Imagini ale paginilor

ing. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. All it refers to is the regularity of the proceedings, and whether or not there was any evidence to support the issuance of the papers.

Mr. Hobbs. That is exactly what we are talking about here; that is the sufficiency of the evidence which would warrant

Mr. STARNES. Not in detail, as I understand it.

Mr. Hobbs. That specifically is held in Castle v. Strickler, 307 U. S. 34, which is the last decision of the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with the subject.

Mr. STARNES. But you agree with me that my interpretation of title IV, that it grants enlarged discretionary powers to the Attorney General, and, second, it does away with the necessity of the preexamination provisions of existing law, and, third, it permits the use of unused back quotas, and, fourth, it permits the use of future quotas ad infinitum, is correct?

Mr. Hobbs. I think in the main that is right.

Mr. STARNES. And that in section 402 it does give additional powers to the Attorney General, in that it permits him to change from a nonimmigrant status to an immigrant status those who come in here on visitors' visas, and so forth?

Mr. HOBBs. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. STARNES. What does that apply to, in your interpretation of the section?

Mr. HOBBs. I think you are, of course, unintentionally mistaken, because you overlook the requirement that it applies only to those who are already here.

Air. STARNES. That applies to what I said. It applies to those who are here under nonimmigrant visas.

. Mr. Hobbs. No, sir; I beg your pardon. I do not think that was the limit of your statement. You illustrated by saying that others were poised and waiting

Mr. STARNES. All right. Let me read you this and see what you say about it. Section 402, at the beginning:

The Attorney General shall have authority to grant a change in status from that of a nonimmigrant to that of an immigrant for permanent residence to any alien who applies for such change within 2 years after the effective date of this act, and who shall make satisfactory showing

Mr. HOBBs. And then describing those who may apply within the 2-year period, it says:

(1) That he was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant prior to January 1, 1941, and has resided in the United States since such entry.

Mr. STARNES. Well, it is very easy, in reply to that statement, to take care of those who come in the future by just simply extending that date. May I say to you very frankly, and I hate to bring this out, because it deals with a conversation with a very able man who has gone to his reward. In 1936 Commissioner McCormack, who I regard as one of the ablest men who ever acted as Commissioner of Immigration, in conference with a distinguished United States Senator and me, asked us to sponsor a bill which would carry some of these provisions. He made the statement, I believe, that there were around 20,000 of those undesirable aliens which you attempt to reach in H. R. 3. He told us he would agree to an alien registration bill, somewhat along the lines of the Smith bill, if we would agree to cer

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

tain provisions which are contained in this bill to take care of those already in the country, and those who might come in in the future. He said very frankly he didn't know how many there were, and no one knew. He was honest about it. And may Í say this. Í do not accuse anybody of any bad faith anywhere, but all of them, the Attorney General, the Bureau of Naturalization and Immigration, have the right to believe we should have no restrictions whatsoever and we should forgive people for their misdeeds in the past and give them the same opportunity as we do our own people. However, I feel very strongly to the contrary about this proposition.

Mr. HOBBS. But there is nothing in this bill that would permit those aliens that you picture as poised and waiting in the West Indies and in Cuba and Mexico, waiting for the enactment of this bill, to come in.

Mr. STARNES. That is right, in a measure, but they have a precedent if Congress will forgive those already here. Then in all good conscience, there is no reason on God's green earth that we can't

take care of the political, racial, and religious refugees hereafter. We would be inconsistent in our position if we failed to do so. If we forgive those who are already here and refuse to send them back to the land of their nativity because we are saying they are political, racial, or religious refugees, then those who are ready to come—and nobody disputes that; the Department of Immigration and Naturalization will not dispute it; they have asked for stronger border patrols to protect us against it-it is not a wild statement that if we pass this Ēill, then we have passed a precedent, and in all good conscience we ought to go along and let the others come in. Not let them come in, but if they get in—and they can and will—then we should forgive them.

That is the reason I made the statement I did a moment ago. They will come in here by the multiplied thousands just as certain as this bill passes, and when they do there will be a clamor raised by the same people who are the proponents of this bill, who will come to you and they will have logic and reason on their side; they will say, “You gave us à bill to take care of those who were persecuted before; why are you drawing the line now? If you should care for them then, there is more reason why you should care for them now."

