrying the quota over from Germany, which had been approved for immigration. to this country.

Mr. STARNES. Well, I didn't discuss that particular angle with the State Department. I did ask and obtain from them last year, I think, when the Smith bill was up, either the Smith bill or the Dies bill when it was before the appropriate committee, as to the number of aliens who had applications existing with consular agencies abroad, and they said at that time there was probably more than a million on file.

Mr. HOBBS. The quota, I think, is something like 19,000.

Mr. STARNES. The full quota, of course, allowed to come into this country from all countries is 153,000.

Mr. HOBBS. I think Germany's quota is 19,000 and some. They were packed into this sealed train, and only one train ran.

Mr. STARNES. Of course this bill would not apply only to Germany. It would apply to all countries which has a quota.

Mr. HOBBS. I know, but that is the only train which has been run, according to the State Department. The gentlemen said there has been no dispute to the contrary; I would like to refer the gentleman in answer to his contention, to the fact that there is review of the evidence permitted on habeas corpus.

Mr. STARNES. I did not say that.
Mr. HOBBS. What did you say?

Mr. STARNES. I made no reference at all to habeas corpus proceedings. I intentionally made no reference to it, because I do not look upon this bill as affecting habeas corpus proceedings in the least. It doesn't attempt to do it, and I didn't attempt to say so. I was just talking about the terms of this bill.

Mr. HOBBS. About what?

Mr. STARNES. About the terms of this bill. I didn't have any reference at all to habeas corpus proceedings.

Mr. HOBBS. You specifically referred to section 6, in which it is provided.

Nothing in this title shall be construed as preventing any alien detained without bail thereunder from question in, on petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court of the United States for the district wherein he is detained, the validity of such detention, including the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact

and so forth.

Mr. STARNES. What decisions are you referring to?

Mr. HOBBS. You challenged the statement of fact implicit in my question, and said that you did not refer to habeas corpus, and I asked you what you did refer to.

Mr. STARNES. Maybe I misunderstood you on that angle of it. As I understand it gives to the district courts of the United States original jurisdiction, giving the alien a right to test the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain findings of fact.

Mr. HOBBS. Only in conjunction with habeas corpus proceedings, and if you will show me any statement to the contrary in the bill, I will be glad to withdraw the bill.

Mr. STARNES. I didn't so understand the terms of the bill. As I told you in the beginning, it was so prolix and redundant, and so full of apparent contradictions, that I confess my inability to understand all of its terms.

I forgot to call the committee's attention to one thing; subsection 3, of section 401, title IV, page 18. Mr. Cranston very kindly supplied me with the language that should have been in there. There is some language left out.

Mr. HOBBS. Yes; there is a whole sentence, practically.

Mr. STARNES. I overlooked that in going over it this morning. I am frank to admit there are certain terms and phrases of the bill I cannot follow. I tried to read the bill very carefully. I tried to read very carefully the testimony of the Department of Justice of

fficials who appeared before the subcommittee. I had a very delightful and informative chat with Major Schofield, which lasted an hour or more, who gave me some information. And based on all of that I am unalterably opposed to the substitute.

Mr. HOBBS. That is perfectly all right. The gentleman has an absolute right, and no one questions that right, to oppose the bill in toto. But when in your testimony you point to that phrase which you read, including the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the findings of fact, and say there is no authority for that, I am asking you if you can find any place in the bill where that phrase or anything like it cccurs except in conjunction with habeas corpus.

Mr. STARNES. Well, you may be correct in that instance. It may deal with that. But that doesn't alter the fact that it is a departure from the procedure that we have followed since we have had our basic immigration laws and our deportation laws in effect. Regardless of that, that is a detail about which I do not care to quibble. If you are right, you are right, and if I am in error, I am in error.

Mr. HOBBS. We are not trying to quibble, but in habeas corpus, which we have, of course, no right to suspend by legislation, that is the recognized province of the courts. That is sustained in various decisions of the courts; in 287 U. S. 329; 305 U. S. 197, which is not an immigration case, but is one of the cases under the N. L. R. B.

Mr. STARNES. My colleague, Mr. Allen, calls my attention to the concluding language in subsection (a) of section 155, U. C. Code, Annotated, dealing with this matter. It deals with the Smith bill, and says that in every case where a person is ordered deported from the United States under the provisions of this subchapter, the decision of the Secretary of Labor shall be final.

Mr. HOBBS. That is true, but under that same provision of the law, the Supreme Court said, in 287 U. S.:

The Court shall inquire into and has the power to inquire into whether there was any evidence produced to support his determination---

which inquiry means the evidence shall be substantial and more than a scintilla, even under any evidence rule.

Mr. STÁRNES. That does not go into the sufficiency of the evidence, as I understand it.

Mr. HOBBS. I respectfully dissent from that statement. I don't think that has that effect at all, because if there is a rule under habeas corpus recognized by the Supreme Court where the evidence must be inquired into, it necessarily means that degree of sufficiency of evidence which has been determined by the Supreme Court as a minimum requisite.

Mr. STARNES. Do you know anywhere, in any of the laws we have in existence dealing with the question of deportation where this particular section is a part of the law? Isn't it new; isn't it a departure? Mr. HOBBS. Of course. That is the law they are talking about. Mr. STARNES. What I am asking you is can you point out to me in any existing deportation statute where this power is given to a district court?

Mr. HOBBS. There certainly is no such law that I know of; and I frankly do not think it is necessary here, because we have no right to suspend a writ of habeas corpus.

Mr. STARNES. I know they enjoy that now, but as I understand it a writ of habeas corpus could only go to the regularity of the proceed