 Section 5 of Whom We Shall Welcome This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Phyllis Vincelli. Whom We Shall Welcome Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Section 5. National Defense Lack of Manpower Reserves Our potential needs for immigration should not be judged in terms of peacetime civilian requirements alone. We must also consider our human resources for our national defense and security. This consideration is quite aside from the significance of immigration in terms of the current ideological war between the forces of totalitarianism and the forces of democracy. The significance of immigration in the latter connection will be considered in Chapter 3. Our present manpower position in relation to potential enemies has drastically changed since World War II. And that war, we and our allies, had an impressive superiority in numbers over the smaller populations of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Today, the situation is reversed. It is our potential enemies that have a preponderance of manpower, and it is we that would have to husband our manpower resources in a general war. The United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics testified before the Commission that the facts of our population growth and structure, quote, emphasize the frequently reiterated statement that, in comparison with countries found within the Soviet orbit, our greatest relative shortage is in manpower resources. Our national self-interest requires that every consideration of our situation, including immigration policies, recognize this paramount fact, end quote. Expert testimony to the Commission revealed that the labor force of the Soviet Union, estimated to be some 108 million in 1951, very substantially exceeds ours, which is given by the Bureau of the Census as 66 million in 1951. In addition, the Soviet labor force will increase much more rapidly than ours, owing to the high birth rates in Russia before World War II. The strain of war on our manpower would be greater than during World War II, not only because of greater need, but also because the possibilities for rapid expansion of the labor force are much more limited than in 1941. For one thing, we are working longer hours. The average work week in manufacturing was 41.5 hours in October 1951, as compared with 39.4 hours in October 1940. At the outbreak of World War II, we had major reserves that are now either unavailable or available in much smaller quantities, a. the unemployed, b. women not now in the labor force, c. underemployment in agriculture, and d. young workers. Unemployment. In April 1940, at the time of the decennial census, there were 8,360,000 unemployed. By October 1941, some of this reserve had been absorbed in defense effort, but there remained 3,840,000 unemployed. Today the reserve is almost non-existent. The number of unemployed has sunk to 1,284,000, which is little more than that involved in the normal job turnover. Today we have almost full employment and no substantial reserve with which to meet a sudden crisis demanding both military and industrial manpower. Woman in the labor force. A substantial part of manpower needs in World War II were met by bringing some 5 million additional women into the labor force. In October 1952, there were 1.5 million more women in the labor force than at the peak of war employment in 1944. And the percentage of all women who held jobs was almost as high. In other words, we are now using the potential female labor force almost as fully as we did at the height of World War II. A fact all the more remarkable since the baby boom of the past few years has greatly increased the number of young mothers who must stay home to care for small children. The potential labor reserves among women not in the labor force are thus much smaller than in 1941. Underemployment in Agriculture A careful study on underemployment of rural families prepared for the Joint Committee on the Economic Report in the 82nd Congress arrived at the conclusion that there were 2 million underemployed farm operator families in 1945 located primarily on small unproductive farms in the southeastern states. Seven years ago, these families included a potential addition to the labor force equivalent to 2.5 million workers. As indicated, this underemployment in agriculture provided a partial substitute for immigration in meeting the war and postwar needs of industry. Due to mechanization and more efficient farming methods, additional farm workers are being freed in some areas for other employment. But experience shows that they do not become available to meet agricultural manpower shortages in other parts of the country. Potential further gains to the industrial labor force are becoming more limited, however, as the farm population declines and the reserves are progressively tapped by movement from the farms to the cities. It is a question how much further we could go in wartime without crippling essential agricultural production. Young Workers Young adults are the most flexible part of our labor force, whether in terms of geographical mobility or in terms of training for new jobs. This section of the labor force is of crucial importance from the standpoint of defense, whether it is employed in the armed forces or to provide a fluid labor force adaptable to rapidly changing needs. However, our supply of young people is smaller and shrinking, owing to the low birth rates of the depression years. The number of young people of the forthcoming military ages is declining in the United States. In the 10-year period between 1940 and 1950, there was a drop of 2 million people in the age group 10 to 19 years of age. This and other basic changes in our population structure are adversely affecting human resources at a time when security needs are increasing. Population structure Certain unfavorable trends in our population structure may adversely affect our national welfare and security. Growing older The American population is growing older. Since 1900, the median age has risen from 23 to over 30. Several factors have caused this aging of our people in the last 50 years. We live longer, we have fewer children, and our restrictive immigration policies have cut off a former plentiful source of young adults. Not only has the restriction of immigration reduced the number of immigrants, but in addition its preferences and categories favor older persons. Normal immigration is heavily concentrated in the young adult ages. Prior to immigration restrictions, over three-fourths of our immigrants were in the highly productive age group 16 to 44. And they were particularly concentrated in the age group 16 to 29. As a result, immigration brought us more producers than consumers and more workers than dependents. It brought us a ready-made labor force that cost us nothing in terms of rearing and education. Because of this concentration in the young adult ages, even a comparatively small increase in immigration could bring about an important increase in the young labor force. This fact is illustrated even by the recent Displaced Persons Program in which a special effort was made to move whole families. The roughly 400,000 persons admitted were a young and growing addition to our population. Over half, 51%, were in the prime working ages of 20 to 44, as compared with only 37% in the United States population as a whole. Less than a fifth, 19%, were over 45, as compared with 28% in the total United States population. An aging population means that we have more older people, retired persons and disabled, who must be supported by persons in the working ages. As the average age of a population goes up, the burden of old age dependency grows, and the tax is necessary to support the age increase. At the same time, the labor force is more and more made up of older workers who lack the adaptability required to meet many essential economic needs. Finally, the baby boom of the last few years has meant a great increase in child dependency at a time when our young labor force is shrinking, thus further increasing the burden on the people in the working ages. These developments would not be serious in a peacetime economy as productive as ours. The older worker and older citizen has much to contribute to the nation in stability, judgment and experience. But the effect of our present dearth of young adults is of serious consequences to our national defense and security. Changes in the age structure of the United States are shown in Figure 3. In the next few years, the United States will have a deficit of young men and women, chiefly as a