them the opportunity and the knowledge and the will to achieve Mr. GOSSETT. Of course, Doctor, we are getting a little off the Mr. JUDD. I know. I would like to return to the subject to give Mr. CHELF. Doctor, how many families are involved from the Mr. JUDD. As I recall, about 25,000. I will have to ask Mr. Mr. MASAOKA. 33,000 were in combat service. Mr. JUDD. 33,000 were in combat service-full-fledged members of the armed forces. How many families? Do you know [addressing Mr. Masaoka]? Mr. MASAOKA. It represents approximately 26,000 families. Mr. JUDD. He himself was a member of the Four Hundred and Mr. CHELF. I am more in sympathy with your bill because of that By the way, have you read this letter from General Clark? I arrived a little late. Mr. JUDD. Yes. Mr. CHELF. I think that is a wonderful tribute to those boys. Mr. CELLER. Dr. Judd, aside from the reasons mentioned for sup- Mr. JUDD. That is right. Mr. CELLER. And this is a gesture of good will to the people of those countries embraced in that triangle. Mr. GOSSETT. But, my distinguished friend, we are not doing this with the idea of enlarging American markets. We are doing it because it is the equitable and fair thing to do. Mr. CELLER. I said in addition to the other reasons. Mr. JUDD. I agree with the gentleman from Texas that this should not be an attempt to buy friendship. I do not think you can buy friendship. On the other hand, it does remove a discrimination which can destroy friendship. There is no reason, in deciding what is right, why we should not also anticipate what are the certain good results that will flow from an action, for them and for us. I believe profoundly that whenever an act that is just and right is performed it brings good results. Mr. GOSSETT. Doctor, I still contend it is an unworthy motive to do good for materialistic reasons. Mr. JUDD. I agree with you, but the fact that there will be good materialistic results is no reason why you should not do good. Mr. FELLOWS. If there are 45,000 people living here permanently, do you not think it is a little better for our country to take on their responsibilities as citizens, if they are going to stay? I think that is a very good reason without getting into the question of the hat industry. I do not like that. Mr. CELLER. I said in addition to all the other reasons offered this is one. Mr. CHELF. Maybe a lot of folks are getting a good break because of the Japanese boys that distinguished themselves on the field of battle. A lot of folks, as far as I am concerned, are getting a break. Mr. FELLOWS. All right, Doctor. Thank you very much. Mr. MILLER. The Honorable Watson B. Miller, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service. STATEMENT OF HON. WATSON B. MILLER, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the brevity of the poor notes that I have assembled here remind me of a little doggerel I once heard: If brevity is the soul of wit; this little verse is easily it. The figure of 35,000 that I gave from memory the other day, as to the admittances from the nonquota countries of the Western Hemisphere, is to be amended to 39,000. Of course, the great majority of them are coming from Canada and relatively few from our neighbors to the south. I am conscious that an attempt to discuss the measure under examination, after hearing Dr. Judd on Monday, is for me really engaging in redundance because of the complete manner in which he develops any subject which engages his interest. Mr. Chairman, I am not attempting here to paint the lily or gild the rose, but I am always glad to appreciate the fine work of a member of a political party into which I was not born. Mr. FELLOWS. We will accept your apology. Mr. MILLER. But for only a moment and for the purpose of possible emphasis I would like to mention the two principal objectives of H. R. 5004. The first major one eliminates all racial barriers in the naturalization process. Perhaps it would be well for us to recall the natural and humane progress we have made in our Nation through the years, and in that connection, Mr. Chairman, I have lately been privileged to read an eight-point program outlined on May 26, 1943, before the then Committee on Immigration in the House by the gentleman from Minnesota. I will not take more than a moment, but I should like to recall to the members of the committee that the first of these was to repeal or modify some of the old exclusion laws. The second one would allow Chinese immigrants to be admitted on a quota basis regardless of other provisions of the law. The third would make the same Chinese persons eligible to citizenship. And, of course, some of this has been accomplished through the act of December 17, 1943, by legislative fiat. The fourth would be legislation to extend the immigration and naturalization privileges on a quota basis to natives of all members of the United Nations. The fifth would be legislation to extend the same to natives of all cobelligerent or friendly countries. And Dr. Judd on that point noted that the Japanese would be excluded not by reason of their race but by reason of the behavior of their Government. And so on through eight important points. We seem to be, through the interest and consideration of such a body as this, approaching or moving in the direction of the program suggested by the gentleman from Minnesota in 1943. Under the first act of Congress dealing with naturalization-the act of 1790-the meaning of which is being tried in the Supreme Court this very day, and I presume that is about the time we were electing John Adams the President of the United States-only free white persons were racially eligible for naturalization. Under the later act in 1870, as amended 5 years later, persons of African descent were made eligible. In the present Nationality Act of 1940, eligibility was extended to persons indigenous to the Western Hemisphere. This, of course, includes Western Hemisphere Indians as distinguished from East Indians. It was a very important move because at that time some of our Latin-American friends had been denied citizenship on the ground that they were Indians by race. Had these judicial holdings become final, it would mean that many of the citizens of the Latin-American countries could not have the privilege of migrating to the United States, as, held to be racially ineligible to naturalization, it would follow they would be inadmissible as immigrants. This would have injured, it certainly would not have helped, our good-neighbor policy. However, the difficulty was overcome by the inclusion of persons of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere in the eligible classes. The next step came on December 17, 1943, when the Congress made persons of the Chinese race eligible and, the last step to date, on July 2, 1946, when we made persons of the East Indian race and Filipinos racially eligible. At this point, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, hearing the communications read by Dr. Judd earlier at this session, I should like to say that I worked very closely with the War Relocation Authority during the war, particularly in the business of providing transportation and subsistence for youthful Japanese who were taken by our Government to farms in the country for the purpose of helping with agriculture, and with the end in view of contributing