Mr. ROBSION. But this law reads that not only he, but anybody else, any alien can be deported if once they were a Communist at any time; it does not make any difference what they were at the time, they can undertake to deport him. Mr. TREVOR. But might I recall you once more to the section that deals specifically with this matter?" Mr. ROBSION. I think it is this bill here. Mr. TREVOR. Yes. Title III, page 13. In other words, the organizations which justify deportation of an alien, include any alien who seeks to enter. And the next section is the one on deportation: Any alien who shall act in the United States in behalf of any foreign government or foreign political body or group, including, without limiting the foregoing, the Communist Party of the United States of America— And then it enumerates a number of these foreign names— Or any organization successor to any one of them, shall be deported unless there is substantial reason to believe that such alien's activities are not deleterious to the national safety of the United States. Well, now, that seems to negative. Mr. ROBSION. That does not repeal the Smith Act. I think Judge Hobbs is just exactly right about this thing, that that line does exclude Harry Bridges and all that come within that category. Mr. HOBBS. May I read for the record and for the information of the witness that provision of the Smith Act, which has just been handed me by our very efficient clerk; section 23 (a): The first paragraph of section 1 of the Act entitled "An Act to exclude and expel from the United States aliens who are members of the anarchistic and similar classes," approved October 16, 1918, as amended, is amended to read as follows: "That any alien By way of parenthesis, I will say that that was the section which Mr. Justice Roberts in his opinion, which became the majority opinion of the Court, was construing in the Strecker case, this act of 1918. Now, we changed that provision to read as follows: That any alien who, at any time, shall be or shall have been a member of any one of the following classes shall be excluded from admission into the United States: (b) Section 2 of such Act of October 16, 1918, as amended, is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 2. Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter, a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumer ated in section 1 of this act, shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported in the manner provided in the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to the classes of aliens mentioned in this act, irrespective of the time of their entry into the United States." Mr. TREVOR. Well, that is all right, Congressman. But a later act always supersedes a previous act, even if it does not specifically repeal the previous act. Mr. HOBBS. Of course. Mr. TREVOR. Well, here, leaving aside personalities, I mean, there might be some successive administration. And if the executive branch say that there is substantial reason to believe that such alien's activities, even though he is a member of the Communist Party, are not deleterious to the national safety, they may suspend his deportation. 318230-41-ser. 2, pt. 2——5 Mr. HOBBS. That is right. Now, do you mean to say that any administration, in the face of the declared policy set forth in this law, would do that unless there was some manifestly good reason, such as the one I suggested, that he was a member of the Secret Service and joining for that purpose? Mr. TREVOR. Oh, I think it has been done. I think the Bridges case is a case in point. I think it has been done, and I think the law is perfectly clear. As I say, the numerous decisions I have just handed the reporter shows perfectly plainly that the preponderance of the views was that membership in the Communist Party was ample justification; I mean, membership in parties like the Communist Party or subsidiaries of parties of that nature, was sufficient to justify deportation. That was specifically shown by the Strecker case. But that is only one. I mean, the law was perfectly clear, and yet for years Bridges was tolerated in this community by the Secretary of Labor, who was charged with the administration of the law. Now, you say I cannot conceive of any administration doing it. I say it has been done by this present administration. So, why should I not be skeptical when I see the phraseology in the statute granting discretionary power. I do not think that discretionary power ought to be given. That is the only difference of opinion, I think, between you and me on this point. We both want to see it work out. Mr. HOBBS. I am not pressing it further, but you are getting away from your guns. You are running from your own proposition. You are saying that this act which I wrote releases Harry Bridges. I say that what is in the parentheses is sufficient to keep him out of this. And you are going back now on the discretionary power which is put in here specifically to prevent the necessity of the deportation of a foreign member of our Secret Service. Mr. TREVOR. Well, sir, I think it is a perfectly fair