 INTRODUCTION OF WHOM WE SHALL WELCOME The President of the United States established the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization on September 4, 1952, and it required it to make a final report not later than January 1, 1953. He directed the Commission to study and evaluate the immigration and naturalization policies of the United States, and to make recommendations for such legislative, administrative, and other action as in its opinion may be desirable in the interests of the economy, security, and responsibilities of this country. This report is the result of the Commission's study, and it contains the recommendations for an immigration policy best suited in its judgment to the interests, needs, and security of the United States. The Commission's functions under the executive order are now completed, and it ceases to exist thirty days after this report is submitted to the President. It is noteworthy that all the major religious faiths of America urged the President to appoint a Commission for this general purpose. The General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America issued a statement to this effect in March 1952. In August 1952, the American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service, through its Committee on Displaced Persons and Refugees, urged the creation of a Commission to study the basic assumptions of our immigration policy. Its statement was signed by representatives of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the Church World Service of the National Council of the Churches of Christ, the United Service for New Americans, and the National Lutheran Council. And in September 1952, the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church urged the appointment of a Commission to study the need for emergency refugee legislation and to review our permanent immigration policy and its basic assumptions. It became evident during the debate in Congress in public discussions after the passage June 27, 1952 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, generally known as the McCarran-Walter Act over the President's veto, that the new legislation does not adequately solve immigration and naturalization problems, and that the codification it contains fails to embody principles worthy of this country. Immigration and nationality law in the United States should perform two functions. First, it should regulate the admission and naturalization of aliens in the best interests of the United States. Second, it should properly reflect the traditions and fundamental ideals of the American people in determining whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges. This report discusses the matter in which the law presently regulates the admission and naturalization of aliens, recommends revisions, and explains why the Commission believes these revisions better serve the welfare and security of the United States. As a separate document, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives has published the extensive record of 30 sessions of hearings held by the Commission in 11 cities in various sections of the country. The record shows what a substantial and representative cross-section of the American people believed to be the best immigration policy for this country. It is appropriate to examine the second function of immigration policy, the reflection of American traditions and ideals. The Commission would state them as follows. We hold these truths. 1. America was founded upon the principle that all men are created equal, that differences of race, color, religion, or national origin should not be used to deny equal treatment or equal opportunity. Americans have regarded such doctrines as self-evidence since the Declaration of Independence. The immigration law is a key to whether Americans today believe in the essential worth and dignity of the individual human being. It is a clue to whether we really believe that all people are entitled to these unalienable rights for the preservation of which our nation was created. It indicates the degree of American humanitarianism. It is a gauge of our faithfulness to the high moral and spiritual principles of our founding fathers, to whom people as the children of God were the most important resources of a free nation. 2. America historically has been the haven for the oppressed of other lands. The immigration law is an index of the extent of our acceptance of the principle that tyranny is forever important and that its victims should always find asylum in the land of the free. It tests whether we continue to believe that the home of the brave should offer a promise of opportunity to people courageous enough to leave their ancestral homelands to search for liberty. It is a measure of our fidelity to the doctrine upon which this country was founded, the right of free men to freedom of movement. The immigration law discloses whether Americans still concur in George Washington's challenge to bigotry, no sanction, to persecution, no assistance. 3. American national unity has been achieved without national uniformity. The immigration law demonstrates whether we abide by the principle that the individual should be free of regimentation. It attests whether we still respect differences of opinion and the right to disagree with the prevailing ideas of the majority, and whether we still welcome new knowledge, new ideas, and new people. It reveals the strength or weakness of our convictions that democracy is the best philosophy and form of government. 4. Americans have believed in fair treatment for all. The immigration law is a yardstick of our approval of fair play. It is a challenge to the tradition that American law and its administration must be reasonable, fair, and humane. It betokens the current status of the doctrine of equal justice for all, immigrant or native. 5. America's philosophy has always been one of faith in our future and belief in progress. The immigration law indicates our outlook on the future of America. Those who have faith in a dynamic, expanding, and strong American economy see immigration not only as part of our heritage, but also as essential to our future. On the other hand, those who regard the future of America in terms of a static economy and a maximum population view immigration with alarm. 6. American foreign policy seeks peace and freedom, mutual understanding, and a high standard of living for ourselves and our world neighbors. The immigration law is an image in which other nations see us. It tells them how we really feel about them and their problems, and not how we say we do. It is also an expression of the sincerity of our confidence in ourselves and our institutions. An immigration law which reflects fear and insecurity makes a hollow mockery of confident world leadership. Immigration policy is an important and revealing aspect of our foreign policy. No doubt our ideals have not been honored in America at every moment and in every respect. But they have certainly governed our thought and actions over the 175 years of the nation's life. They will continue to do so. The Commission believes that these traditions and ideals should be basic to our immigration laws. Insofar as our immigration policy violates these American traditions and ideals, it weakens the foundations of our liberty and undermines our security and well-being. It also damages our position of leadership and destroys the esteem and good reputation the United States has earned in the past. Other considerations must also condition our immigration laws, such as the protection and preservation of our security against the dangerous and the diseased. The Commission emphasizes that one of its major concerns in applying these principles has been the necessity for the immigration law to safeguard the welfare and security of the United States. However, it is convinced that a full regard for protecting our national security does not require a hostile attitude toward immigration. On the contrary, it believes that full security can be achieved only with a positive immigration policy based not on fears but on faith in people and in the future of a democratic and free United States. What we believe. The Commission believes that immigration has given strength to this country, not only in manpower, new industries, inventiveness and prosperity, but also in new ideas and new culture. Immigrants have supplied a continuous flow of creative abilities and ideas that have enriched our nation. The Commission believes that an outstanding characteristic of the United States is its great cultural diversity within an overriding national unity. The American story proves, if proof were needed, that such differences do not mean the existence of superior and inferior classes. The Commission believes that it is contrary to the American spirit to view every alien with suspicion and hostility. The Commission is convinced that the American people will not knowingly tolerate immigration laws that reflect distrust, discrimination and dangerous isolationism. The Commission believes that the American people are entitled to a positive, not a negative immigration policy, and that they desire a law geared to the forward-looking objectives of a great world power. The Commission believes that although immigrants need the United States, it is also true that the United States needs immigrants, not only for its domestic or foreign benefit, but also to retain, reinvigorate and strengthen the American spirit. The Commission believes that we cannot be true to the democratic faith of our own Declaration of Independence in the equality of all men and at the same time pass immigration laws which discriminate among people because of national origin, race, color or creed. We cannot continue to bask in the glory of an ancient and honorable tradition of providing haven to the oppressed and belie that tradition by ignoble