to the education-the academic education at least-of these youthful Japanese persons. First it was under Milton Eisenhower, the brother of the General, and later on under Mr. Dillon Myer. And everything that I learnedalmost everything that I learned at any rate-dismissing one or two somewhat difficult, bizarre, and somewhat unpleasant instances-led me to agree with what has been said here about the Japanese people. I also agree with what Dr. Judd and Ambassador Grew have statedthat it is but natural those few remaining oriental races presently ineligible feel the stigma more acutely than ever before. I, likewise, think that it would have a great heartening effect upon our oriental friends if this barrier were eliminated by action of the Congress. The second objective is, of course, to permit a very limited number of these persons made racially eligible to naturalization under the provisions of the bill to enter under a small and very modest quota. I do not feel myself competent to discuss the various technical phases of the bill. By its very nature it must have some technicalities in its reading. The Department of State and we have some minor amendments, I think mostly, at any rate noncontroversial, which, the committee permitting, we wish to present in executive session. However, in passing, I can say that under this plan of granting quotas to the independent countries, dominions, trusteeships, et cetera, within the Asia-Pacific triangle, the total quota will amount to less than 1 percent of the present over-all world quota. And it would be, as has been pointed out here, something like 600 persons less than the present quota. The general purpose of the bill and its language has been covered so completely I do not feel that I have the capacity to effectively add to what has been said. We will appreciate the privilege of offering the technical amendments in the interest of clarification to the committee. The gentleman from Texas, as he always does, expressed himself admirably and sincerely as to his position on a measure of this kind as between a political segment and an equitable segment. And at that moment there came to me something that is a very homely thing, that came to me spontaneously when I was first examining the bill and trying to thread out its complexities. I use the name of the Deity here, gentlemen, and I do it broadly but very reverently. It is: If any of us are God's children, aren't we all God's children? Maybe that is the spirit in which we should think of the thoughtful and very humane proposal of the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. FELLOWS. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. Mr. FELLOWS. Mr. Harry V. Hayden, Jr. STATEMENT OF HARRY V. HAYDEN, JR., NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN LEGION Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Harry V. Hayden, Jr., and I am national legislative representative of the American Legion. I want to thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to appear here today in connection with the bill under considerationH. R. 5004. We had hoped to have one of the members of our Americanism commission here today to testify, but that could not be arranged. However, I do not think that will be missed so much because I believe the committee has, with the previous witnesses, covered all the technical aspects of the bill you are considering. I want it to be understood first that no one could appreciate more than the American Legion the outstanding job done during the war by the Nisei. We fought alongside of them, and we also fought alongside of other soldiers and sailors of different races who did outstanding work and made outstanding contributions to the effort, including some Germans, if you please, some Italians, and some others. I am a World War II veteran, and I was with them on three sides of the world: in the early days in the Caribbean, subsequently in England, on the Normandy invasion, and then in the Southwest Pacific. 1 am working under a misapprehension, however. I do not hear very well, Mr. Chairman, and I understood one of the statements that Congressman Judd read to say that our records were absolutely clear, so far as any sedition or subversive activities were concerned, on the part of Japanese in this country. I did not know that was the case. I do not believe that is the case. I am not mentioning that to discount from the loyalty of those who were. As a matter of fact, I can remember one case off Corregidor when we picked up a young Nisei who had been serving in the Japanese Navy on Corregidor, a graduate of high school in Los Angeles, Calif. He was probably a victim of circumstances visiting the country. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the technical aspects of the bill have been covered very thoroughly and very ably. The American Legion, as this committee well knows, has long been alert to the importance of guarding our country against improper immigration and improper naturalization. They have had much to do in the past with our immigration and naturalization laws. They are not doing that from any narrow standpoint but from a standpoint of the security and welfare of the country that our members fought to preserve. They have fought in all of these countries or most of them, and they realize the problems fairly well. Over the years we have had a number of resolutions with regard to immigration and naturalization. One of our more recent ones came from the national convention of 1945 held in Chicago, and it is quite en extensive resolution. I think the committee have already had this before them, though I would just like to call attention to one clause that particularly applies to this bill. Among other things we wanted the immigration and naturalization laws tightened up with reference to speaking of the English language, unequivocal obligation to bear arms, and now, in connection with this bill, that immigration should be made truly selective and confined to the present quota or such reduced quotas as may hereafter be established and that: only such persons shall be admitted from any country who may be found to be assimilable and well disposed to the basic principles of our American form of government and way of life. We have before your committee one bill, H. R. 2286, which would carry out some of these recommendations regarding the Englishspeaking clause. It covers a number of the items in this resolution. We have numerous others. I think they are so well known by the committee it is not necessary to put them in. But, we are convinced, Mr. Chairman Mr. FELLOWS. Would you like to incorporate the resolution? Mr. FELLOWS. Without objection, it will be done. Mr. HAYDEN. We feel, Mr. Chairman, that so far as this bill is conLerned we are trying to win the peace and all that sort of thing. After all, we have not even established the peace as yet. We do not feel, and I know the American Legion, with the strong policy that they have always had, are not going to be stampeded into changing that policy. There is a tremendous effort to relax our immigration and naturalization laws. We do not feel that any relaxation at this time is wise for the security of the country. We can take separate cases of these people whose boys fought in he Army--not just the Japanese but some of the others--and say |