result of the low birth rate in the depression decade of 1930 to 1940. Without more immigration, only 20% of the United States population in 1955 will be in the ages 15 to 29. Larger immigration would tend to fill this important gap in our population structure. In 1925 to 1929, the last period of normal immigration in the United States, 55% of the immigrants were in the ages 15 to 29. The crucial age group for military service, the people in the age bracket of 18 to 24, is declining and will be declining during the next few years. The number of men annually reaching the military age of 18 is now 200,000 less than in 1940. The number of men available for induction in military service under present laws will be comparatively low during most of the decade. If we will let it, immigration in the next few years could provide a valuable supplement to this shrinking manpower at the critical ages of prime military importance. More women than men. During our entire history, until 1944, the United States had more men than women. This is no longer true. In 1900 there were 105 men to every 100 women. By 1944 the balance had changed, and by 1950 there were only 98 men to every 100 women. By 1950 we had 1,030,000 more women than men. Much of this excess is in the normal marriageable ages of 20 to 44, where we have 900,000 more women than men. Restrictive immigration laws have played a major part in this fundamental change in our population. Since 1820, immigration has contributed a very high percentage of men to this country. In the period of free immigration, from 1820 to 1921, there were 150 men to 100 women among those admitted to the United States. This same pattern of more men than women prevailed among persons admitted under the Displaced Persons Program, even though there was a conscious and deliberate effort to move families as a whole. Under the Displaced Persons Act, over 119 men were admitted for each 100 women. The effect of restrictive immigration are evident in the following table, which shows the percentages of male and female immigrants in the five decades of this century. Table two, proportion of males and of females among immigrants 1901 to 1950. Years 1901 to 1910. Percent males 69.8%, females 30.2. Years 1911 to 1920. Percent males 63.5%, females 36.5. Years 1921 to 1930. Percent males 55.6%, females 44.4. Years 1931 to 1940. Percent males 43.4%, females 56.6. Years 1941 to 1950. Percent males 33.8%, females 66.2. End of table two. The effects of restrictions in the 1921 and 1924 quota acts were already observable in the 20s. When the restrictive national origins quota law took effect in 1929, the number of men entering the United States as immigrants dropped very considerably below the number of women. This was due to the fact that small quotas tend to be filled by wives and relatives of earlier immigrants who have quota preferences, as opposed to new male immigrants who predominate in normal overseas immigration. Whereas previously as much as two thirds of the immigrants were men, now as much as two thirds are women. Thus immigration played an important part prior to the restrictive act of 1924 which went into effect in 1929 in maintaining a numerical superiority of men over women in the United States. Since 1929 it has contributed to a changed pattern. The changing sex ratios in our population and the growing surplus of women can have serious repercussions. The effect upon our labor force, upon the number of wage earners supporting families, and upon our available military reserves is obvious. The social and moral effects of reduced marriage possibilities for American women can be of the greatest significance. A renewal of a more substantial volume of normal immigration would tend to redress this growing imbalance in the American population. Larger immigration would tend to fill gaps in our population structure. Absorptive Capacity The Commission does not believe that it is advisable to base our immigration policy wholly on the specific needs of the United States for more manpower. Other considerations are equally if not primarily compelling such as our humanitarian traditions, our foreign policy, our security needs. However our manpower needs do have important relevance to what American immigration policy ought to be. And the Commission's studies indicate that our present immigration policies are a serious barrier to the fulfillment of those needs. The restriction of immigration in the 1920s was due largely to a pessimistic view of America's future. The Commission's belief from the testimony at its hearings and from other information available to it is that the United States now has and will continue to have a dynamic expanding and flexible economy needing more people and will be fully capable of absorbing a reasonable increase in our present maximum immigration quota. In the past immigration gave us our most important resource, our people. There is every indication that we have not reached nor are we likely in the foreseeable future to reach the point at which new immigration will no longer contribute to our further growth, strength and prosperity. The United States is not overpopulated. We are now a nation of 157 million people. The productive capacity of our country is rising rapidly today, perhaps as rapidly as at any time in our history. Our average level of living is the highest in the world, higher than it has ever been before and it is moving forward despite the effects of war, of a massive defense effort and of our continued population growth. This is not a picture of overpopulation. A report of the immigration section of the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco stated as follows, During the past six decades, production has increased by nearly eight times. We nearly doubled our annual production every two decades. In other words, our production has risen nearly 100% in 20 years whereas our population has risen only about 20%. Our production growth has always exceeded our population growth. And the future looks bright. Our resources and our food production are adequate to meet any reasonable increase in population. All indications are that our material standards will continue to rise. The President's Materials Policy Commission reached its conclusion as to the adequacy of our national resources in the light of an anticipated population increase of 27% from 1950 to 1975, a doubling of the gross national product in that 25-year period, a decrease of 15% in hours worked, and an increase in the material standard of life. These assumptions would mean, for example, a 62.5% rise in the number of passenger cars in use, an increase of from 62.5% to 87.5% in the number of telephones in use, and other increases in like measure. As for the nation's ability to feed its population, there is no reasonable doubt that in the foreseeable future we can have food for all our people. The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, testifying before the Commission said, quote, I have no fear that the American population will run short of food, end quote. Separate studies by the Department of Agriculture, the Land Grant Colleges, and the President's Materials Policy Commission all indicate that with the full use of the best known and already proven farm practices, farm production can be raised sufficiently to meet all demands likely to be made by the American population of 1975. Therefore, on the basis of reliable evidence, the Commission has no misgivings of the ability of the American farmer to provide in the foreseeable future an adequate food supply for a well-fed nation. The United States can absorb more than the present maximum quota. Ours is a healthy, and at present, a rapidly growing population. Since the war's end in 1945, we have already added 17 million people, nine-tenths as a result of the excess of births over deaths, only one-tenth from immigration. Estimates of future population by the United States Bureau of the Census suggest continued growth, although not necessarily at the present rates. The medium estimate indicates a United States population of 171 million in 1960 and 190 million in 1975, assuming immigration at the present levels and a considerable drop-off from the present baby boom. Of the 14 million prospective growth between 1952 and 1960, less than one-eighth would be due to foreign immigration in its present volume. The population is growing at a rate of over two-and-a-half million per year. Obviously, in this circumstance the effect of immigration under a quota ceiling of either 154,000 or 250,000 will be a minor factor in the general population growth. Other