and ungenerous immigration laws. We cannot develop an effective foreign policy if our immigration laws negate our role of world leadership. We cannot defend civil rights in principle and deny them in our immigration laws and practice. We cannot boast of our magnificent system of law and enact immigration legislation which violates decent principles of legal protection. Nor can we ourselves really believe or persuade others to think that we believe that the United States is a dynamic, expanding and prosperous country if our immigration law is based upon a fear of catastrophe rather than a promise and hope for greater days ahead. The Commission believes that our present immigration laws, flout, fundamental American traditions and ideals, display a lack of faith in America's future, damage American prestige and positions among other nations, ignore the lessons of the American way of life. The Commission believes that laws which fail to reflect the American spirit must sooner or later disappear from the statute books. The Commission believes that our present immigration law should be completely rewritten. Part 1. American Speak on Immigration. Chapter 1A. The Commission's Hearings. Immediately after the President issued Executive Order No. 10392, dated September 4, 1952, and his public statement of the same date, naming the Chairman and members of the Commission and defining its duties and powers, work of organization began. It became evident that if the Commission was to comply with the directive to make a final report not later than January 1, 1953, steps had to be taken promptly to gather the necessary information in different sections of the country. It was obviously impossible to arrange for large numbers of people to go to Washington to express their views orally and in writing based upon experience and knowledge of the operation of immigration and naturalization laws, regulations and policies. The Commission decided to visit key places throughout the country and hold public hearings at which any interested person could appear and make a statement. In order to assure attendance of persons especially qualified to discuss existing laws and policies and those about to become affected, the Commission invited individuals and agencies with information relevant to the economic, social and other implications of past, current and future immigration laws and policies of the nation. This was done by specific invitations and public announcements. In addition to those invited, all who requested to be heard were scheduled within the time available. At the time the Commission began its work, the laws on the subject enacted prior to the 82nd Congress were still in effect. The codification embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 414, 66 Statute 163, McCarran-Walter Act, June 27, 1952 had been passed over the President's veto, but was not to take effect except provisions relating to the establishment of the Joint Congressional Committee until December 24. Schedule of Hearings The task of communicating with individuals and organizations throughout the country and of arranging a schedule of hearings was a difficult one, achieved under great pressure because of the immediate necessity of equipping working quarters and selecting a competent staff and because of the limited time for the project. The Commission carried out the following schedule of hearings, New York, September 30 and October 1, Boston, October 2, Cleveland, October 6, Detroit, October 7, Chicago, October 8 and 9, St. Paul, October 10, St. Louis, October 11, San Francisco, October 14, Los Angeles, October 15, Atlanta, October 17, and Washington, D.C., October 27, 28 and 29. This added up to 15 days of hearings in 11 different cities from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast. Invitations to appear before the Commission were also issued to persons and organizations, public and private, in other cities and areas in the same section of the country in which each of the hearings was held. The appendix to this report contains the names of people who testified and the organizations represented at the Commission's hearings or who submitted statements to the Commission. In addition, the Commission held a number of executive conferences with federal officials and trusted with the administration of immigration and security programs in the United States. The Commission made a studied effort to obtain statements on the subject, oral and written from all points of view. In view of the fact that a presidential campaign was then in progress, the Commission refrained from inviting anyone who was a candidate for federal office. The sole exception being in the case of Congressman Francis E. Walter, co-sponsor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Senator Pat McCarron and members of the staff of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary were also invited. However, whenever any member of the House of Representatives or Senate of the United States requested leave to appear, the request was granted. Considering the brief notice and opportunity for preparations, the wealth of material submitted to the Commission, much of it of great importance and permanent value, is almost incredible. Fortunately, through the cooperation of Congressman Emanuel Seller of New York, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, it has been possible to print a record of the hearings containing the statements made during the hearings and those submitted subsequently. Because of its length, the record of hearings could not be included in this report. It contains oral testimony on the subject given by some 400 persons and written statements by approximately 234 others or a total of 634 statements, some expressing the views of individuals, others made in official capacities on behalf of agencies of the federal state and municipal governments, and others on behalf of many religious, welfare, political and other private organizations. It comprises some 2100 pages and may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. In beginning the task assigned to it by the President, the Commission was confronted by certain facts having an important bearing on the feasibility of efforts at this time to evaluate the national policies with respect to immigration and naturalization. They may be stated as follow. 1. The passage by both branches of Congress of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and its repassage by more than a two-thirds vote in each house over the President's veto message, which gave forceful expression to criticisms of particular provisions of the bill. 2. The failure of the 82nd Congress to take action with respect to S3109, introduced by Senator de Hendrickson or HR7376, introduced by Congressman Seller, providing for the issuance during a period of three years of 300,000 special non-quota immigration visas to certain refugees, persons of German ethnic origins, and natives of Italy, Greece, and the Netherlands. These bills were drafted to comply with a message urging such legislation sent by President Truman to Congress March 24, 1952. 3. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 codifies, for the first time, the many pieces of immigration legislation enacted since 1917, and to that extent supplies a document long needed. 4. In addition, however, to the re-enactment of existing provisions, some of which had been the subject of controversy, the new law contains revisions and amendments suggested during the legislative hearings and by the staffs of the congressional committees. Some of these changes liberalized the immigration laws, but many of the others resulted in new restrictions, both in substantive law and in administrative procedures. The President's veto message and the subsequent debates on the floor of the Senate and House had the effect of arousing more general interest in the subject than had been previously shown. The appointment of this commission and the announcement of its plan to go to the country for information as to the effect of immigration laws, procedures and policies on the economic, social, and other aspects of life in the United States gave opportunity for expression to an increasing public concern. 5. Nationwide interest. The commission was defined, as it moved from city to city and from region to region, that religious, welfare, and other organizations had begun to hold discussions not only within their own membership, but with each other on important features of the act of 1952. In an attempt to crystallize their views on the question as to whether the new law is adequate to meet the grave and complex problems involved, renewed consideration of such matters seemed to be prompted by a belief that the United States had not yet fulfilled its obligations to suffer a humanity that the displaced persons program under which nearly 400,000 persons had been brought to the United States from Europe had been a great success, but that existing emergencies abroad demanded further efforts in behalf of refugees, ex-bellies, escapees, remaining displaced persons, relatives of those who had reached safety in the United States, and other categories of people whose living conditions and constant dangers are an approach to our civilization. At first there was a disposition by some to postpone any effort to arrive at conclusions on long-range immigration policies, especially in view of the enactment of the act of 1952 and the fact that there was no practical experience under its administration, and to concentrate on legislation to meet the emergency situation, such as proposed in the President's message of March 24, 1952. This attitude gave way to suggestions by representatives of the largest and most important organizations for a new and different set of permanent policies, and this attitude was buttressed by the view that the basic principles of the act of 1952 are