Mr. GOSSETT. Notwithstanding all that has been said about the political aspects of this bill and the fact that we seek to win friends, I still say that that, in my judgment, is a very poor basis on which to predicate the bill. We want to do the fair thing and the just thing, and we want to remove racial discrimination, and we do it on the basis of justice and not because of its effect on anybody.

I think the great American Nation does not have to kowtow to any group or any race in the matter of eliciting friendship. We want to deal fairly with them and justly, and if they like it, fine. If they do not like it, they just have to take it, too.

So my support of this bill is not predicated upon the political aspect of it but only on the equitable aspects of it. And the only opposition that I have learned of to this bill is the fear that immigration restrictionists have and I am more or less in that class because I believe in restricted immigration-that the bill may be used as a basis for breaking down quota restrictions, and that we will depart from this area-quota philosophy written into the bill and begin, as we have done here, allotting quotas to separate political units.

You are convinced that the bill is so restricted that that would not be done or could not be done administratively?

Mr. BOGGS. Yes; definitely.

Mr. FELLOWS. Perhaps you could point out in the bill what you have in mind.

Mr. BOGGS. It is at the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6. This is intended to prescribe quota areas or quota countries exactly as the present law prescribed them, but to do it very succinctly:

For the purposes of this Act——

Mr. FELLOWS. For the record, you are reading from page 5 of the bill?

Mr. BOGGS. Yes. This would become section 12 (a):

For the purposes of this Act, the annual quota to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within a "quota area," treating as a separate quota area each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, and attributing to "quota areas" all other inhabited lands other than those of the United States and its Territories and possessions and the countries specified in subdivision (c) of section 4

that is, the nonquota areas of the Americas

in a manner consistent with the intent of this Act and approved by the Secretary of State.

Mr. GOSSETT. What are the exceptions here now?

Mr. BOGGS. The exceptions?

Mr. FELLOWs. Subsection (1) he refers to.

Mr. BOGGS. Oh. Well, that-

Mr. JUDD. The first subsection (1) is devised to eliminate or at least reduce the cases where children are separated from their parents. Under present law they have to be charged to the quota of the father. This allows them to be charged either to the quota of their birth or to the quota of the father, whichever is more advantageous and does not prevent separation of parent from child.

The Justice Department made a suggestion which I think is good: that the provision should be modified further so that if a child comes in with both parents, who happened to be born in different countries,

it could also be chargeable, if desired, to the quota of the country the mother is chargeable to. Subsection (1) is to prevent splitting of families.

Mr. FELLOWS. Subsection (2) is the same principle applied to a wife; is it not?

Mr. JUDD. Exactly the same as the present law except that it changes the word "nationality" to the words "quota area" all the way through. It is much better.

Mr. CHELF. But in no case to exceed the 100?

Mr. JUDD. That is correct. Then subsection (3) makes available for the persons that are considered in this bill the same provisions that are applicable to immigrants from other countries.

It refers to subsections (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1924 which defines the categories of nonquota immigrants. Subsection (a) has to do with unmarried children or wives of citizens of the United States. Subsection (b) has to do with immigrants who were legally admitted here but who have gone back to their native land for temporary visits. Subsection (d) has to do with ministers or professors who have been for the 2 years immediately preceding working in an educational institution. Subsection (e) has to do with students who come for study in this country. And subsection (f) has to do with an American woman who has lost her citizenship by marriage to an alien. It allows her to regain her citizenship and come back as a nonquota immigrant.

That is the existing law. This just makes clear that those provisions of existing law apply to the persons dealt with in this bill. Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, may I further answer Mr. Gossett's question here? I had not noticed this before. On page 10, beginning with line 10, I think this is a safeguard:

After the determination of quotas has been made as provided in subdivision (d) of section 11, revision of the quotas shall be made by such officials, jointly, whenever necessary, to provide for any change of boundaries resulting in transfer of territory from one sovereignty to another, a change of administrative arrangements of a colony or other dependent area, or any other political change requiring a change in the list of quota areas or of the territorial limits thereof, but no such revision shall increase the total of all the quotas except as such increase is involved in maintaining a minimum quota of 100 for each quota area.

