beyond that, it seems to me the result of passing this act in its present form, would be to cut down immigration for the next few years. That is to say, if we do have people in the country now-and for the most part they will be people who have been here for a number of years, 7 as a minimum, and most of them more than 10, in my opinion-if you do have these people establish their good records and their eligibility for the exercise of the discretionary powers of the Attorney Genera! as provided for here, and then charged up subsequently the quotas to the extent of 50 percent, that it seems to me is going to have the effect of limiting the number of persons who can come into the country in the future.

Mr. WEAVER. I wanted to ask you about that. If one of these persons should be charged to the quota for this or next year it would not increase the number that could come in under the quota.

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir.

Mr. WEAVER. It would decrease the number?

Mr. HARRISON. As a matter of fact, it would decrease it.

Mr. WEAVER. And it would be impossible for one, or more, then, according to the number here who received this treatement, to come from a foreign country?

Mr. HARRISON. Exactly. So I cannot follow the argument at all that this is going to play havoc with our quota system. Indeed, it is

not.

Mr. WEAVER. The point they make is that it goes back and takes up prior quotas for years already gone by, and already exhausted, and in that way increase the number of quota entries.

Mr. HARRISON. We must keep in mind these people are already here. Mr. HOBBS. Excuse me; let us get the record straight. Not the quotas that have been exhausted, but those which have not been used. It is only those where there is a leeway left.

Mr. WEAVER. That is what I mean. Suppose Germany, or Italy, for instance, 4 years ago, did not use up all of its quota, and had a credit. The argument is that they can go back and use that up now.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; and use it up how? Not to permit other people to come in. We must keep that in mind. But making a place for someone who is here that has met these high tests laid down here. We must keep that in mind at all times.

Mr. HOBBS. Further, let me call your attention to this: Any of these aliens to whom leniency is granted under the provisions of title IV must be charged to the year in which he actually entered.

Mr. HARRISON. Exactly so.

Mr. HOBBS. It is not just a catch-all, and then have them dumped into some former year. But he is charged to the quota he would have been legally under if he had not escaped from a concentration camp, for instance, but had a regular visa or passport in that year.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Starnes seemed to think that the alien population was not decreasing. Representations have been made to that effect that are untrue. We know, as a matter of fact, that it is decreasing. There were 4,364,000 registered under the Alien Registration Act of 1940, with an additional 250,000 that covered our possessions, and those who registered abroad. But in 1930, you will remember, there were over 6,280,000 aliens in the country. It is my opinion we ought to do what we can further to cut down that number and this is one means that we can use. The people who are here, who

have been here, and who, as I say, can establish a satisfactory condition of their record, ought to have citizenship opened up to them, so that that number of 434 millions can be cut down further. A great many of them want citizenship. I am sure a great many of them would be able to meet the requirements that are imposed here, even though they are high standards, and properly should be. But that is one method of reducing to even smaller figures our alien population, even though now it is the smallest percentage in the history of the country.

Mr. HOBBS. Are you now at a place where it would not bother you if I interrupted?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. I would like to say that the purpose and the reason behind the provision here creating this board, were that the Attorney General insisted that because of his multifarious duties in connection with all of the activities of his Department, for instance, in connection with the land provisions-there are millions of acres of new land being acquired for the Government, not only in connection with the national-defense effort, but also in connection with the acquisition of lands and forests for park purposes, soil-conservation purposes, and similar acquisitions, that run into the millions and millions of acres; his duties in a supervisory capacity over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and all of its manifold and multifarious activities in connection with the Solicitor General's division in the supervision of Federal litigation, and all of his regular administrative functions, as the adviser to the President and other departments, and his appearances before the Congress and in a hundred other ways, would make it utterly impossible for him to assume the burden of administering an act of this character. In the second place, it would be far better to entrust these duties, the ones created by this act, to an independent quasi-judicial tribunal rather than to an intramural board appointed by him to function under him in the Department of Justice, giving more assurance, both to the Immigration and Naturalization Service in his department, and also to the aliens, that they would get, not a one-man verdict, but a real verdict, from a quasi-judicial board, subject to the confirmation of the Senate, and wholly without regard to the wishes of the Attorney General, whoever he may be.