the same as those that existed in the legislation it superseded, and that therefore no additional experience with such legislation was needed in order to provide sufficient basis for informed opinions. In addition, members of state-displaced persons commissions or committees and their staffs and the officials of various religious and welfare organizations had been engaged over a period of years in assisting in the reception, resettlement and supervision of the nearly 400,000 persons who were brought to the United States under the Displaced Persons Program. Their knowledge of the current results of that project, derived through their contact with these immigrants, was made available to this commission. The governors of 36 states appointed state-displaced persons commissions or committees in many of these agencies are still active as this report is being prepared, although their activities at present are reduced largely to problems incident to supervising or recording the results of the integration of the newcomers into life in the United States. Leaders speak. The New York session set the tone of the hearings. It became evident at once that religious, civic and welfare organizations of national and even worldwide importance were tremendously interested in the subject matter, and in the task assigned to the commission, they welcomed the opportunity to be heard to record their views and to cooperate in any effort to arrive at common understandings in a common program for consideration by the commission, by the president, and eventually by the Congress. The very first person to appear before the commission was the director of field operations for the refugee service of the World Council of Churches with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. He had returned but two days before from Europe, and during the year had visited and studied refugee problems in the Middle East and Far East. The council is made up of the Protestant and Orthodox churches of the world, some 160 major denominations. It was followed in New York and elsewhere by representatives of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish charitable and humanitarian organizations, by scholars who had done research in population problems and in related fields, by scientists, educators and those engaged in various phases of social work, by public officials whose experience and knowledge enabled them to speak with authority, by representatives of agriculture, business and labor, by professors of law and political science, by lawyers specializing in immigration cases, by representatives of various nationality groups whose roots lay in southern and eastern Europe and in Asiatic countries or closer to home in the West Indies, by representatives of organizations especially interested in foreign affairs, by representatives of various sectarian and non-sectarian bodies engaged in activities concerned directly and indirectly with immigration, by representatives of various types of educational institutions such as universities and art museums, by representatives or members of political parties and organizations interested in political and social and economic issues, by representatives of business enterprises with interests abroad in whose operations are affected by immigration laws, and by representatives of veterans, patriotic and civic organizations and others especially interested in questions related to the protection of American freedoms, liberties and privileges. Some appeared as individuals and others were authorized to speak for groups and organizations, public and private. All interest in the United States affected by the provisions and administration of immigration laws were given an opportunity to record their views on the problem assigned to the commission for study and report. The commission was surprised to learn of the widespread and rather determined opposition to the act of 1952. This is all the more amazing in light of its recent passage over the President's veto and especially because it had not even taken effect at the time of the hearings. In addition, it is fair to say that approval of the new law was voiced by comparatively few in that in practically all such instances, the favorable opinions were not supported by factual information. The dominant theme of those who appeared to testify or file statements was criticism of the act of 1952. Some objected to specific aspects, but most witnesses opposed the basic theories of the new law. Recent Immigration Perhaps the most eloquent pleas to the commission for recommendations for changes in the law were made by those who came fortified and inspired by actual experience with the Displaced Persons Program. Should not be understood that enthusiasm for Displaced Persons was unanimous in all sections of the country or that no instances were mentioned of Displaced Persons who either were unappreciative of the efforts in their behalf or were mentally or physically unable to make a rapid adjustment to conditions in this country. There were, of course, a number of such instances. It was stated, for example, that some who were believed to be farmers and who were resettled in farming communities did not possess the necessary qualifications and eventually drifted to the large cities where they had opportunities to locate among people of the same nationality groups and their other criticisms. But the weight of testimony made it clear that by reason of the Displaced Persons Program, the United States was unable to make a substantial contribution to the cause of humanity, at the same time gaining for itself a large group of capable, hardworking, intelligent and honest people whose prompt integration into the economic fabric of the nation is proving an asset of incalculable value. Along with those ready for work on the farms and in the factories came many possessing special skills and those trained in the arts and sciences. These were the people who had come from camps in Europe or from other temporary quarters in which they had been enabled to exist until some permanent arrangement could be made. These were the victims of the wars and the aftermath of wars, uprooted from their homes and tossed back and forth as the armies fought and diplomats wrangled. These were the refugees from slavery and death, the exbellies from the land of birth their home, the escapees from the other side of the iron curtain, the people robbed of all they owned and the survivors of once happy families tortured in body and spirit and set adrift or hurt it together to await either death or whatever form of rescue may be provided by some of the free peoples as have the means and the will to respond to the call of despairing human beings. Those who were brought to this country were among those who had survived the severest hardships. They came most of them strong and brave to begin life in a new and strange world. The story of their willingness to accept whatever fate has in store and the almost overnight success attained by many in the United States makes one of the most remarkable pages of current history. Handicap by differences in language and customs and even dress by many other difficulties inherent in such a transition. They nevertheless have progressed as a group far beyond the expectations of those who advocated the passage of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. They have been absorbed by agriculture and by industry. They are oncologists and universities engaged in teaching or research in astounding proportion of the younger men who are already in the armed services of this country. And the economic success of these people considered together is proved by the fact that according to the Displaced Persons Commission, those who came under the Displaced Persons Program from October 1948 to August 1952 at a cost to the federal government of some 19 million dollars have already paid in federal income taxes alone more than three times that sum. That progress is slower for some on account of age and other circumstances is evidenced by the narrative told by the Commission by a minister in a Midwest church, the present janitor of which was formerly the head of the educational system of an entire country in Eastern Europe. But this Displaced Person, the author of books on educational subjects in his native land, does not seem discouraged and doubtless will eventually find an occupation better suited to his abilities. It is possible to begin to evaluate not only what has been done for these people but what they have done within a short space of time for the people of our country. In such information is relevant to any consideration of the problem of future immigration. The Displaced Persons Program brought to the United States are Armenians, Czechoslovakians, Estonians, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Russian refugees, Ukrainians, ethnic Germans, nationals of the Balkans and others. Individuals and representatives of organizations drawn into the project testified to their administration for the ability and energy of the immigrants and for the rapidly acquired devotion and loyalty to this country. It is not too much to say that the knowledge and experience gained by contact with the newcomers have served to break down barriers among our own people. Moving toward agreement, the Commission learned that the necessity for exchanging information resulting from actual experiences with resettlement of these immigrants was the moving force through which divergent views were being debated and adjusted. The nation's greatest and most powerful groups and welfare activities were reaching agreements on vital issues within their own organizations and with each other. Indisputable evidence of this was given by the circumstances that leading Protestant, Catholic and Jewish organizations criticized the act of 1952 for similar reasons and that in some places a single