countries have shown that a far higher proportion of immigrants can be absorbed. Australia, whose total population is about that of New York City, has been absorbing immigration at an average of 134,000 per year. This is a rate of immigration in relation to population twenty times that provided by our present quota ceilings. In Chapter 4, the Commission recommends a maximum ceiling of some 250,000 quota immigrants each year based upon one-sixth of one percent of the 1950 population of the United States. The evidence before the Commission indicates that such figure is well within the present safe limits of absorption into the American economy for the foreseeable future. The attitude of organized labor is significant in this regard. In testimony before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1946, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, CIO, stated, quote, Naturally, a labor organization representing 6 million American workers would not be inclined to support measures which would threaten the job security of its own members. However, the CIO realizes from past experience that immigration is automatically checked in periods of unemployment while it rises in periods of prosperity. That in the past, immigrants have contributed in innumerable ways to the wealth and well-being of this country. That a large proportion of immigrants are not potential job seekers, but women and children. That new blood in industry, agriculture, business, and the professions enriches our national life. And that the best and most enlightened thought on this subject opposes arbitrary, prejudiced, and superficial legislation to curtail immigration into the United States. End quote. During legislative discussions on the Displaced Persons Act, labor leaders indicated that an annual immigration of 250,000 could have no adverse effect on our economy. The late William Green, then President of the American Federation of Labor, AFL testified, quote, We do not believe that the admission of as small a number as 400,000 over a period of four years, in addition to the quotas 154,000 annually, will seriously affect our employment or unemployment problem. End quote. The late Philip Murray, then President of the CIO, presented a statement which said in part, quote, Let me say for the record that we in the CIO can find absolutely no basis in fact or reason for the fear that admitting 100,000 immigrants a year for four years, in addition to the quotas 154,000, would jeopardize the jobs of American citizens. I do not think it is the true friends of labor who will argue that our economy cannot stand the addition of less than one tenth of one percent of the number of our population annually for four years without creating unemployment, end quote. A factor that must be borne in mind is that our immigration laws have a built in break, so to speak, which can protect the United States against such difficulties. The provision which authorizes the denial of a visa to a person likely to become a public charge has in past experience, particularly in the depression of the 1930s, proved to be an effective protective device in this regard. Furthermore, the experience of the Displaced Persons Commission indicates that a sensitive resettlement program could bring 400,000 people into the United States, keep them out of areas of labor surplus, and direct or route them to areas of labor shortages. In February 1950, that commission reported as follows, quote, the impact of Displaced Persons on aggregate unemployment in this country has been insignificant. Even in critical unemployment areas, Displaced Persons have been a negligible factor in the degree of unemployment, end quote. Normal experience has shown that only about half of the immigrants coming to the United States go into the labor force. Since the total population grew to thirds between 1920 and 1950, an increase of immigration from 154,000 to 250,000 per year could scarcely present serious problems of absorption. On the other hand, it could, one, provide by 1960 an addition of 500,000 to one million an hour manpower of military age, two, relieve special manpower shortages of importance both for the needs of defense and of an expanding peacetime economy, and three, continue to supply us with the talents and skills from abroad that have so strengthened and enriched our civilization. End of Section 5. Section 6 of Whom We Shall Welcome. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Phyllis Vincelli. Whom We Shall Welcome. Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Section 6. Part 2, Chapter 3A, Immigration and Our Foreign Policy. In the executive order which established it, the commission was given the task of considering, quote, the effect of our immigration laws and their administration, including the national origin quota system, on the conduct of the foreign policies of the United States, and the need for authority to meet emergency conditions such as the present overpopulation of parts of Western Europe and the serious refugee and escapee problems in such areas. Lessons of History. None can truthfully say that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct result of the Immigration Act of 1924. However, responsible experts have assured the commission that the Japanese Exclusion Clause of the 1924 Immigration Act contributed to the growth of the Nationalistic Militaristic and Anti-American Movement in Japan which culminated in war against the United States. While the 1924 bill was under consideration, the Japanese ambassador pointed out that the Exclusion Clause would be a serious blow to Japanese self-esteem. His counselor of embassy warned that it would undercut the pro-democratic forces in Japan and strengthen the militarists. Secretary of State Hughes urged Congress not to, quote, affront a friendly nation, end quote, by placing a legislative stigma upon its people. But the bill became law, and the consequences predicted for it came to pass. Ultra-nationalist and militarist elements in Japan gained strength and fervor in their efforts to whip up hatred of America and to spread the doctrine of, quote, Asia for the Asiatics, end quote. One of Hitler's excuses for taking Czechoslovakia and attacking Poland was the need for, quote, living space, end quote, for Germany's growing population. Mussolini used Italy's overpopulation to excuse his attack on Ethiopia. The Japanese government attempted to justify its invasion of Manchuria on similar grounds. Without in any way justifying the wrong done, the Commission believes these examples demonstrate the vital role that migration or lack of migration plays in world affairs. American immigration law, unfortunately, has not always been formulated with an eye to its effects on our international relationships. But there have been instances of recognition, particularly in recent years. The repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943 and the repeal in 1946 of exclusion directed against India in favor of quotas for both countries were themselves implementations of foreign policy. The repeal of Japanese exclusion in 1952 further demonstrated a growing American realization that immigration policy can be a positive as well as a negative factor in foreign policy. The present non-quota status of immigrants from the Western Hemisphere is another recognition of the foreign policy aspects of immigration law. Theoretically and practically the national origins formula could have been applied to these nations too. But here our quote good neighbor and quote policy and considerations of hemispheric foreign relations seems to have prevailed. The Displaced Persons Act is another recent recognition of the relationship between immigration and international stability. Our whole national history illustrates a point which has only recently come to be recognized in its own light. American immigration policy and law must be formulated in awareness of their international impact and must be designed to advance our foreign policy. Responsibilities of leadership. Our present immigration policy dates from the period following the First World War. That was only some 30 years ago, but it was a different era of world and of American history. Then the United States was seeking to avoid the international responsibilities which its power and stature placed upon it. Our present immigration laws are rooted in the period of America's blindest isolationism. Today the United States is in a different position. For good or ill this country now occupies a position of leadership among the nations of the free world. We cannot avoid the responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of a leader. The United States can never again turn its back on the facts of international relations. Although the United States is a world leader its leadership is effective in only part of the world. This means, among other things, that our responsibilities toward those peoples who share our outlook are sharper and clearer. In the struggle against communist totalitarianism today as against other totalitarianisms yesterday it is obvious that for our own well-being we must have genuine friends and firm partners. In this situation any action the United States takes or fails to take inevitably affects the partnership we speak of as the community of free nations. And because it affects the partnership it also reacts upon our own position of leadership. This is especially true in connection with actions which relate directly to the nationals of other countries. This is not to say that our immigration laws should be determined by what other countries or people want. But it is to say that what the United States itself should want and its immigration laws should be tremendously affected in our own welfare and security by the effect such laws have on foreign countries and people. The responsibilities of leadership include and require a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. Immigration is part of foreign policy. If any view presented to the commission can be said to be substantially unanimous it is that our immigration law is part of our foreign policy. It came to the commission from diplomats, businessmen, scholars, clergymen, labor and farm leaders, civic leaders, club women in fact from almost every walk of life. Officials dealing with American foreign policy feel this very strongly as is shown in their testimony before the commission. The Secretary of State of the United States, Dean Atchison advised, quote, immigration like most important facets of our national life in these times is closely linked with our foreign policy and objectives. Our immigration policy with respect to particular national or racial groups will inevitably be taken as an indication of our general attitude toward them especially as an indication of our appraisal of their standing in the world. It will therefore shape their attitude toward us and toward many of our other policies, end quote. The Director of Mutual Security, W. Averell-Haremann stated, quote, the kind of immigration policy we adopt is a factor in the world struggle between democracy and totalitarianism, end quote. William H. Draper, United States Special Representative in Europe and formerly Under Secretary of the Army stated to the commission, quote, whether we like it or not, we are part of the world and we can no longer disassociate ourselves from what happens elsewhere. In endeavoring to strengthen the economic and military defense of the free world and particularly of the North Atlantic community, we should recognize immigration policy as one of the elements in achieving economic and political stability as well as social equilibrium, end quote. The Psychological Strategy Board's consultant, Edward M. O'Connor, told the commission of his conviction that, quote, our immigration law, together with its enlightened administration, is a fundamental instrument in the conduct of our relations with other nations and must at all times and particularly in times of international crisis be geared to a dynamic, purposeful, and farsighted policy of world leadership, end quote. Similar concern for the relationship between immigration and foreign affairs was expressed by outstanding private citizens. Russell W. Davenport, former editor of the magazine Fortune, testified, quote, nothing perhaps has affected the world standing of the United States so deeply in so many ways over so long a period as its immigration policy. The United States has always stood forth before the nations as a haven of refuge from tyranny and disorder, and this fact has profoundly affected the traditions of our country and of our free way of life. Moreover, as we look toward the future, our immigration policy appears to become more important rather than less. We are a symbol of freedom and the world looks to us to define in concrete ways how freedom can be achieved. Our immigration policy is vital to that definition, end quote. Miss Anna Lord Strauss, past president of the League of Women Voters and former member of the American delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, stated to the commission, quote, I had the opportunity to learn something of that when I was over in Paris at the General Assembly at meetings with representatives formerly from countries that are behind the Iron Curtain who were living in Paris. We had discussions at that time as to what the United States might do to be more helpful. In these discussions, which were very frequent, very frank and quite unfavorable as to some of the actions of the United States, there was an underlying friendliness to us but a difficulty in being able to interpret to their people our country. And, time and time again, it was an immigration problem that was at the root of it because as they kept saying, no matter what you say, if you don't act according to your professions of faith and your statements, they will discount entirely what you say. And the immigration question came up very frequently in quite a variety of discussions that I had with those people, end quote. Mrs. Z. W. Schroeder of the General Federation of Women's Clubs declared, quote, I would like to particularly add emphasis as to the question of the co-relationship between immigration laws and restrictions in our entire foreign policy. So my plea is this, your immigration laws in this country, our immigration laws should be a flexible instrument of our foreign policy, end quote. J. D. Zellerbach, San Francisco industrialist, wrote the commission, quote, my strong conviction is that the present immigration laws are in direct conflict with United States philosophy and policy on foreign affairs and are unrealistic in facing up to world conditions, end quote. The President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, A. B. Klein, wrote to the commission, quote, United States immigration policy should be made to serve and support the overall national policy on international relations, end quote. The late Philip Murray, President of the CIO, stated to the commission through Alan Haywood, Executive Vice President, quote, our immigration policy is a part of our overall national policy. For us, at the very time when we are striving to build a mutual security system in cooperation with our allies abroad to make our immigration and naturalization laws ever more virulently isolationist and anti-foreign, not only makes very little sense, it embarrasses us in the pursuit of the wider objectives of our foreign policy. Both our national interest and the deep humanitarianism which has always characterized Americans as a nation require that we reverse this trend of the last two years and establish a new policy on immigration and naturalization consistent with 20th-century conditions and ideals, end quote. Many of the country's religious leaders expressed the same view that American immigration law is as much a part of our foreign policy as a foreign treaty. The National Council of Churches of Christ in a resolution of March 1952 presented to the commission stated, quote, We believe it is of the utmost importance that legislation be enacted that will conform with our democratic tradition and with our heritage as a defender of human rights. The adoption by Congress of enlightened immigration and naturalization laws would add immeasurably to the moral stature of the United States and would hearten those nations with which we are associated in a common effort to establish the conditions of a just and durable peace, end quote. In discussing this resolution Mrs. Mildred McAfee Horton officer of the National Council of Churches of Christ and formerly president of Wellesley College and director of the Waves stated, quote, Immigration policies or their administration have alienated us from parts of the world whose goodwill is important. I want the commission to know that there are people and many of them who are more afraid of losing the friendship of our friends and potential friends than we are of the threats of our enemies. There are people on the list when she generalizes the principles she accepts for herself and takes seriously the idea that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Immigration and naturalization policies