In the Schwimmer case, the district court found that Madam Schwimmer was ineligible to be naturalized because of her refusal to bear arms.

The superior court reversed the lower court, and the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the circuit court and sustanined the lower court, and denied Madam Schwimmer the right to be naturalized.

In the Girouard case, everything was reversed. The lower court denied the right of naturalization and the circuit court rendered it to the Supreme Court, who sustained the district court, and it all goes on the theory that the requirement has never been written into the statutes. That is what this bill claims to do, to remove all

doubt.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FELLOWS. We have some objectors to this bill. We have some people who wish to appear in opposition.

We have Mr. Cornell, of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, who wishes to appear against this bill.

Mr. GOSSETT. I suggest that we hear Mr. Rockmore.

Mr. FELLOWs. Yes; he wanted to get away.

Will you give your full name to the committee, please?

STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM ROCKMORE, COUNSEL, HEBREW IMMIGRANT AID SOCIETY

Mr. ROCKMORE. My name is Abraham Rockmore. I am counsel for the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. My office is here in Washington.

The abbreviation for the organization is "HIAS." That is what we call ourselves.

We have 100 offices throughout the world in 50 countries. We have been in existence of 62 years.

Our work is chiefly to aid immigrants in their problems, to aid them in making applications for passports and visas, and also to aid immigrants after they arrive here to become naturalized citizens. Mr. FELLOWs. Excuse me.

I want to put a letter from the Attorney General into the record. (The document referred to is as follows:)

Honorable EARL C. MICHENER,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for my views concerning a bill (H. R. 2286) to amend section 101 of the Nationality Act of 1940. Section 1 of the bill would amend section 504 of the Nationality Act of 1940 (8 U. S. C. 704) to provide that no person shall hereafter be naturalized who cannot speak and read the English language unless physically unable to do so. Existing law requires only the ability to speak English.

In view of the educational facilities which are available throughout the United States to aliens who are desirous of becoming citizens, the requirement that persons under a certain age be able to read as well as to speak the English language would not appear to be unreasonable. However, section 1 of the bill would apply to a person of any age, which would doubtless impose an unusual hardship upon those persons who are so far advanced in years that the acquisition of a reading knowledge of the English language may prove rather difficult from the standpoint of the ability to learn, defective vision, time, and other factors. It is suggested, therefore, that such a requirement should be applicable only to those who are under, say, 50 years of age.

Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the bill would amend sections 307 (a), 331 (13), 332 (17), 335 (a) (b), and 338, respectively, of the Nationality Act of 1940 (8 U. S. C. 707 (a), 721 (15), 732 (17), 735 (a) (b), 738) to require petitioners for naturalization, and persons hereafter naturalized, to indicate their willingness to bear arms in support and defense of the United States. In effect, these sections would enact into statutory law the rule which was enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Scwinner (279 U. S. 644 (1929)), with respect to the willingness of naturalization applicants to bear arms in defense of the Nation. and later repudiated by the Court in Girouard v. United States (328 U. S. 714 (1945)).

It is noted that sections 4, 5, and 6 contain the proviso "if required," relative to the bearing of arms, whereas sections 2 and 7 do not. It is believed that the five sections were intended to be in conformity with one another and it is suggested, therefore, that the proviso be appropriately inserted in sections 2 and 7. Whether these sections should be enacted, however, presents a question of legislative policy concerning which I have no suggestion to make.

Section 3 would amend section 310 (a) and repeal sections 310 (b) and 311 of the Nationality Act of 1940 (amend 5 U. S. C. 710 (a) and repeal 8 U. S. C. 710 (b), 711) so as to provide that any alien who, after September 21, 1922, has married or marries a citizen, or where spouse is naturalized during the existence of the marital relation may, if eligible to naturalization, and if such alien shall have resided in the United States in marital union with the citizen spouse for at least 1 year immediately preceding the filing of the position for naturalization, be naturalized upon compliance with all the requirements of the law except the filing of a declaration of intention. Existing law (8 U. S. C. 710 (a), (b), 711) requires varying lengths of residence, from 1 to 3 years depending on the date of the marriage, with respect to the naturalization of alien spouses of citizens. The length of residence in the United States which is required of naturalization applicants in general, without the benefit of special status such as marriage to a citizen or service in the armed forces, is five years, of which six months must have been in the state where the applicant resided at the time of filing his petition (8 U. S. C. 707).