representative was authorized to speak for many lay and religious organizations of different denominations. For example at the Boston hearings a single representative from New Haven, Connecticut, testified on behalf of the New Haven Council of Protestant Churches, the New Haven Jewish Community Council, the Italian American War Veterans, the New Haven branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Italian newspaper New Haven. During the Cleveland hearings a delegation of three persons from Pittsburgh appeared, two of them including a Lutheran clergyman, spoke for the American Service, Institute of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the Social and Civic agencies in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, the American Bulgarian League, Catholic Slovak Brotherhood, Council of Jewish Women, Croatian Fraternal Union, Federation of Jewish Philanthropies and United Jewish Fund, Greater Beneficial Union of Pittsburgh, Jewish Family and Children's Service, Lutheran Service Society, Serb National Federation, Verhove Association and the Jewish Community Relations Council. Another witness at the Cleveland hearings was a person from Cincinnati who brought letters from the director of the Catholic Charities of Cincinnati and from the executive secretary of the Council of Churches of Greater Cincinnati and who appeared on behalf of those organizations and the Citizenship Council of Cincinnati, the Church Federation and the Jewish Community Council of Cincinnati. One person came to the Cleveland hearing from Buffalo, New York and authorized to speak for eight different organizations, the Board of Community Relations of the City of Buffalo, Council of Social Agencies, Diason Resettlement Committee of Catholic Charities, Labor Committee to Combat Intolerance, Anti-Defamation League, Council of Churches, Jewish Federation for Social Service and the International Institute. To the hearing at St. Paul came a Methodist minister from Austin, Minnesota, authorized to speak for his own group and for the Jewish group in that community and also the Packing House Labor Union there. In Atlanta, Georgia, the commission heard from the chaplain and head of the Department of Religion at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, who presented a statement on behalf of seven religious leaders in Athens, five Protestant, one Catholic and one Jewish. To the same hearing came the director of the Archdiocesan Resettlement Bureau of New Orleans, Louisiana, who was also a member of the State Committee on Displaced Persons and the New Orleans Resettlement Committee. He submitted a joint statement of views opposing basic policies of the immigration law signed by six representatives of broad segments of religious and social life in metropolitan New Orleans, including the minister of the First Unitarian Church, the chairman of the Department of Civil Affairs of the New Orleans Council of Churches, the president of the New Orleans Ministerial Union, the president of the New Orleans Section of the National Council of Jewish Women, a representative of the Catholic Committee of the South and the director of the Archdiocesan Resettlement Bureau. These are some of the instances indicating increased unity of study and thought throughout the country on problems relating to immigration and naturalization. They indicate a trend of the greatest possible importance toward the growth of cooperation and goodwill among the people of the United States. End of Section 2. Section 3 of Whom We Shall Welcome. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Whom We Shall Welcome. Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Part 1. Americans Speak on Immigration. Chapter 1b. National Leaders. The record discloses other highly interesting developments. For example, a group of 10 of the foremost executives of Protestant organizations of many denominations appeared at the Washington hearings to urge the commission to recommend the adoption of new immigration policies. The group made a joint presentation of views with the Director of Immigration Services, Department of Church World Service, National Council of Churches of Christ as the Chief Spokesman, and with supporting statements from those who accompanied him. Among them were the Executive Director of the Department of International Goodwill and other officials of the National Council of Churches of Christ, the Executive Secretary of the Committee on Displaced Persons of the Presbyterian Church, the Director of the Department of Mutual Aid, Brethren Service Commission, and the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, representing the Baptist World Alliance, which concludes the Southern Baptist Convention, not a constituent of the National Council. The impressive statements made by these and others, including a representative of the National Lutheran Council, follow those of similar authority and importance made there and at the preceding hearings throughout the country. At the Washington hearings, the commission also heard the Executive Director of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the Director of the Bureau of Immigration of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and leading figures of various Jewish organizations devoted to activities on behalf of immigrants. Testimony was also presented by cabinet officers, other leading public officials, important representatives of agriculture, business, and labor, spokesmen for bar associations and for various national scientific, welfare, civic, patriotic, veterans, and other interested organizations, the thoughtful and informed opinions voiced by those with personal experience in the matter, and by leaders in professional fields interested for a variety of reasons in the impact of the immigration and naturalization laws and regulations on the economic, social, and cultural life of the United States, as well as the effect on our relationship and the family of nations, convinced the commission of the necessity for sweeping changes in immigration policies. Pros and cons. Seems clear that those who took part in the discussions before the commission, or who submitted written views, represented a large segment of public opinion. It is equally clear that by far the greater number of those who expressed views to the commission are an agreement that the Act of 1952 is not based upon sound fundamental principles, in that although it did work some improvements, the Act continued in large many existing discriminations and inaugurated new and serious inequities. The sentiment for prompt legislative action was expressed by a leading Protestant official in these words, we do feel very strongly that the law placed upon the statute books in the last session of Congress is an affront to the conscience of the American people. Comparatively few of the organizations and individuals appearing before the commission were in favor of the Act of 1952. However, well intentioned, the statements of approval were generally without documentation of any sort, or were seemingly the result either of special benefits conferred by the law, or of emotion and deep rooted fears and prejudices. Some admitting we are a nation of immigrants expressed the opinion that we had not yet properly digested or integrated many of the later arrivals into our way of life, that immigration should now be kept at a minimum or eliminated, that eventually the country would not be able to support an increase in population due to immigration, that increases in the number of immigrants now authorized would invite unemployment, multiply the hazards to security, have an adverse effect on the national economy, and be productive of other evils and dangers. And there were those who think that although discriminations against southern and eastern Europeans might be eliminated, immigration should be largely limited to Europeans on the ground that this nation owes its cultural, social, and economic concepts and traditions to European civilization, that people of other races and religions cannot be assimilated in any helpful degree. This does not mean, of course, that no arguments in favor of the Act of 1952 supported by objective study of relevant facts exist. The fact that the law was enacted by more than a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress over the President's veto would negate such an idea. But it is also true that no arguments sufficient to meet the overwhelming weight of evidence against the desirability of much of the Act of 1952 were given to the Commission. Likewise, the number of those who appeared in opposition to the Act of 1952 and who represented organizations with vast memberships adding up to many tens of millions was large enough to warrant the conclusion that they and not the others accurately expressed the sentiments of the American people. General Consensus It should be emphasized again that those who oppose the Act of 1952 do not entirely agree on all their reasons, nor on what should be substituted in its place. Some individuals and groups are especially interested in particular provisions which they find detrimental and have concentrated their attention on those to the exclusion of others. It is possible, however, to enumerate certain basic policies urged by practically all of those opposed to the Act of 1952 as shown by the statements oral and written made to the Commission. They may be summarized as follows. One, the National Origins quota system should be abolished. Two, there should be an overall maximum of annual quota immigration to this country. The determination of the total number of quota immigrants permitted to enter during any years should reflect the needs and capacity for absorption of the United States. That number under present conditions should be approximately 250,000. Three, the allocations within this annual quota should be designed to meet emergency