Mr. GOSSETT. But that still is not a restriction. Your last two lines say:

except as such increase is involved in maintaining a minimum quota of 100 for each quota area.

Mr. BOGGS. What I mean to point out is that it does not leave to the discretion of the Secretary of State or anyone else whether you can multiply the number of entities that have separate quotas. There is nothing we can do to prevent some fragmentation if it happens, but the total number possible in the area is certainly extremely small.

Mr. CELLER. May I ask a question? Suppose Pakistan and India became united. Would the quota be 200 or would it be reduced to 100?

Mr. BOGGS. Unless there is special legislation, it would be 100. Mr. CELLER. And did Poland have its quota increased when it absorbed portions of Germany?

Mr. ALEXANDER (State Department). There has been no change thus far.

Mr. CELLER. The drawing of the Curzon Line had no effect? Mr. ALEXANDER. There has been no adjustment of the quotas growing out of territorial changes in the war.

Mr. FELLOWS. For the record it should appear that Mr. Alexander is speaking.

Mr. CELLER. Would this bill effect the change?

Mr. ALEXANDER. This bill would not affect it at all.

Mr. CELLER. Is that by Executive order that territorial changes as a result of conquered land does not involve any changes?

Mr. ALEXANDER. No, there has been

Mr. CELLER. What is the basis of that?

Mr. ALEXANDER. There has been no final determination of quotas as a result of territorial changes growing out of this war. Now, there are going to be some changes in the quotas, but they are not all settled. Mr. JUDD. Because the boundaries have not been settled as yet. For example, the Polish boundary has not been settled by treaty. Mr. CELLER. Peace treaty?

Mr. JUDD. Yes.

Mr. BOGGS. That is being studied at the present time which changes have jelled to the point that they are recognized now, and which we have to wait for later.

Under this bill and under present law the quota areas and the countries and the territorial limits are identical.

Mr. JUDD. This bill would not change that from existing law. Mr. BOGGS. But changes will have to be made for Poland as soon as we know what to do about it.

Mr. GOSSETT. Assuming that this bill is only for the purpose of removing discriminations based on race, then it would not be important whether the minimum were 1 or 100,000.

Now, it has been suggested-and I am not offering this as an amendment to the bill, but it has been usggested-that the bill might properly reduce this minimum. We have always just taken 100 as the minimum. But, based on the formula set up in the bill, the equation through which a quota is determined, a great many of these areas, of course, would have less for a minimum, except, of course, for the minimum set in the bill.

Would the Department or Dr. Judd have any serious objections to reducing the minimum quotas to 50?

Mr. JUDD. I do not think it is necessary, but I would have no objec tion if it were done for minimum quotas all around the world. Mr. GossETT. That is what I mean.

Mr. JUDD. All countries that did not have enough of their citizens or their emigrants in this country in the 1920 census to justify an immigration quota of more than 50, would be given the minimum of 50. I personally would have no objection. As a matter of fact, in 1943 in discussing the Chinese bill, that was a suggestion I made for each of the four main colonial systems in the Pacific basin.

Mr. CELLER. Dr. Judd, before you come to such a quick conclusion, I think you ought to think that out. For example, take the Indian quota-25 percent of the Indian quota, for example, goes to Europeans born in India.

Mr. JUDD. That is right.

Mr. CELLER. So, it is not really 100 for Indians of pure Indian blood. It is only 75. And that goes all along the line in a wa

So

that you really have not got 100 absolutely for those natives of full national blood of that particular country. You have not got it to the extent of 100.

Mr. JUDD. That is the case in other countries, too. The quota for Japan, would be above the minimum quota because they had enough here in the 1920 census to figure out at 185, but that would not be all available for Japanese. Some of it would be taken for persons born in Japan, of British, Portuguese, French, Russian, or American descent.

Mr. CELLER. Would you not say that 100 is pretty low?

Mr. JUDD. I think it is pretty reasonable. I am not the least alarmed about it. I was answering the specific question he asked. From the standpoint of equality, it does not make any difference what the figure is if they are all at 100 or all at 50. That is a matter of policy as regards our over-all immigration. As long as they are all alike, it is equality.