I wonder if your experience with the Department of Justice has led you to the conclusion that these reasons are preeminently sound and fair.

Mr. HARRISON. It most certainly has, sir. I think a step in that direction was taken in an action with which you are familiar, in setting up a Board of Review in connection with immigration appeals. This is also in the direction that independent thought may be given to appeals in cases of that kind, to get it away from the office, as it were, of the prosecutor, because the Attorney General, through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, will necessarily be the prosecutor in a great many of these cases, and to have a board set up under the circumstances outlined, it seems to me would be extremely wise and in keeping with our institutions.

I was rather amused at the young man the other day who made some reference to this act being un-American. I cannot imagine anything that is more in keeping with our legal way of doing things,

318230-41-ser. 2, pt. 2-12

our requirement of due process, than to set up a board as suggested here.

Mr. HOBBS. Now, then, I would like to have you verify my opinion, that under the existing law, consuls and consular agents in foreign countries have no discretion whatsoever with reference to the granting of visas. That is to say, if a showing is made prima facie, as of course it always is, by the applicant, they have no discretion to refuse a visa, as I understand the law.

Mr. HARRISON. That is my understanding.

Mr. HOBBS. Therefore, any of these aliens who are now here and who would come within the purview of section 402, who are deportable, simply because they have overstayed their visa, all they would have to do, or any one of them would have to do, would be to go to Cuba, Mexico, or Canada, apply for a visa to one of our consular agents and wholly without any discretion on his part, a visitor's visa would be forthcoming, and they would come right back in. That is the system that is now in vogue; is it not?

Mr. HARRISON. In preexamination; yes, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. It is rather amusing, therefore, to think about the contention that this would open the floodgates to this group of people who now, through the agencies of the railroads, airplane companies, steamboat companies, and automobiles, can go across the line and then

come back.

Mr. HARRISON. With assurance on our part, given in advance, that they will be readmitted.

Mr. HOBBS. Now, then, do you conceive, as I do, that it is absolutely of the utmost importance that title I is integrated into and should be read in connection with title IV in its provisions which give, for the first time in the history of this Government, the power in the Immigration Service over these deportable aliens who cannot be deported, and yet who are not so bad as to be detained either permanently or for as long as a year? Do you, or not, concede it to be very important that title I combines with the detention features the feature of the control system, as a result of which our Immigration Service is to be given for the first time the right to supervise and control those who may not measure up to the highest standard necessary to satisfy the Attorney General under title IV that they should be released and yet who, under the present law, are perfectly free and under this law would be subject to control permanently?

Mr. HARRISON. Answering your question, I most certainly do, sir. That is the reason, more or less, at the outset I tried to direct attention in two different directions, not only to title I, but to title IV. You have done it very much more effectively than I could have done it. I do think the two ought to be read together and by so reading they make up a very satisfactory system.

Mr. HOBBS. I want to ask you another thing; and that is this: As I read the law of 1918, and the Registration Act of 1940, and this one, there is no change whatsoever in the status of Harry Bridges, nor the attitude of the law toward him, he being specifically exempted from any tendency toward clemency under either title III or title IV, except the discretion which permits the Attorney General to ignore the requirements of titles III and IV with respect to secret agents of our own Government.

Mr. HARRISON. Exactly.

Mr. HOBBS. In other words, Harry Bridges will be in an infinitely worse situation

Mr. HARRISON. Under this act.

Mr. HOBBS. Under this law than he now is.

Mr. HARRISON. Very definitely, sir. I think there was only one other point brought out this morning that I want to make some reference to. Objection was made to title II, as I recall it, on the ground that it requires a conviction. It seems to me that, again, is wise, is in keeping with our way of doing things, and is not an undue hardship on the Service, or on the Department of Justice. It seems to me it would be wise to use the language as given here and require conviction. Mr. CRAVENS. Otherwise they might depend on gossip and hearsay. Mr. HARRISON. Exactly. The dangers are very apparent.