situations of great hardship abroad, such as continued distress and suffering among refugees, expellees, escapees, displaced persons and other victims of communism and other forms of totalitarianism, overpopulation and the special and general needs of the United States. These are the most important of the proposed policies and provisions affecting the sources and amount of immigration resulting from the information submitted to the Commission. There is a strong and ever-increasing sentiment against the continuation of a quota system based on national origins. The arguments against it generally and as it is written into the Act of 1952 are that it embodies principles inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States and the institutions of government which have made our nation strong and great in the hope of free peoples everywhere. Moreover, it is argued that the national origins quota system is based on unsound theories long since proved invalid, fallacies that are becoming more and more dangerous in the troubled world where colonial empires are rapidly disappearing and national pride is strengthening into demands for national independence. The national origins quota system is criticized on the ground that it is based on a concept of biologically distinct races and also on the theory that some races are superior to others. The Act of 1952, it was said, promotes a claim of Nordic supremacy, discriminates in favor of the nations of Western and Northern Europe, especially Great Britain and Ireland, and against the nations of Southern and Eastern Europe, the Near East and Asia. It was argued that laws which deny the inherent dignity and worth of the individual which deny the equality of man in which embodied discriminations based on race, creed, color and national origin have no place on our statute books and are a denial of all we profess to be and believe. Such laws it was contended or detrimental to our foreign policies are the source of much antagonism and bitterness against us, impair our relationships with other nations, and leave us prey to damaging propaganda by those who promote an ideology that would substitute a police state for individual freedoms. National origins quota system. The national origins quota system purports to fix immigration quotas on the basis of the national origins of our population, but the Act does not do this. It uses the national origins of the population of 1920, not of 1950. It excludes from consideration Negroes, American Indians and other non-white people. Thus it fails to take into account the national origins of the current population. Complaint was made that the assignment of quotas on such a basis disregarded the fact that the nations receiving the largest quotas did not use them, although the permissible total quota was approximately 154,000 annually during the last 20 years in average of but 54,095 quota numbers were used annually. Immigration fell to a trickle during World War II, in this helped to bring down the 20-year average, but in the other years during that period the national origins quota system alone has held normal immigration to a figure ranging annually from one-third to a little over one-half of the total authorized. It was argued to the commission that if it was thought in 1924 when the quota system was enacted that approximately 154,000 immigrants annually was a reasonable amount, such a total is unrealistic today in view of the change conditions or greatly expanded economy in our need for additional manpower. Many of the witnesses urged the commission as a minimum to recommend legislation under which unused quotas would be redistributed to the nations with long waiting lists. Practically all who favor changes and existing laws ask that action be taken to cancel the mortgages on annual quotas. The provision in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 as amended under which the displaced persons already admitted are charged against 50% of future quotas in one instance to the year 2274. The commission was repeatedly told that the national origins quota system is the product of fear, fear of strange people, languages and customs, an unfounded belief that people of western and northern Europe and their descendants make better citizens than immigrants from other areas. The proud record of immigrants from those other areas in times of peace as well as war was cited as proof that the United States has nothing to fear from the repeal of policies which have been harmful at home and which have created enemies abroad. The burden of the discussion on this phase of the problem was to the effect that we can no longer afford to indulge ourselves in policies based on mistaken theories, themselves inconsistent with the principles we preach. Great emphasis was placed in opposition to the national origin system on the fact that it is inflexible and does not allow room for consideration of the conditions under which more than 10 million persons refugees, expellees, escapees and displaced persons of various categories are living in the Europe of today. It was agreed that the United States alone cannot solve this problem, but many insisted that some additional action is imperative and promptly to encourage other nations in a position to help and to give some hope to desperate human beings, innocent victims of totalitarian lust for power. Other action needed. earnest pleas have been made to the commission to recommend special programs for the reception and care as well as immigration of escapees, those who break through the iron curtain and reach what for them is the promise land. Unfortunately in too many instances the promise is found to be illusory, the commission was told. No adequate provision for them has yet been made. The failure of the free nations adequately to care for those who risk their lives for freedom is a powerful propaganda weapon in the hands of the communists. There was unanimous agreement that as to all immigrants, no matter what their race or creed or color or national origin, stringent security measures should be enforced. Precautions against the admission of subversives, criminals or other undesirables were favored as were safeguards on health and other such grounds. Powerful appeals were made to the commission for recommendation for prompt action to relieve the distress caused by overpopulation and by great numbers of refugees, expellees, escapees, and others who live in and out of camps, without hope and without prospects for the future unless rescued through the mercy of their more fortunate fellow men. It was suggested that provision should be made to accept a maximum of 100,000 of such persons annually, at least for a period of three years, and that this number should be included in an overall maximum of 250,000 annually for a like period of time. The commission was asked to recommend that admissions be permitted on a family basis to avoid situations where the breadwinners on this side of the ocean are unable to bring their closest relatives to join them and are separated indefinitely. The heartbreak caused by the separations and the resulting futility of efforts to restore well-ordered family life is incalculable, besides increasing instead of lessening the burden on the nations in whose economic strength we have a stake. The commission heard much discussion as to the size of the overall annual quota. Various figures were suggested in an order to obtain a documented basis for a recommendation. The commission sought advice from scientists, from public officials, from census experts, from those experienced in labor, agricultural and industrial fields, and from others whose knowledge and experience would shed light on the subject. The result is set forth in the record of hearings. The attention of the commission was directed to the provisions of the Act of 1952 for the determination of quota areas within the Asia-Pacific Triangle and for the limitation of quotas assigned to colonies or other dependent areas of a governing country. These provisions, it was suggested, had the effect of deliberately discriminating on account of race and color to such an extent as practically to deny all immigration, except for a token amount to the people in the areas described in the report. The commission was told, for example, that the Jamaicans, formerly within the quota assigned to Great Britain, are restricted by the device of treating colonies separately to a quota of 100 annually, instead of the approximately 1,000 who have been arriving annually, a reduction of 90%. The Japanese and Chinese in whose behalf the naturalization laws were liberalized are also given a negligible quota. The commission was told that the new law is a mixture of discriminations based on nationality and on race, irrespective of nationality and on geography, irrespective of any other factor. Persons of as much as one half Asiatic blood are charged by the 1952 Act to the Asiatic country of either of their parents without regard to the fact that they may have been born and bred elsewhere. Administration of the law Many of those who had experience with or who had studied the administrative features of current laws and regulations criticized the requirement that visa applications be processed through the officials of two different departments. The original application is made abroad to the appropriate counselor's service of the State Department. If he rejects the application, there is no appeal. If the council grants a visa and the immigrant comes to this country, he is met at the port of entry by an officer of the immigration and naturalization service of the Department of Justice. The Justice Department is not bound by any action taken by the State Department and the applicant after making the long and expensive journey to America may be refused entry although possessed of a valid visa. This has happened and is partly responsible