which thwart those rights the United States of America." Dr. Paul C. M.P., Executive Director of the National Lutheran Council, called the Commission's attention to the fact that, quote, the new immigration law is not geared to current world needs, but rather is related to historical circumstances of many decades past. The refusal to open our doors to refugees would be a staggering blow to the strength of our moral leadership in the current ideological world struggle, end quote. The Missouri Sinod Lutheran Church was represented at one of the Commission's hearings by Reverend Werner Kunz, who said, quote, Some of the things which I read in public Law 414 seem more akin to the superiority complex that was spawned out of the foulness of Nazism than to the humanitarian attitude which our fathers taught us. It is not the kind of thinking that one should expect of a nation that has been thrust into a position of world leadership and whose example can shape a better destiny for a disordered world, end quote. The Archbishop of Boston, the most reverend Richard J. Cushing, submitted a statement to the Commission which included the following observations, quote, The above indicated discriminatory and undemocratic features of the McCarran-Walter Law are to my mind a grave potential threat to our domestic development and our international leadership, end quote. Monsignor Edward E. Swanstrom, Executive Director of War Relief Services, National Catholic Welfare Conference, testified as follows, quote, We need an immigration program that is sufficiently elastic to enable whatever administration may be in office to face up squarely to a domestic and foreign policy which is in keeping with a position of world leadership which the United States enjoys today. It is foolhardy to lose sight of the fact that our immigration policy has a foreign as well as domestic impact. Our immigration policy has as great an effect on our neighbors as the technical and economic assistance we are extending abroad. Our immigration policy has an economic, psychological and political character of an extent that would be difficult to measure. In light of these considerations, I think it is most fortunate that the creation of your commission has given us an opportunity to reassess our entire immigration and naturalization structure and policy. We have today an American policy on immigration which is completely outmoded, out of harmony with our ideas and actions, and completely at variance with the foreign policy which we are pursuing in accordance with such ideals, end quote. Bruce M. Moeller, director of the Bureau of Immigration of the National Catholic Welfare Conference urged that, quote, the immigration and nationality law of the United States should reflect or at least be adaptable to the foreign policy of the country, end quote. Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, Ohio stated before the commission, quote, racial discrimination creates disunity at home and resentment abroad. It interferes with our foreign relations and the role of international leadership which destiny has thrust upon us in recent years. It is one of the fundamentals of our political philosophy and an essential part of our foreign policy to treat all peoples alike regardless of race or origin. We stand committed to the principle of fundamental human rights for all men alike. We cannot press for international acceptance of these principles and at the same time offend nations and races by discriminating against them in our own immigration laws, end quote. Lester Gutterman, speaking for the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of Benai Bereth, declared that, quote, your immigration policies and practices are of vital importance in preserving the health of our democratic American society and play a major role in our country's leadership in the maintenance of a stable world order, end quote. It is significant that during 1952 the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Philippine Republic have, through diplomatic channels, called attention to certain irritating inequities and administrative complexities of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Programs of Action. Testimony before the Commission that America's immigration policy is inextricably bound up and our foreign relations is fully corroborated by the actions of our government. Through the United Nations, through other international organs, and through programs of its own, the United States has participated, often as a leader, in every important postwar attack upon the problems of international population pressure, migration and resettlement. Almost every part of the United Nations organization comes into contact in one way or another with some aspect of the problem of people moving across borders. In most instances, that contact is limited or incidental. In quite a number, however, it is direct and even exclusive. UNRRA, from 1944 to mid-1947, had a displaced persons program to which the United States contributed some $58 million, not counting the supplies and transportation granted by the Army. From 1947 to January 1952, the International Refugee Organization, IRO, which was solely concerned with refugees, received $237 million, nearly 60% of its budget from the United States. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is getting about $250,000 from the United States in 1952 to 1953, and is seeking to raise more funds. Congress has authorized, in the Mutual Security Act of 1952, up to $50 million for Arab refugees in the Near East and up to $45 million for Korean relief, both to be administered by UN organizations. The Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, formerly the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe, formed in 1951 by 15 governments at the instance of the United States, and now comprising 20 countries, has received nearly $20 million in the last two years from this country. The Organization for European Economic Cooperation, the European Coordinating Agency for the Marshall Plan, and later for the Mutual Security Agency, is concerned with migration as a method of balancing manpower needs for higher production. So also is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, whose concern with manpower is more pressing as an aspect of Western defense. Independently, the United States operated a four-year program that brought nearly 400,000 displaced persons to this country. A total of about $19 million of United States appropriated funds went into this program, for the President's Escapee Program to assist Iron Curtain refugees, $4.3 million in appropriations, and $1.9 million in counterpart funds have been made available. The leading role the United States has played in most of these activities and our financial support give conclusive proof that this country recognizes the importance of relieving population and refugee pressures, and of facilitating the movement of persons. In practice, however, we are faced with the fact that our immigration laws are discriminatory, obsolete, and fail to measure up to the needs of our foreign policy. Section 7 of Whom We Shall Welcome This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Phyllis Vincelli. Whom We Shall Welcome Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization American immigration policies have frustrated and handicapped the aims and programs of American foreign policy throughout the period since 1924. The interference is acute today. The contradictions are sharper now, in part because the 1952 law is more restrictive than before. The major factor, however, is the new circumstance of American leadership in the world rivalry between democratic freedom and communist tyranny. The major disruptive influence in our immigration law is the racial and national discrimination caused by the National Origins System. Reference has been made to Japan's reaction to the Exclusion Act of 1924 and the generally held view among informed people that our discriminatory immigration law was a contributory factor to Japan's attack upon the United States in World War 2. However, even now, with the removal of all outright oriental exclusions, the evil seeds of our former policy remain. It seems quite likely that current Chinese attitudes reflect to some extent the damage done earlier. Certainly Japanese propaganda during the war, both in China and in the rest of Southeast Asia, was effective, particularly among intellectuals who were sensitive to the immigration law's implication of racial inferiority. There is every reason to expect that the Chinese communists will continue