The apparent effect of section 7 of the bill would be that 5 years' residence would be required of all naturalization applicants whose marriage to a citizen occurred subsequent to September 21, 1922. Thus, their only advantage over a naturalization applicant without such marital status would be the waiver of a declaration of intention. Whether this section should be enacted presents a question of legislative policy concerning which I have no suggestion to make.

In the event the bill receives favorable consideration, I desire to suggest the following technical changes.

On page 3, line 2, insert the phrase "since that date has been or" after the word "spouse".

On page 8, line 13, add the following sentence:

"Any petition for naturalization filed under such sections or under section 310 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940 (8 U. S. C. 710 (a)) prior to the effective date of this section shall be heard and determined in the same manner as if those sections had not been repealed or amended by this section."

On page 3, line 21, insert the letter "(a)" immediately following the figure "332". On page 4, line 14, change "who" to "whom".

On page 4, line 19, strike out the colon and insert a semicolon on lieu thereof. On page 4, line 24, strike out the semicolon and insert a period in lieu thereof. Strike out the language “and (5) if required, to bear arms in support and defense of the United States" which appears on line 24, page 4, and lines 1 and 2 of page 5, and insert it after the word "same" in line 18, page 4.

Substitute the word "revocation" for the word "termination" in line 1 of page 6. Add the phrase "and (b)" immediately following the letter "(a)" in line 4 of page 6.

Add the following sentence to subsection (h) on page 6:

"Revocation of citizenship authorized by this subsection shall be considered the result of actual fraud within the meaning of the proviso to subsection (d) of this section."

I have been advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

TOM C. CLARK,
Attorney General.

Mr. GOSSETT. You say the title of your association is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society?

Mr. ROCKMORE. That is right.

Mr. GOSSETT. And you have 50 offices?

Mr. ROCKMORE. We have 100 offices in 50 countries throughout the world. We have offices in New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, and throughout Europe, parts of Asia, Africa, and South America.

I have received in my mail this morning a letter from our New York office which calls my attention to this meeting of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, on H. R. 2286, and states simply that we are opposed to the provisions requiring a person, especially of advanced years, to read English as well as to speak it.

Then the letter goes on to say:

It is too bad that the notice for the hearing was set so unexpectedly. Otherwise, I am quite sure that many other agencies would have registered their protest. As it is, I believe that the National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship has sent something to the committee opposing the provisions having to do with the reading of English. It may be that others also will oppose this particular provision.

Then they ask me to appear here to express to this committee our opposition to that portion of the bill only, which adds the requirement that an applicant for naturalization shall read as well as speak the English language.

I may say that so far as the other provisions of the bill are concerned, I think they are excellent, and should be incorporated into the law, especially with reference to the provision which provides that an applicant for citizenship should be willing to bear arms in support and defense of the United States.

During World War II, I was appointed a Government appeal agent in our draft board at that time in Brooklyn, and served for 2 years, and my experience there leads me to believe that this is a wise provision in the proposed statute.

Mr. FELLOWS. Then your only objection would be that question of requiring eligible people to read?

Mr. ROCKMORE. That is right. To read, especially. It, in my opinion, imposes an almost insuperable difficulty to require a person of 50 years or over to learn a new language.

Mr. FELLOWS. Let me ask you this. Of course, they want to be naturalized so they can vote.

Mr. ROCKMORE. Yes.

Mr. FELLOWS. And in many of the States it is required that they be able to read. It is in my State.

Before they can register as a voter, they must be required to read. I wonder what you have to say on that.

Mr. ROCKMORE. My experience in politics in New York has also touched on that proposition, and we have had instances where I, as a member of the county committee, would have to instruct some ignorant person, or illiterate citizen, who wanted to vote, and I have to tell him, "You vote for every candidate under the star", or, following a more liberal mood, I say, "You vote for Numbers 1, 5, and 10." It is not, of course, the most desirable situation. But I take into account the type of people with whom we have been largely dealing.

64309-47- -3

I know many cases of men and women of 60, otherwise very intelligent, capable of expressing opinions on every subject, including the conduct of Congress and the bills that they pass, or refuse to pass, but they cannot read the English newspaper. They can probably read the headlines, "President Vetoes Labor Bill," or something like that; but they cannot read the fine print in the newspaper. They are too old to learn. They have children who are graduates of Cornell, Harvard, Columbia. It is too late for them, however, to learn.