for the argument that it is inefficient and wasteful for the United States to have two separate agencies with like duties and responsibilities engaged in the same operation, one at the gates to this country and the other in foreign countries. It was suggested that all immigration matters be combined in one agency of government so that when an applicant receives a visa you will be assured of admission except for intervening causes. The Hoover Commission took note of this situation and recommended that all authority over immigration including the issuance of visas be centered in one agency and propose that the agency be the Department of Justice. Most of those who appeared before the commission had no definite views as to whether the consolidation is made should be in the Justice Department or the State Department or in a separate administrative agency. There was sentiment against leaving the Administration of Immigration Affairs in the Justice Department on the ground that the department is essentially illiterating and prosecuting agency and that there is no particular reason why the administrative functions should remain there. Before it is transferred to justice the Immigration and Naturalization Service was attached to the Labor Department and the officials there believe it should be returned. Still others urged that an independent agency should be established to administer all immigration laws. Criticism of the law. Many other objections to the Act of 1952 were submitted to the Commission. Witnesses objected to the unreviewable discretion of minor officials to deny visas and the commission was told that the prohibitions of the 1952 Act apply with great severity to those who may have been convicted overseas of political offenses under the very system that challenges all the free peoples of the world. There was insistent condemnation of the provisions enlargening unreasonably it was said the grounds for exclusion and deportation and heavy criticism of retroactive provisions under which deportation is authorized against long-time residence for actions which may have been entirely innocent and inoffensive at the time they were taken. Some urged that there should be no deportation except for illegal entry on the ground that deportation was banishment and the effect upon family independence was grossly unfair. A punishment of severity frequently far in excess of the crime. Much concern was expressed about changes brought about by the 1952 Act and the naturalization law. There was widespread attack against provisions discriminating between native and naturalized citizens and making second class citizens of the latter. Objection was voiced to the enlargement of grounds for denaturalization and to their retroactive effect who was contended that if any naturalized citizen commits in offense except for fraud in obtaining citizenship he should be punished in the same way as a native born citizen and not be subjected to loss of citizenship and deportation. Strong representations were made to the commission that the punishment of exile for aliens and naturalized citizens was a relic of the feudal ages. Others urged upon the commission considerations of fair procedure, fair hearings and proper administrative and judicial review. Representatives of important business enterprises protested against provisions which they felt unduly and unreasonably affected the efficient conduct of their business in the United States and in foreign countries. The Attorney General pointed out that from the standpoint of effective administration the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 requires amendment and clarification and further that a number of the sections are ambiguous and otherwise defective. One of the sections, a reenactment of previous law has been declared invalid by a federal district court. Some of the Attorney General's objections go to the act as a whole because of its bad arrangement and inferior grassmanship. Other officials cite its specific sections containing inconsistencies the effect of some of which is to place unnecessary and costly burdens on the administrative agency and make the act difficult of interpretation and enforcement. Some professors of law inform the commission that they had great difficulty in understanding the language of the act of 1952. Conclusion. This summarizes many but not all of the complaints against the act of 1952 submitted to the commission during the course of the hearings and in written statements filed subsequently. The recent immigration legislation was described by those in opposition as the product of isolationism of baseless fears and prejudices and a shameful retreat from the principles embodied in the organic laws of our nation. It was pictured as an arrogant, raising instrument of discrimination based on race, creed, color and national origin. It returned to approval of ex post facto offenses and punishments, weapons of tyranny which liberty loving peoples have fought since the dawn of civilization. The consensus was to the effect that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 injures our people at home, causes much resentment against us abroad and impairs our position among the free nations, great and small, whose friendship and understanding is necessary if we are to meet and overcome the totalitarian menace. The gist of the appeal to the commission was for a fresh look at the problem with the hope for legislation based on humanitarian principles designed to fulfill our duties and obligations to suffering then in kind and adequate for our needs and for our security. End of Section 3. Section 4 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 4. Part 2. Immigration and the American Way of Life. Chapter 2A. Immigration and the American Economy. In the President's Executive Order establishing the Commission, one of the three major areas of consideration set out by the President was the admission of immigrants into this country in the light of our present and prospective economic and social conditions and of other pertinent considerations. This concern led the Commission to inquire into the historic contribution of immigration to the American economy, to consider the extent to which manpower needs are being met under a policy of severe restrictions on immigration, and to consider the possible advantages of immigration to a growing peacetime economy, to national defense, and to a creative civilization. America. A Land of Immigrants. In a short period of human history, the people of the United States built this country from a wilderness to one of the most powerful and prosperous nations in the world. The people who built America were 40 million immigrants who have come since the Mayflower and their descendants. We are still a vigorous and growing nation, and the economic, social, and other benefits available to us, the descendants of immigrant forebears, are constantly expanding. Our remarkable national development testifies to the wisdom of our early and continuing belief in immigration. One of the causes of the American Revolution, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, was the fact that England hindered free immigration into the colonies. Our growth as a nation has been achieved in large measure through the genius and industry of immigrants of every race and from every quarter of the world. The story of their pursuit of happiness is the saga of America. Their brains and their brawn helped to settle our land, to advance our agriculture, to build our industries, to develop our commerce, to produce new inventions, and in general to make us the leading nation that we now are. Immigration brought wealth to the United States, many billions of dollars. The immigrants did not bring this wealth in their baggage, many arrived penniless and in debt, but in their skills, their trades, and their willingness to work. In his testimony to the commission, Dr. Louis I. Dublin, statistician and second vice president of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, pointed out that a young adult immigrant of 18 years today is worth to the nation at least $10,000 since that is what it costs to raise the average American. The average net worth of such a person to the economy of the United States falls between $30,000 and $80,000 depending on his potential earning power. Throughout our history, immigrants have in this way represented additional wealth to our country. Scarcely one aspect of our American economy, culture, or development can be discussed without reference to the fundamental contribution of immigrants. No roster of leading Americans in business, science, arts, and the professions are complete without the names of many immigrants. In our history, the following aliens may be mentioned among many who became outstanding industrialists. Andrew Carnegie, Scottish in the steel industry. John Jacob Astor, German in the fur trade. Michael Cuddehy, Irish of the meatpacking industry. The Duponts, French of the munitions and chemical industry. Charles L. Fleischmann, Hungarian of the yeast business. David Sarnoff, Russian of the radio industry and William S. Knudsen, Danish of the automobile industry. Immigrant scientists and inventors are likewise too numerous to list in detail. Among those whose genius has benefited the United States are Albert Einstein, German in physics. Michael Pupin, Serbian in electricity. Enrico Fermi, Italian in atomic research. John Ericsson, Swedish who invented the ironclad ship and the screw propeller. Giuseppe Balonca, Italian. And Igor Sikorsky, Russian, who made outstanding contributions to airplane development. John A. Uden, Swedish, who was responsible for opening the Texas oil fields. Lucas P. Kyredis, Greek industrial chemistry. David Thomas, Welsh, who invented the hot-blast furnace. Alexander Graham Bell, Scottish, who invented the telephone. Conrad Huber, Russian, who invented