to exploit the anti-foreignism latent in most of Southeast Asia for decades, implanted there in some part by the oriental exclusion features of past American immigration law. An example of communist efforts to use our immigration laws to encourage this anti-Americanism is Radio Moscow programs beamed to South and East Asia in which the communists have called attention to the color line drawn in United States immigration law. Such a program on July 5, 1952 in Korean contained the following paragraphs. The United States Congress on June 27 passed the McCarran-Walter bill, which calls for drastic discrimination and restrictions against the nations of China, India, Southeast Asia, and other Asiatic countries who enter or reside in the United States. The nature of the new law was thoroughly unmasked by the congressmen in their debates on the bill. They stressed that the new immigration restriction bill is very similar to the Nazi theory of racial superiority. The McCarran-Walter law places those nationals of Asian countries who enter or immigrate into the United States in a far more inferior category. It is too well known how the American government authorities have treated Chinese, Korean, or Indian nations. The McCarran-Walter law, which has been adopted by the United States Congress provides further discrimination and restrictions on foreign nationals who enter the United States. However, the law is only one of many things which show the contempt of the American ruling circles, and which spread racial prejudice among the people of the United States against the Asian people. A large number of witnesses in the commission's hearings stressed the continuing harm to our foreign relations caused by the discriminations of the national origin's law against the non-white people of the world who constitute between two-thirds and three-fourths of the world's population. Asia. The Secretary of State advised the commission that, quote, the lifting of the bar of exclusion caused deep gratification in Asia when the 1952 Act was passed. But the racial discrimination apparent in the triangle provision can be expected to keep alive some feelings of resentment. The combination of very small quotas for Asia and the Asia-Pacific triangle provisions still furnish ground for Asian suspicion of United States motives, end quote. This testimony was corroborated by that of a recent eye witness. Philip M. Hauser, Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago and former Acting Director of the United States Bureau of the Census, made the following observations to the commission, quote. The existence of such legislation as the present quota system in the statute books of the United States is to be particularly deplored in view of the position of world leadership which the United States has assumed in the almost three decades which have elapsed since the passing of the Immigration Act of 1924. It embodies a vicious and self-incriminating doctrine inconsistent with our position as a leader in the cause of world freedom and democracy. It is among the greatest barriers to our gaining the confidence and trust of many of the peoples of the world. I can document this assertion with what I have seen and heard in my own experience in many parts of the world. Less than three weeks ago I returned from my fourth trip abroad. It was an extended trip of over fourteen months, most of which I spent in the Orient, and during which I completely circumnavigated the globe. I can assure this commission that public law 414 is well known to the peoples of the world and that it is not favorably known. It does untold damage to the United States in creating attitudes of distrust and hostility. For example, I have on a number of occasions been embarrassed by Asiatic people who have questioned me about the quota system as one aspect of what they regard as our racial and ethnic prejudices. Few discussions of world or United States problems failed to elicit some question about United States racial prejudices in policy or deed and some manifestation of puzzlement about or hostility to it. It is absurd to think that we can retain our position as the world leader in the fight for freedom and democracy with the peoples whom we explicitly and openly brand in our legislation as undesirable and inferior. Furthermore, in reenacting the quota system of 1924 into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 we have unwittingly placed into the hands of the ruthless, adroit, and unscrupulous propagandists of the USSR, a major weapon with which to attack us. As a resident of southeastern Asia for about a year I had occasion to listen to Radio Moscow and to read the local news reports of the activities of Russian agents and propagandists. In this critical area, the fate of which may well determine the fate of the world, the USSR is skillfully and continuously making the most of our ethnic and racist doctrines as promulgated in public law 414. I have heard on numerous occasions the propaganda blasts of Radio Moscow. Much of its content was so distorted, fabricated, and patently absurd that I am sure it fooled nobody, except possibly its perpetrators. Some of it, however, met high standards of effective propaganda technique, particularly that which in even small part could be documented as in the case of their on the whole wild and exaggerated depictions of our racial and ethnic prejudices and animosities. I am sure it was not the intention of the drafters of public law 414 or of the Congress to place a powerful weapon into the hands of the USSR in their propaganda war against the United States, but I can assure the members of this commission that its enactment has had just such an effect. Caribbean Area As a result of the 1952 Act, we have suffered a serious deterioration of our foreign relations in the Caribbean, an area close to America, close to the Panama Canal, and the site of important wartime bases. The provision, which gives each colonial area of the West Indies a limited quota within the Motherland's quota, a new device to limit such immigration to one hundred a colony, has been keenly felt in those colonies as a racial discrimination since the population of all of them is predominantly negro. This situation is serious enough to have led the Secretary of State to discuss it at some length in his statement to the commission, quote. In the colonial and other dependent areas, an even less satisfactory situation has come into being. The new act provides that colonies shall have quotas of one hundred each instead of unlimited use of the quota of the governing country. The difficulties are most clearly evident in the important strategic area of the Caribbean. The fact that this area has been the only part of the Western Hemisphere subject to quotas has always been an unpleasant irritant to these colonial peoples. In the case of the British West Indies, the large and always under-subscribed British quota was open to them. They have not, therefore, felt the practical effects of the discrimination implicit in their unique status in the hemisphere. No more than two thousand five hundred immigrants have entered the United States from the British West Indies in any one year. Henceforth, however, no more than eight hundred, one hundred for each of the eight British territories may enter each year. Already, months before the effective date of the act, various British West Indian legislatures have passed resolutions denouncing these provisions. This is even less to be wondered at when it is remembered that Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, all near-neighbours of the British territories and equally parts of the Caribbean area, have non-quota status like the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Prominent West Indian leaders and newspapers have protested the obvious discrimination, and both West Indian and British government officials have informally brought the seriousness of the matter to the department's attention. Further, the United States members of the Caribbean Commission, a body formed by executive agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands to plan for the economic and social development of the Caribbean area, have formally protested to the department against the colonial quota provisions as being a threat to the work of the commission itself, as well as to the work of the department in its relations to the commission. This view was substantiated by the testimony from another eye-witness, Walter White, Secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who declared, quote, I encountered in the West Indies