Mr. FELLOWS. I know in some places in my State, they put the Constitution in front of a man who is registered as a voter and ask him to read a line or two.

Now, it would not be much use for him to study, as some young people do in getting ready for an examination, hoping that they are going to study just exactly what is going to be asked them, because this involves the whole Constitution, so if these people want to vote in some States, they would not be able to register, if they cannot read.

Mr. ROCKMORE. I realize the conflicts of the laws of the 48 States would have an effect on this.

Mr. FELLOWS. But that would not necessarily be pertinent. I might want to be a citizen whether I am going to vote or not, although it is too bad that the people do not take more interest in our Government-that is, to the extent of going to the trouble of qualifying for that.

Mr. ROCKMORE. If I may detain the committee for one more moment, I know of my own personal knowledge, several fine people who, as I say, speak English. They are able to go shopping and buy the provisions for the home. I am talking about women, now.

They vote once a year, probably as their husband or the member of the county committee instructs them-but they cannot read. Now, to require these people to go to school and learn to read before they vote would in effect disfranchise them.

Mr. FELLOWS. They do not have to worry, because you tell them how to vote.

Mr. ROCKMORE. Are there any questions, gentlemen?

Mr. FELLOWs. No.

Mr. GOSSETT. I believe not, thank you.

Mr. FELLOWS. Thank you, Mr. Rockmore.

Mr. ROCKMORE. Thank you.

Mr. FELLOWS. The Friends Committee on National Legislation, Mr. Julien Cornell.

STATEMENT OF JULIEN CORNELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, NEW YORK CITY, REPRESENTING THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION, THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION.

Mr. FELLOWS. Will you give your full name, please, for the record? Mr. CORNELL. Mr. Julien Cornell, attorney, New York City. Mr. FELLOWS. You are representing the Society of Friends? Mr. CORNELL. I represent the Society of Friends, and appear here at the request of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which has charge of such matters.

I should also like to enter an appearance for the American Civil Liberties Union, at the request of its director. I am counsel for the

committee of the union which deals with conscientious objectors, and have charge of its activities in connection with this particular matter. Mr. FELLOWS. Now, for my enlightment, would you be willing to take a moment to explain the Civil Liberties organization, and just what their designs are?

Mr. CORNELL. The American Civil Liberties Union is designed to uphold the Bill of Rights, and nothing else. It has no brief for Communists, Fascists, or people of any particular race, creed or origin, although it has been accused at times of unduly favoring a particular group.

It necessarily represents and protects the rights of minorities, because those are the people whose rights under the Constitution are imperiled and are oppressed occasionally.

Mr. FELLOWS. Sometimes I think the majority has to have somebody to represent them, too. We are dealing with minorities now to such an extent that I wonder what the majority is going to do.

Mr. CORNELL. The Civil Liberties Union often finds itself representing people in majority groups who by some quirk of the law get into trouble.

Mr. FELLOWS. I did not mean to interrupt you. your statement.

Proceed with

Mr. CORNELL. It represents conscientious objectors not because the Civil Liberties Union believes in pacifism, but because these people have had trouble in preserving their civil rights.

For the same reason, it represents immigrants, because these people also have difficulty and lack of adequate expression to preserve their civil rights under the Constitution.

I presume you may be generally familiar with the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers. There are approximately 114,000 people in the United States who are members of that organization.

The first thing I want to point out is the matter of the wording of the bill, so that we will know what we are talking about.

The words "if required," Mr. Shaughnessy said, would apply only to those cases where an alien was not successful in getting some exemption which might be accorded to the conscientious objectors under the statute. And I presume that if he succeeded in getting such exemption, he would not be subject to the denaturalization penalty imposed in the bill.

I think the bill might be made a little more clear in that respect, but that seems obviously to be the intention of the drafter of the bill. I want to point out this, that a man who has conscientious scruples against participating in killing or in military service will be unable to take this oath and will be unable to be naturalized. So the "if required" provision will altogether fail of its purpose. It will not let in those bona fide people having religious scruples. It will not let in Quakers.

It would not let in Mahatma Ghandi.

Mr. GOSSETT. Now, you speak of letting in.

This bill does not exclude from immigration those persons. It simply excludes them from naturalization.

Mr. CORNELL. It also excludes them from coming in under the quota, because under the provisions of the nationality code any person who applies for entrance to the United States under the quota while under a barrier which prevents him from becoming a citizen may be deported.