Mr. GOSSETT. Of course, the philosophy of the quota system originally, and of our basic immigration laws, was to protect the ethnic composition of the country.

Mr. JUDD. Yes, and I think this does it, because if every single quota number granted were taken up by a person of Asian ancestry, it would still be only about seven-tenths of 1 percent of the total number of immigrants authorized for entry into this country each

year.

The total number is a little over 150.000. This would allow about 1,000-about seven-tenths of 1 percent. So, I cannot see how that could greatly upset or change the ethnic composition of our popula

tion.

Mr. GOSSETT. Well, only in that persons coming in now, for example, might possible rear very large families, while those of older stock would rear very small families, and in the course of time that would change the balance within the republic of the ethnic strains.

Mr. JUDD. Well, of course, the answer to that is this: Birth rates generally depend not upon race, but upon economic and educational standards, and families

Mr. GOSSETT. But they work in reverse.

Mr. JUDD. I beg your pardon?

Mr. GOSSETT. The people who have the most children in my area are those who are less economically able to support them.

Mr. JUDD. Precisely. That is what I said, or at least that is what I thought I said.

As the economic and educational standards rise, the birth rate falls, whether they are from Asia or Europe. The first generation of immigrants from all countries had 6, 8, 10, or 15 children, as most of them had in the old country where there was a high mortality rate. If they had 10, 6 or 7 died before they reached maturity.

But, the second generation-Japanese and Chinese immigrants as well as English, French, and Russian-usually has two, three, or four children, the same as you and I. As they get better living standards, they have higher educational standards and they reduce the number of births. They cannot educate as many children and take care of them as they want to take care of them —that is, as many children as they used to have in the old country.

They reduce the birth rate after the first generation whatever the country from which they come. I think there are few exceptions to

that. That is one of the places where we medical missionaries have perhaps done damage, as the British have done damage in India We go in from the outside and with our health measures reduce the mortality rate before the educational level of the people has been raised to the point where they could do it themselves. Whenever their educational level is raised and their economic level is raised to the point where they can cut down their mortality rate, they will cut down their birth rate. But, when we reduce the mortality rate and they have not progressed to the point where they know how or have a mind to reduce their birth rate, there you get alarming increases in population, as is happening in India.

The British see that the plagues do not come any more and the children do not die in hordes. But the Indians are still breeding them very rapidly.

Mr. FELLOWs. You are not putting in a plug for Federal-grant schools, are you?

Mr. JUDD. Not at all.

Mr. GOSSETT. That is another problem, Doctor: I do not know what is to be done about it. The population of the world, as you know, in the last 50 years has increased by 500,000,000 persons. Mr. JUDD. Yes.

Mr. GOSSETT. Making the total population now, I think, something like 2,300,000,000. Is that approximately correct?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Approximately.

Mr. GOSSETT. I happened to read a book the other day by a couple of doctors of philosophy on population trends in war and peace, and they made the positive statement that there are three areas in the world, namely, the Chinese area and the Indian area and possibly the U. S. S. R., that if their death rate could be reduced as low as ours in this country, their birth rate maintained, that either one of the three areas could overpopulate the world six times in 100 years. Mr. JUDD. That is right. Therefore, the answer to it is better education among them. I hope you will plug to get the Rules Committee to bring out my resolution for joining the World Health Organization, which is for that purpose. On one hand improve the health standards and hold down the mortality rate, but at the same time improve the general education level in all countries so they will voluntarily cut down their birth rate.

Mr. GOSSETT. We have done a poor job right here in our own backyard.

Mr. JUDD. We certainly have.

Mr. GOSSETT. We took over Puerto Rico; as you know, they had more inhabitants then than the island could then adequately support. And under our tutelage we have gone in and probably have not done as much as we should but we have raised the health standards, reduced the death rate, have sought to build hospitals, and now I believe they have got over 2,000,000 people, and they are all about to move in to New York, Mr. Emanuel Celler's district, and they do not like it.

Mr. CELLER. We welcome them.

Mr. JUDD. There can be no denial of our own failures. We have been through a period of trial and error when our American humanitarians went out with the thought that the main thing was to keep people from dying. You do not really dare do that unless you make a comparable effort to educate people to biological trends and to give