interpretation. I am not running from my guns, or anybody's guns. Mr. HOBBS. Oh, yes you are. You pointed specifically to two lines in this bill of mine and said, "They do it." And I say that you absolutely ignore the parentheses which is just above it, which specifically says, as plainly as words can make it, that in 14 different ways Bridges is excluded from the operation of that provision you are talking about. Mr. TREVOR. No, sir; because I think that this Mr. HOBBS. Would you say he was a man of good character? Mr. TREVOR. Well, you know, we had that question of good character up, and we argued that with Colonel McCormick for years, as to what was good character. And I remember very well Senator Reynolds went up to the Department of Labor to investigate these cases of good character. Mr. HOBBS. Would you contend that Harry Bridges is a man of good character? Mr. TREVOR. I would certainly not; nor any of these people, the overwhelming number of those people whose deportation was suspended by Miss Perkins during the past 8 years, I would say they are not persons of good character. Mr. HOBBS. Then he is excluded from the operation of title IV. So you are talking about nothing. Would you say he was a man who advocated the destruction of property? When he admits he said he pointed to a United States battleship and said he hoped to see all those things sunk? Mr. TREVOR. I don't think you quite get my point, sir. I think this act has got to be considered as a whole, and not in part. Mr. HOBBS. Yes; but when you got to that part, you pointed to two lines on page 14 of my bill, and said that they did it. Mr. TREVOR. Certainly. Mr. HOBBS. And now you are going back to something else, this discretionary power to enable the Secret Service to keep these men. Mr. TREVOR. No; because this part is dependent on the other. Mr. HOBBS. No; that is what you said. All right; let it go at that. Mr. TREVOR. I want to make perfectly clear that this has got to be taken as a whole. You cannot say anyone is going to consider merely that part; it has got to be considered together. This power comes to them, and therefore, they fail to suspend. They have got discretionary power to suspend. Mr. HOBBS. That does not go to title IV. Harry Bridges is specifically exempted, and you know it, if you read that section (d). Mr. TREVOR. Now, the part of this bill that those of us who have been fighting for immigration restriction for the last 20 years object to more than anything else, is- Mr. HOBBS. Section 402. Mr. HOBBS. That is right. Mr. TREVOR. That nullifies the whole quota system. And some of the preceding sections have a similar effect in this same title. If it is possible for the executive branch of the Government to change the status of an alien who has come in here in any way, the quota system is killed so far as it relates down to the date of 1941. Now, once you establish the principle, that that change of status can be accomplished, the quota system is lost. I remember very well at the hearings before the Senate committee, when they were asking for a similar clause to be inserted in some bill that was before Congress, and I think it was in a bill where they could get a change of status, one of the witnesses asked, representing the groups: Now, you admit the reason you are doing it, and you say this principle is established as a matter of law, although it is only to apply to, say, 10,000,000 aliens; and you believe that will serve as a useful precedent of the successive continuation of that provision. And it is my recollection, and I do not want to say without looking at the record, I would not like to positively say, that that was the viewpoint of the late Colonel McCormick. But I think I have every reason to believe it was. That if they once established this principle, that they could change the status, that it would be extended to cover an indefinite number, and that additional legislation would be introduced to provide for that. I think if you, Congressman, would care to discuss that matter with Senator Reynolds, I think he can probably enlighten you about it. I submit that this section of the bill is absolutely destructive of the principle of the quota law. Congress enacted that law so as to maintain the substantial balance of the population as it was in 1920. So it was believed, and stated in the House committee report at that time, that government depended upon the general character of the population of the country in which they exist, and therefore they wanted to preserve generally the same basic idea of the population composition we had at that time. Well, this thing reverses all that, because anybody who comes in, in any way, knows he can get his status changed. Why, they just simply scrap the quota principle down to the year 1941. And as you will notice in the previous section, if a man cannot be charged with a past quota, he can be charged with some quota that may end in the millenium, depending upon how many of these people there are. And we know this, that the Department of Labor, or, rather, the Bureau of Immigration's estimates of population were