Mr. Hobbs. But this bill does not apply to anyone except those who were here prior to January 1, 1941; and you are discussing this bill.

Mr. STARNES. That may be true, but I reiterate and I repeat that hundreds of thousands are poised throughout this earth ready to come to this country, just as soon as they can find some degree of relaxation on our part and some spirit on our part toward relaxing the present regulations. They are coming and you cannot keep them out, and I cannot keep them out. When they get in here you are going to have a cry to take care of them, and it will be logical. And those who are already here—and this is where the pressure comes fromhave members of their families in those lands, and they are going to bring tremendous pressure to bear on you and every Member of Congress, as they have already done, to unite these families by bringing them to America. There will be no end to it. I think we have got to take a realistic attitude. It may be hard-boiled. But if it is, I can be hard-boiled when it comes to taking care of the welfare of America.

That is all, Mr. Chairman, unless there are further questions,
Mr. WEAVER. We have been glad to have you here.


Mr. STARNES. Thank you, and I certainly do appreciate the courtesy and consideration of the committee, and I again express the sincere hope that you report the original Hobbs bill to the House and that it be speedily enacted.

Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Allen, we will be glad to hear you.



[ocr errors]

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as a member of the Immigration Committee, in appearing before the Judiciary Committee on an immigration matter, I do not want it to be taken as an admission that the bill is properly before the Judiciary Committee. In other words, I do not want to face a plea of estoppel in the future if a similar matter should come up.

I am appearing in support of H. R. 3, as originally introduced by Mr. Hobbs. While the declared purpose of the bill is erroneous and misleading in the beginning, I think the real purposes of the original bill are good. A close analysis of the bill may call for some slight modification, but, on the whole, it meets my approval, and I would be glad to see the committee report it out favorably.

I regret, however, that an entirely new bill was offered by the author as a substitute for the commendable bill originally offered. I regret this because I would have been happy to go along with the gentleman from Alabama on his original bill. Let me say here that I do nch think anyone can or will question for a moment my position on this type of legislation. As a member of the Immigration Committee of the House, I have consistently fought for rigid restriction of immigration and I have sought to deport aliens who should be deported.

As the author of the bill to deport Harry Bridges, I have sincerely sought to rid this country of not only Bridges but other aliens whose deportation I thought the public welfare demanded. My sole and only motive has been to protect America. In other words, I have sought always in these matters to legislate for Americans and not for foreigners, many of whom have abused the hospitality of America.

But, Mr. Chairman, since the author of the original bill has abandoned his own bill, and since he has substituted for his original bill an entirely new bill, I suppose it would be in order for me to discuss the new bill a little.

Since the substitution of an entirely new and different bill, it became necessary, or so it seemed, to also amend the title, and I submit that the amended title is more nearly correct, for it reads, among other things, “to provide for the relief of certain aliens from deportation.” That is the key to the new bill. It does exactly that, relieves aliens from deportation. A more correct title could not have been found.

I do not wish to burden the committee with a discussion of the entire bill. I appreciate the kindness of the committee in hearing me, and I shall try to be brief and shall confine my remarks to some few things that I think are bad. My silence on the features of the bill not discussed should not be construed as approval of these features. Title I: As to title I, I see no necessity of a paid Board.

I do not object to the matter being handled by a board, but there are men now in the proper departments who are fitted by experience to handle it, and without any additional expense. In section 6 there is a question as to whether it is wise to permit aliens to test the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact ordering their detention or deportation. I question the wisdom of that step. It is well to remember that this is a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding and even our own citizens on appeal from convictions in most jurisdictions cannot test the sufficiency of the evidence. Shall we, therefore, give to the aliens a preferred status?

This is contrary to all law. Even the Smith Act adopted last year provided that "the decision of the Secretary of Labor shall be final.” Although I have disagreed with the findings of the Department in many matters, it may be unwise to change that important provision of the law. While I have never been strong for centralized authority in Washington, this provision in existing law does make for some degree of uniformity and will probably be better, especially in this crisis, than to permit that important question to be passed on by so many courts with different views and opinions.

In section 8 it would seem wise to provide further action after the fine has been paid or the sentence served. If no further provision is made, the alien may still flaunt the law in the face. You will have punished the alien but you have not cured the trouble. He should finally be deported.