this summer many examples of anger mixed with shock at both the sharp reduction of immigration from certain West Indian islands and the racial implications of that action. I submit that the McCarran-Walter Act, because of its racial implications against colored peoples from Asia, the Caribbean, and other areas, may well prove equally harmful to the United States, not only in Asia, but in Latin America, end quote. The Secretary of State summed it up thus, quote. In view of all this, it is clear that United States immigration policy not only causes resentment weakening the friendship of some of our neighbors, but also causes or emphasizes economic dislocations that weaken those neighbors whom we need as strong partners and who can furnish us with sites for military bases and strategic raw materials, end quote. Africa. Another problem may be in Africa. The Secretary of State raised this issue in his statement, quote. Other colonial areas that will be of increasing importance to the West are those in Africa. Although there has as yet been no problem there, it should not be assumed that there never will be. Nationalism is growing rapidly in Africa, and Africans are, of course, extremely sensitive to racial discrimination. Again, one of the chief problems now facing the United States information offices in Africa is how to combat the anti-American racial propaganda published in local nationalist papers. While with one hand we spend time and money to fight that propaganda, with the other hand we feed the propaganda mill with our discriminatory policies, end quote. Europe. The Secretary of State sees the same situation in Europe, quote. In Europe the difficulties facing us result in part from the National Origins quota system which is based squarely on the theory that the best Americans are those of particular national or racial origins. This theory, always derogatory to our friends, is increasingly at variance with our protestations of equality and with our efforts to work fruitfully with all peoples. Especially where it strikes countries like Italy and Greece, which are much concerned with emigration as a solution to their population growth. As a solution to their population problems it has engendered soreness and doubt that inhibit progress toward mutual trust, end quote. Similar statements have been made to the Commission over and over again by informed and observant witnesses. The facts available to the Commission bear out the general conclusion that the United States incurs resentment abroad because of the nationality and race discriminations of our immigration law. The most obvious indications of this general resentment can be seen in the country's hit hardest, such as Italy and Greece. The National Origins system has been a constant source of irritation in these and other countries and a smoldering cause of official and unofficial disaffection toward the United States. Resentment has been growing more bitter in recent years, although the United States talks much in Europe about unification and the lowering of barriers about equality and the mutual interest of the United States and Western Europe, at the same time it continues and further restricts its own immigration laws. The Commission does not wish to leave the impression that failure to remove discrimination from our immigration laws will necessarily hamper the conduct of affairs at the diplomatic level. There is no evidence that it has done so in the past. However, the weight of evidence is that fundamental relations between the United States and certain other countries are definitely impaired by our present immigration laws. National Origins Law thwarts refugee and escapee programs. Among the great humanitarian problems facing the world today are the care and future of the refugees, expellease, escapeease, and remaining displaced persons who constitute quote, unfinished business, end quote, in the aftermath of World War II. Refugees, expellease, displaced persons. There are today some 10 million refugees and expellease of German ethnic origin in West Germany. Over 600,000 persons of Italian ethnic origin are in Italy and Trieste, refugees from Italy's former territories or other areas lost as a result of the war. Greece has some 40,000 to 45,000 refugees of Greek and foreign nationality from the countries of Southeast Europe. The number of refugees in West Germany is increasing by some 15,000 arrivals monthly from East Germany, exclusive of the escapees of other than German ethnic background. This situation is especially critical in West Berlin. The flow of refugees also still continues into Trieste, mostly from Yugoslavia. After the conclusion of operations under the Displaced Persons Act, some 7,500 displaced persons still remained as likely eligible for a visa when all visas were exhausted on December 31, 1951. In the Far East, the situation of 15,000 Chinese intellectuals in Hong Kong and of 7,500 European refugees in communist China is particularly desperate. The refugee situation is potentially explosive. Western Germany is an example of this situation. The refugees constitute 20% of its population. One third of the total unemployed in Germany in the spring of 1952 were refugees. Over 340,000 expellees still lived in mass camps. Only 30% of the expellees then had permanent employment. Over a year ago, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated, The refugee population in Germany shows increasing inclination towards political adventure. The younger generation of the refugee populations faces the future with little confidence in the effectiveness of democracy and its capacity to solve their problems. Discussing the work of the International Refugee Organization, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in 1949 reported, Because of economic unrest and instability throughout Europe and Asia, the presence of refugees is generally a disturbing factor, both economically and politically. Accordingly, the problem is clearly one of international concern. A great deal of international effort has gone into various attempts to solve the refugee problem. The United States, as we have seen, has participated actively in most of them and has contributed a substantial part of the funds for all of them. With such conclusive evidence at hand, it seems superfluous here to labor the proposition that solution of the refugee question has been and continues to be of the greatest importance to this country. Attention can be more usefully directed to the question of whether the United States has done enough in accepting refugees as well as in planning, administering and paying for the programs. The same Senate Committee report quoted above contains this significant conclusion. The accomplishment of ITS, the International Refugee Organization's mission, has been substantially hampered by the failure of the nations of the world to assume their full responsibility for the solution of the displaced persons and refugee problems created by World War II. With respect to the United States, the problem is particularly acute. If our government is to maintain leadership in this vital matter, it must carry out its declared policy by effective measures aimed at liberalizing the admission of displaced persons. Until the nations of the world, including the United States, are ready and willing to meet these problems in the only manner in which they can be met, by eliminating certain restrictions with respect to immigration, this problem will never be solved. This conclusion is as true today as when first announced by the Senate Committee in 1949. The basic need for the refugee, expelli, escapee, displaced person problem is opportunity to migrate to another country. This does not mean that all of the 10 million German refugees want or need to emigrate. Most of them are finding homes in Germany. However, the chance to emigrate is vitally necessary for some of these and other refugees, both as a real and as a psychological safety valve in a situation of tension and frustration. Needless to say, this is not a problem for the United States alone, but for all the nations of the free world together. The International Refugee Organization resettled 1,038,750 refugees in four and a half years in 48 countries and an equal number of other areas. Of this total number, the United States took less than one-third through the Displaced Persons Commission. The Displaced Persons Act, as amended, also brought to the United States some 55,000 German expellees and 2,000 Italian refugees. When the Displaced Persons Commission's work ended in the summer of 1952, all visas authorized under the Displaced Persons Act had been issued to Displaced Persons, German expellees and Italian refugees and some 400,000 people had entered the United States under the Act. Yet the Displaced Persons Commission reported that there were still under consideration likely to receive visas, if more were available, 32,000 German expellees, 1,500 Italian refugees and 7,500 Displaced Persons. These are the so-called, quote, pipeline cases, end quote. This is clearly, quote, unfinished business, end quote. The refugee problem is much smaller now. It has bounds. It can be solved within a fairly short space of time. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, formerly PICMME, are handling it as best they can. The Commission is convinced that these international agencies should be given the strongest support by the United States and the rest of the free world. But the obstacle that faces them is the closing of doors to immigrants in the United States, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. The refugee problem cannot be solved by closed doors. And as long as the problem continues, the United States will have to continue helping, in one way or another, to support the refugees. The United States will continue to spend more money and effort to bolster the Western European economies. Yet it will continue losing goodwill because of its restrictive immigration policy. And most important of all, the United States will continue to pay the much larger price that results from the progress that communism and neo-nazism and neo-fascism make when frustration overtakes the people and countries whose refugee and expel-e problems remain unsolved. Where the United States has taken the lead, as in the Displaced Persons Program, the other countries have followed our example. Escapees from Iron Curtain Countries The escapee situation is even more critical at the present time. There are 20,000 to 25,000 persons housed in camps in Germany, Austria, Italy, Trieste, Greece, and Turkey, who have escaped from behind the Iron Curtain since January 1, 1948. These escapees are non-Germans. They are, in general, the people from behind the Iron Curtain, who have most recently arrived risking life and limb, leaving behind everything but the clothes on their backs, in order to live in freedom. Some of them have come because of the enticements held out to them by the voice of America or by other Western propaganda for democracy. Now that the Communists have tightened up the border watch, the flow has dropped to about 500 a month. How many try and fail? Paying for the attempt with their lives is anyone's guess, but at one point the mortality rate was estimated to be over 80%. Unfortunately, escapees are not likely to find the welcome and freedom they thought would await them. They arrive in countries already surfited with refugees. They cannot, for the most part, continue on to the United States because of restrictions in our immigration law. And so most of them are put in camps without work, with none of the comforts and few of the privileges or rights of free men. The United States has a special responsibility toward these people and a special interest in them. At least some of them have come because our propaganda lured them. If sacrifice earns the right to liberty, they have earned it. We cannot turn them away and expect those still behind the iron curtain to believe us ever again. Furthermore, they are, generally speaking, convinced opponents of Communist tyranny. They have experienced it and they want no more of it. They can be helpful to us, and yet we have done very little for them and nothing to welcome them to our shores. Out of the current mutual security appropriation, a fund of $4,300,000 has been set aside to help the resettlement of escapees. The announcement caused hopes to rise among those escapees in camps in Europe. It brought a short-lived increase in the rate of escape through the iron curtain. Its results have been negligible because the fund is too small and because the United States and the other free nations have formulated no adequate programs for their care and resettlement. The Commission believes that effective measures should be taken and adequate appropriations made to provide reasonable reception, care, and migration opportunities for escapees from Communism. The escapee problem is not a partisan political issue. It is generally agreed that something should be done immediately. President Truman said in his special message to the Congress on March 24, 1952, quote, specific aid and assistance should be provided for the people who are fleeing at the risk of their lives from Southern and Eastern Europe. These peoples are Baltes, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Albanians, Ukrainians, and Russians. These people face a desperate situation. Not only do they arrive destitute with only what they can carry on their backs, but they find themselves in totally strange lands among strange peoples speaking strange languages. The local authorities do not have adequate resources to care for them properly. These people need better care when they first arrive, and they need assistance if they are to move on and resettle elsewhere. The miserable conditions in which these fugitives from Communism find themselves and their present inability to emigrate to new homes and start new lives lead inevitably to despair. Their disillusionment is being effectively exploited by Communist propaganda. These men and women are friends of freedom. They include able and courageous fighters against Communism. They ask only for an opportunity to play a useful role in the fight for freedom. It is the responsibility of the free world to afford them this opportunity, end quote. He recommended a program authorizing 21,000 escapees to migrate to the United States over a three-year period, plus supplemental reception, care, payment of cost of ocean transportation, and a program of education for leadership for those who choose to remain in Europe. President-elect Eisenhower said in a speech on October 17, 1952, quote, A contest for world leadership, in fact for survival, exists between the Communist idea and the American ideal. That contest is being waged in the minds and hearts of human beings. We say and we sincerely believe that we are on the side of freedom, that we are on the side of humanity. We say and we know that the Communists are on the side of slavery, the side of inhumanity. Yet to the Czech, the Pole, the Hungarian who takes his life in his hands and crosses the frontier tonight, or to the Italian who goes to some American consulate, this ideal that beckoned him can be a mirage because of the McCarran Act, end quote. Secretary of State Etchison said in his statement to the Commission, quote, Another special problem of equal importance is that of the escapees from Communist countries. These people arrive in the border country's destitute. They have lost their homes, their property, and often their families. They have a deep hatred for Communism. They know from experience what it means. They have a deep love of freedom, having been so long without it. If they are left to shift for themselves and lands already burdened with surplus population, they will not be able to find work and will be disillusioned about the meaning of Western democracy. As their disillusion grows and word of it spreads, it will be difficult for us to convince the captive populations behind the iron curtain that the free world is interested in their fate. With our aid, other countries are trying to make possible a new life for these escapees. But these efforts do not by themselves meet the need. To welcome escapees to the United States on a scale impossible under the present quota restrictions would be a vital step in making our policy toward the satellite people's effective, end quote. Professor Philip E. Mosley, president of the East European Fund set up by the Ford Foundation and member of the Russian Institute of Columbia University testified, quote, I feel that we will strengthen our own country and the free world if we will open a door, or rather if we will reopen a door to the people who under intolerable pressure are escaping every day and every week from the iron curtain countries, end quote. American foreign policy toward the countries behind the iron curtain, particularly the satellites, is to emphasize that their people would be better off on our side. But in connection with escapees, a most vital aspect of the quote, cold war, end quote, American immigration law lies directly a thwart our foreign policy. End of section seven.