wholly inaccurate before. That has been demonstrated by the Registration Act. But the Registration Act has not yet and never could determine how many illegal aliens there are in the country. Until we have general registration of everybody, we never will know. But under this, this thing is absolutely destructive in principle and forms a most dangerous precedent, and we strongly object to it. Now, Congressman and Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for the great courtesy that you have shown me. Mr. WEAVER. We thank you for the statement you have made, and I wish to say that if you have any additional data that you wish to put in the record, if it is not too long, to refresh your views about any particular phase of the bill, we will be glad for you to put it in. Mr. TREVOR. I think some questions have been brought up, and I would like to look at the record. I can submit it to you, and you can include it or throw it out. Mr. WEAVER. Now, is there anything else? Mr. HOBBS. Yes; I want to say Mr. WEAVER. You want to ask a few questions, Mr. Hobbs? Mr. HOBBS. I want to say I concur in the chairman's thanks. I think you have been very helpful and very frank and very dispassionate; for all of which we are grateful. I think your remarks have been very illuminating, and I hope some of the amendments you have prepared will serve to clarify and assist the bill, in which event I should he very happy to alvocate them, so far as I am concerned. But I do not want you to run away without asking you some questions. Mr. TREVOR. Congressman, I would not run away from any question. Mr. HOBBS. You say it includes aliens who have entered illegally. I do not think so. It says Mr. WEAVER. What are you referring to now? Mr. HOBBS. This section 402. Mr. WEAVER. 402? Mr. HOBBS. 402. This bill provides, in substance, that the Attorney General shall have authority to grant permanent immigration status to aliens who have been admitted as nonimmigrants. That means legally, as I interpret it. It includes visitors prior to January 1, 1941, who have resided here continually since such time; of good moral character and attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States; are not subject to deportation, except for having remained longer than the period for which they were admitted or permitted to remain; have complied with the requirements of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, and in which case there is substantial reason to believe that the alien would be subject to political, racial, or religious persecution were they to be returned to the countries of their nativity, citizenship, or last permanent residence. And as to such case in which permanent status is accorded, the aliens must comply with the law. Now, it seems to me that does not include illegal entrants. It certainly does not include anybody that has committed any deportable offense or is subject to deportation for any reason except that they have remained here longer than necessary. Mr. TREVOR. Well, may I discuss that? Mr. HOBBS. Why, of course; I would be glad to have you. That is what I am asking you to do. Mr. TREVOR. Yes. Now, in the first place, it is perfectly clear that this change of status applies to all immigrants who are lawfully admitted. We object to that. Mr. HOBBS. But I understood you to say it applied only to the illegal entrants. Mr. TREVOR. What? Mr. HOBBS. I understood you to say it applied in the original statement, to the illegal entrants? Mr. TREVOR. In addition to the lawful entrants. Mr. HOBBS. Yes, sir. Mr. TREVOR. Yes, sir; that was my impression. Mr. HOBBS. All right; how? Mr. TREVOR. Now, I think to meet our objection to this provision, it certainly should include that of an immigrant lawfully admitted to the United States, in order to make perfectly certain that an illegal entrant would not be permitted to change his status. Mr. HOBBS. Now, then, just a minute; let us get down to brass tacks on that. You are a perfectly fair man, and I understand as well well informed as anybody living on this subject. When we say that he is only deportable because of having overstayed his visitor's visa, or the time for which he was admitted or permitted to remain, does not that cover the ground? Mr. TREVOR. Or: (6) That there is substantial reason to believe that he would be subject to political, racial, or religious persecution were he to return to the country of his Dativity, citizenship, or last permanent residence. Mr. HOBBS. That is right. Mr. TREVOR. Well, I mean, that is a catch-all for everybody. Mr. TREVOR. Yes; but you have got to take all the provisions; you have got to consider all those things. Mr. CRAVENS. He must not be subject to deportation for any reason at all, under (4). Mr. TREVOR. Except for having remained longer than the period for which he was admitted or permitted to remain. Mr. CRAVENS. Yes, sir. Just that one offense is excepted; but he must not be subject to deportation for any other reason. Mr. TREVOR. For any other reason; that possibly would cover the situation to which we object. Mr. CRAVENS. You say that it would? |