Title II: In section 202 (b) of title II, I think the necessity of “conviction” ought to be removed. Under the wording, it would appear that even though one is caught by abundant witnesses in the commission of the acts mentioned, yet it would be necessary to go through the trouble, expense, and time of securing a conviction. It would seem wise to reword this section so as to obviate the necessity of an actual conviction. I am aware of the fact that the law now in certain cases requires a conviction but the crimes enumerated in this subdivision are so heinous that I would be constrained to remove the necessity of conviction in this particular category. In section 205, the question of the sufficiency of the findings of fact again arises and the statement heretofore made as to section 6, title I, would apply.

Title III: Sections 301 and 302 of title III are good provided the very wide discretion granted therein is removed. Section 301 should end with the word "admission” in line 24 on page 13, and section 302 should end with the word “deported” in line 9 on page 14. It seems to me ridiculous to assume that one who has done the things enumerated in these two sections could have anything but a "deleterious" effect on our country. Those two sections hit at the very heart of the thing that I assume that we all wish to prevent and i think we could safely assume that nothing good could come to our country from either class.

Under section 302, it would be possible to keep a man like Bridges bere by the authorities holding that his presence was not "deleterious to the national safety of the United States." And, mind you, if the Board should find even that his presence was "deleterious” the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain that holding could be tested in the court, and you would have the spectacle of one court thwarting the will of the people, the will of the Board and even the will of Congress, and nothing could be done about it. Gentlemen, under this section, you make it possible to freeze Bridges here.

I digress long enough to call the attention of my friend from Alabama to the fact that before the Rules Committee I made the statement that in my opinion this bill would permit the freezing of Harry Bridges here in this country, and as one who has constantly, incessantly, in season and out of season, sought to get rid

of Harry Bridges and his kind, I want you to realize, if you will, as I realize, that this bill does make it possible to freeze him here.

It may be argued that this would not be done, but it could be done, and that is the test. With reference to section 303, I think that any alien who has done things specified in these two sections and who is permitted to voluntarily leave the country ought never to be permitied to return. That activity ought to forever bar him. The bill should be so amended.

Title IV : Title IV is objectionable. The new matter there added to the law (act of June 28, 1940) is the alien has resided in the United States for seven consecutive years or thatin lines 16 and 17 on page 16. That title flatly authorizes the suspension from deportation upon the following conditions: (1) Good moral character for the preceding 5 years, (2) must not be racially inadmissible or ineligible, (3) must have resided in the United States for 7 consecutive years, (4) and must not come under subsection (d) of said section 19.

Now, take the case of Harry Bridges and let us see how his case would fit this. He could certainly get plenty of his bunch to swear that he had a good moral character. That is easy. We will assume that he is not racially inadmissible or ineligible. He has been over here 7 years. That brings us down to subsection (d). Of course, the position of the author of the bill is that Bridges comes under subsection (d). If it should be held by the Board or Courts that he does not come under the terms of the present bill, then, of course, title IV would freeze him here; but whether he comes under the provisions of the act of October 16, 1918, as assumed, is a question about which I daresay there is considerable difference of opinion.

I believe that the author of this bill would no doubt admit that Bridges, if occasion should arise, would claim that he comes under the present bill rather than the act of 1918. He would do so because if he could show that he comes under this bill he yould have a safe haven here. I believe the author will admit that if he does come under this bill, it would freeze him here provided the three prerequisites were established. That those three prerequisites could be established I have no doubt. I do not admit the truth of the testimony to establish the three prerequisites, but I am satisfied that he could secure witnesses in abundance who think like he does and would come forward and give the necessary testimony.

It would then be a question whether the Board, and later the courts, would accept the testimony, and, if accepted, he would be freed. Í doubt the author would contend that he would come under the other exceptions, namely, subsection (d), the act of May 26, 1922, and so on. In other words, as I understand the situation, the author takes the position that he comes under the act of 1918 and we, to say the least, espress serious doubt that the Department of Justice will hold him deportable now; and if the Department of Justice should fail to order his deportation under the act of 1918, then he would automatically drop back under the present bill, if enacted, and would most probably be left here on our hands.

[ocr errors]
« ÎnapoiContinuați »