Finally, I do want to say just a word or two about a point which has brought out by others with respect to double jeopardy. There seems to be a feeling that we are giving heavier penalties to aliens who breach the criminal laws than we do to citizens. I do not so regard it. I would say we have to go farther than the young man did the other day. He said we ought simply to distinguish between good and bad residents, we should not make any distinction at all based on citizenship and noncitizenship. That may be true for some purposes; but where you have good and bad citizens, good and bad noncitizens, when it comes to those who are dangerous, then in addition to paying the penalty provided by the criminal law, they certainly are susceptible to some kind of detention and supervision. That is very much needed, and is one of the big purposes of this act, and I think the adoption of this act would be a tremendous step forward in connection with our handling of the alien population.

Mr. CRAVENS. I should like to ask you a question about section 402, on page 20.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAVENS. It says:

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

and so forth.

Does that 2-year limitation serve any particular purpose? The point I have in mind is that most of the aliens that I come in contact with, I have discovered do not know what their rights are, never hear about them until say 3, 4, or 5 years have gone by. I would hate to see one of that type, where they meet the other qualifications of this act, deprived of the benefits of it, because they did not know about it within 2 years. They do not have the means of getting information that a lot of the other aliens have, and I just wondered if that limitation of 2 years could be eliminated without in any way harming the practical operation of the act.

Mr. HARRISON. In my opinion I think it might well be eliminated. I would prefer to see it eliminated. I imagine it was put in to give reassurance to those who might feel this would open up the gates to an ever increasing number of people. That really is not true. I would like to see it eliminated. On the other hand, I think if we were to use all the facilities available, probably the information could be

disseminated broadly enough for it to serve its purpose, even with the limitation of 2 years.

Mr. CRAVENS. I can see where it might work a hardship on some fellow in my part of the country, who has come within the qualifications and has been here for many years, but just because he did not get around to making an application, or did not hear about this thing. he would be deprived of the benefits under the act. Do you have any particular reason for the limitation, Mr. Hobbs?

Mr. HOBBS. I would be glad to state for the record that the only thing in mind in putting this limitation in was that there should be a definite certainty with regard to the number of aliens admitted under our quota system, and then the sooner we could get back to that and yet be reasonably fair to those to whom these sections would apply, the better. Therefore, we though a two-year limitation, especially in view of the splendid working of the Registration Act of 1940, giving us valuable information as to who the aliens were and how they could be notified of their rights-2 years was really desirable.

Mr. CRAVENS. Well, it would be under ordinary circumstances, but there are certain types of aliens who are perfectly good citizens who never hear of these things.

Mr. HARRISON. We are in a much better position now than we ever were before, as Judge Hobbs points out, because we now have their names and addresses.

Mr. CRAVENS. I see.

Mr. HOBBS. I have no brief for the 2-year period. If the committee wants to extend it or wipe it out, it is all right with me, except I do think that certainty as to the number of quota admissibles is an advantage.

Mr. HARRISON. That is an advantage, and if we could shut off applications under this title at the end of 2 years, we will then get back to a definite policy and make the number of admissibles certain again, which I think is some advantage.

Mr. CRAVENS. Couldn't that be reasonably well handled by adding a proviso there that on a showing of hardship or something of that kind, that limitation should not apply to individual cases, which by reason of circumstances were not aware of their rights?

Mr. HOBBS. But, mark you, this bill only applies to those who have been here since January 1, 1941, and therefore were registered under the Registration Act of 1940. They have come in contact with our Registration Service, and our registration forces, and have found out that we are not bears, lions, tigers, or other wild animals.

Mr. CRAVENS. Of course, I have no doubt that, in spite of all the publicity given to the Registration, there were some fellows who did not hear about it.

Mr. HARRISON. That is right.

Mr. CRAVENS. That, of course, is not the fault of Mr. Harrison or anybody else. It was just one of those situations where the persons did not get the information. I was just thinking of those hardship cases where some fellow might be really hurt if he didn't get in under the deadline.

Mr. HOBBS. I have no particular affection for it.

Mr. HARRISON. That is about all I have to say. I want to thank the committee for this opportunity of presenting my views.