the flashlight. And Otto Merkenthaler, German, who invented the linotype machine. Many of our leading musicians, actors, motion picture producers and others in the arts are foreign born. Law, medicine, education, literature, research, organized labor and journalism are only a few other of the innumerable fields benefited by outstanding immigrants. Any such list can only be a sample of how much immigrants have enriched the America which granted them hospitality and welcome. The encouragement of immigration was part of the tradition of the United States and one of the reasons why it became a great and powerful nation. Immigration to the United States has come from virtually every corner of the globe. The greater part of it, however, came from Europe. It is especially interesting to note that the major impulses to come to the United States from the various countries of Europe were passing phenomena, rising at certain stages of the economic or political life in their homelands and then subsiding. The sources of American immigration shifted with the changing of needs both in the United States and in the countries of origin. Each generation, even each decade, brought a changing pattern of immigration. Table 1 portrays the changes in the dominant countries of the origin of immigration to America. The earliest mass migrations were drawn from the English, Scots and Scott Irish people of the British Isles. Colonial immigration of such Britons was supplanted in numbers in the period 1820 to 1860 by migration from Ireland, but the most acute migration fever had passed in Ireland by the end of the 1850s. Immigration from West and Southwest Germany became important in this period, and with the opening up of Eastern Germany, total German immigration was the dominant stream from 1860 to 1890. In these years Scandinavia vied with Ireland in numbers of immigrants, but the crest of this new migration from Germany and Scandinavia was passed in the 1880s and gave way to another new migration, dominated by immigrants from Italy, Austria-Hungary and Russia. The immigration fever spread across the European continent from West to East and from North to South. Thus, up to 1890, Italian migration to America came largely from the more economically advanced North of Italy. After 1890, Italian migration came increasingly from the South. The main founts of immigration from Austria were in chronological sequence. First, the more developed Bohemia. Second, the relatively backward Corinthia and Tyrol. And then, after 1900, Galicia, especially Poles and Jews. Only in the last stages did the movement include substantial numbers of Ukrainians from remote Eastern Galicia. Migration from Hungary and other East-European countries was first composed of the minorities most in touch with the West. The distinctive feature of the emigration from Russia, which was the last major country of European emigration, was its non-Russian ethnic character. Immigration from Russia was firstly made up of peoples culturally most closely in contact with the West. That is, the Jews of the towns, the Baltic peoples, the Poles, and finally the Ukrainians. Thus, by the time of the First World War, the area of Europe from which migrants were drawn had spread to include almost the whole of the continent. The sources of heaviest migration have moved across Europe in a widened circle, from the center of First Migration in Northwest Europe to the latest in Southern and Southeastern Europe. Table 1. Leading sources of immigration at different periods of United States history. Period. Colonial. 1820 to 1860. Country and area. Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One. Ireland. Two. Germany, mainly West and Southwest Germany. 1820 to 1830. Palatinate to Rhine, Hinterland. 1830 to 1840. Veser, Hinterland. 1840 to 1850. Elbe, Hinterland. Vesphalia, etc. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1851 to 1855. Period. 1861 to 1890. One. Germany, mainly Eastern Germany. Two. Ireland. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1881 to 1885. Three. Scandinavia. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1886 to 1890. Period. 1891 to 1920. One. Italy. North, up to 1890. South, 1890 through. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1906 to 1910. Two. Austria-Hungary. Bohemia. Corinthia. Tyrol. Up to 1900. Galicia. Hungary. 1900 through. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1906 through 1910. Three. Russia. Chiefly non-ethnic Russians. Jews, Baltic peoples, Poles, Ukrainians. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1911 to 1915. Period. 1921 to 1930. Canada. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1921 through 1925. Two. Mexico. Period of largest volume of immigration. 1921 through 1925. Three. Italy. 1921 through 1924. Four. Germany. Period. 1931 through 1951. One. Germany. Primarily refugees. Two. Canada. End of Table 1. In the 145 years of unrestricted immigration into the United States, from 1776 to 1921, immigrants generally came when and where they were needed. There is no evidence that their arrival caused either unemployment or impoverishment. The contrary view was generally held by the founding fathers. James Madison at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 said, quote, that part of America which has encouraged them, the foreigners, has advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture, and the arts, end quote. Whether immigration was cause or effect, it is true today, as it was in revolutionary times, that the richest regions are those with the highest proportion of recent immigrants. The Commission found a striking correspondence between per capita income and percentage of popular foreign born as illustrated by figure one. The per capita incomes are highest in regions with a high percentage of recent foreign stock, lowest where immigrants are few. Immigrants went to the regions where there was demand for labor as expressed in high wages. In turn, their industry, their skills, and their enterprise were major factors in the economic development that has made these regions prosperous. Immigration has made a positive contribution to our economic life. Reliable evidence indicates that immigration neither contributes to nor aggravates unemployment. A careful study by the late professor Harry Jerome, Migration and the Business Cycle, prepared for the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1926, discovered a clear correlation between immigration and economic conditions in the United States. In the period of unrestricted immigration, the volume of immigration rose during prosperity but rapidly disappeared in times of depression when it would have contributed to unemployment. Figure 1. Immigration and income. A. Northeast. Percent foreign born 13.1. Per capita income $1,690. B. West. Percent foreign born 7.6. Per capita income $1,620. C. North Central. Percent foreign born 6.1. Per capita income $1,540. D. Southeast. Percent foreign born 1.8. Per capita income $1,140. E. South Central. Percent foreign born 1.5. Per capita income $1,030. Source U.S. Department of Commerce. And Figure 1. The relation of immigrants and employment is presented in Figure 2, which shows that, in general, immigrants came when they were needed and stayed away when they were not. Before quota restrictions were imposed, immigration was large in periods of full employment, small in times of unemployment. The Great Depression of the 1930s began almost a decade after the passage of restrictive immigration legislation. The unemployment of the 1930s, therefore, could hardly be attributed to immigration. On the contrary, a number of distinguished economists believe the restriction of immigration to have been one cause of the depression. Throughout American history, rapid increase of population had provided a constantly expanding market for our products. The decline in population growth incident to reduction of immigration and to the declining birth rate in the 1920s removed one factor contributing to our expanding economy. During the depression, quota restrictions were of no significance. Even the small quotas for southern and eastern Europe were unfilled. As in the earlier periods, with or without quotas and restrictive devices, prospective immigrants had no incentive or desire to come to this country in time of depression. In fact, in the depression years from 1931 through 1936, a total of 240,000 more aliens left than were admitted. The commission finds no evidence that immigration either caused or aggravated the depression. Historically speaking, therefore, immigration has supplied much of the brain and sinew, the human resources that have created our nation. It has come when and where manpower was in demand to build up America and to raise its standard of living. But it has not of itself caused depression and unemployment. The new immigrant has helped to enrich the native descendants of earlier immigration. Quota restrictions ignored the continuing need for immigration. In reviewing the history of debates on the problem of immigration, the commission was impressed by the fact that those opposing immigration appear to have been influenced in this view by a pessimistic outlook regarding the future economic growth of the United States. The nation was barely founded before a congressman rose to say on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1797 that while a liberal immigration policy was satisfactory when the country was new and unsettled, now that the United States had reached maturity and was fully populated, further immigration should be stopped. However, such views have continued throughout our history. In 1921, the Immigration Committee of the House of Representatives again recommended complete termination of all immigration. By the 1920s, there was widespread fear that the country could not profitably absorb immigration in the volume received before World War I. The territorial frontier was gone. The country was filled up in the sense that good agricultural land was almost fully occupied and under cultivation. The economy was rapidly becoming industrialized, a mature economy was emerging, and therefore it was argued immigration had to be drastically curtailed. With the 1921 Quota Act, originally designed for a one-year emergency, there began a wholly new departure in American law, a limitation on the number of immigrants that could be admitted into the United States. The Immigration Act of 1924 not only carried into permanent law the concept of a limitation on numbers, but also initiated the formula of selection on the basis of race and nationality. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 continued and strengthened the same principles. The onset of the Depression in 1929 seemed to validate the views of those who feared that economic maturity meant the end of economic growth in the United States. This did not prove to be the case. Our economy has expanded by leaps and bounds. Our gross national product in 1924 of $140 billion in 1951 grew to $329 billion in 1951. Foreign exports of goods expanded from $6.5 billion in 1951 to $15 billion in 1951. Manufacturing production increased by 140% and agricultural output by 51% between 1924 and 1951. Our farmers had an average per capita income from farming of only $302 in 1924 in terms of 1951 purchasing power, which rose to $760 per capita in 1951. These are but a few examples of growth since the 1920s and of the dynamic nature of our economy. This economic expansion required an expanding labor force. The demands were met, as in the past, partly through natural growth and partly from migration. The labor force increased from $41.2 million in 1920 to $66 million in 1951. When the normal sources of European immigration were substantially cut off by our legislation of the 1920s, our industries had to seek other sources of labor. This they found in three ways. One, by enormous migration from our own rural areas in the United States. Two, by increased immigration from Puerto Rico, the West Indies, and the non-Quota countries of the Western Hemisphere. And three, by special legislation providing for temporary immigration from neighboring countries. During World War II and after, many hundreds of thousands of workers were drawn from the farms to man the factories and other establishments of our urban centers. Since 1940, over one and a half million Southern Negroes moved to the cities of the North and West to fill the manpower shortages. The Negro population of the North and West more than doubled through this migration. But this was not enough. This source of manpower had to be supplemented by some 200,000 Puerto Ricans and other West Indians. Quite aside from the movements of Native white people in the United States, there were nearly two million total migrants who moved into the Northern and Western states from these internal sources in the decade 1940 to 1950. And the movement continues unabated. During the same period there was a net foreign immigration of one and a half million people that went chiefly to the industrial areas of the country. Thus the total migration to the North and West from the South and from abroad during the 40s was at least as large as the net immigration in the decade 1890 to 1900, the third largest decade of European immigration in our history. In other words, the Northern cities continued to need immigrants but had to get them mainly from elsewhere than Europe. But even this was not enough to meet the demands of our growing economy. Congress also found it necessary to enact special immigration legislation admitting certain groups of immigrants temporarily to meet the manpower shortages, both in agricultural and non-agricultural employment. As a result of acute labor shortages in agriculture during World War II, special programs for recruitment of seasonal and temporary workers from Western hemisphere countries were undertaken by intergovernmental agreements. Large number of aliens were involved in these programs, both during the war and after. The greatest number of Mexican farm workers legally in the United States for this purpose at any one time during World War II was 67,860 around August 1, 1944. As many as 21,000 Jamaicans and 6,000 Bahamans, as well as small numbers of Canadians and other North Americans, entered the United States under similar programs from time to time during this period. After the war and under a law enacted in 1948, this recruitment of immigrant agricultural workers was continued on a peacetime basis. During the year 1951, some 191,000 Mexican nationals were admitted temporarily for agricultural work. Even this movement of immigrants authorized by Congress is overshadowed by the illegal entry each year of over half million Mexican wetbacks. Specific agricultural activities have sometimes received explicit congressional exemption from restrictive immigration provisions. Two enactments have authorized the granting of special quota immigration visas to skilled sheepherders to be charged against future quotas. Under 1950 legislation, 250 were permitted to enter, of whom 125 were admitted during the fiscal year 1951. Another statute in 1952 authorized the admission of 500 more sheepherders. In the original 1948 Displaced Persons Act, Congress provided a 40% preference for agricultural labor, a further indication of congressional recognition of immigration as a potential source of agricultural manpower. During the war, a manpower gap also appeared and the non-agricultural occupations. A total of 135,283 Mexican nationals worked on railroads in the United States from May 1943 to August 1945. More might have been used, but the Mexican government imposed a maximum ceiling of 75,000 who could be permitted in this country at any particular time. During the fiscal year 1951, some 10,000 Canadian woodsmen were permitted entry into Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York to fill a need for manpower not otherwise available. Another example of the use of immigration to meet labor shortages can be seen in the United State Department of Labor's certifications for waiver of the contract labor provisions of the pre-1952 Immigration Act. Such waivers were based on the unavailability of similar domestic labor. In the 7-year period from 1946 to 1952 there were 11,028 certifications, in addition to Canadian woodsmen. These certifications covered a total of 448 different occupations, many of which appeared year after year in this 7-year period. In the light of this experience, under the restrictive limitations on immigration under the laws in effect since 1924, the commission finds that immigration continues to be what it has always been in our history, a source of necessary manpower. Despite the efforts to change this situation by shutting off immigration from its customary sources, the American economy still continues to demand some form of immigration to meet the manpower demands of a growing and vigorous nation. The United States needs more immigration. The United States needs more manpower. We need it to meet current labor shortages. We need it to meet the demands of an expanding civilian as well as military economy. And we need it to meet the requirements of national defense and security. Immigration is a normal and historic source of additional manpower. Manpower in an expanding economy. During the commission's hearings there was convincing testimony for the need of additional workers in almost every section of the United States, both in industry and agriculture, labor unions, industry, economists, public officials, religious leaders, job placement officials, civic workers and others. All testified that there were labor shortages ranging from temporary to permanent, from reasonably necessary to critical. Agriculture. A need for more agricultural labor was voiced from many quarters. Knox T. Hutchinson, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, testifying for the United States Department of Agriculture, told the commission that we have a great need for farm manpower. He advised the commission as follows. Quote, There are within this picture of future food and fiber requirements, both the need and absorptive capacity of American agriculture for some augmentation of the supply of labor, which a carefully liberalized policy of immigration would make available. End quote. The Department of Agriculture pointed out that although our population has been increasing, there has been a decline of almost two million farm workers in the last 40 years, from 1910 to 1950, and that a further decline of another one million and a quarter can be expected by 1975. In 1951 our farm employment was 300,000 under 1950 and 700,000 under 1949. It is estimated that by the end of 1952 we may average 250,000 fewer than in 1951. These declines in farm workers took place despite the importation of farm labor from Mexico, the British West Indies, and Canada for seasonal farm work. The Department of Agriculture warned that if the present rate and trend continue, by 1975 only 10% of our population will be farm population. The United States Department of Agriculture also informed the commission of the results of its survey of current agricultural manpower. Reports of farm manpower difficulties came from all sections of the United States. Almost one third of the states report that the greatest difficulty is in the short supply of regular year round hands. Farm shortages were especially serious in dairy, livestock, poultry, sheep branches, and some other types of farming. The Department of Agriculture indicated that permanent immigration could be a source of regular farm workers and would contribute, quote, to meeting the needs of the moderate sized commercial family farm that required year round hired labor, end quote. Through immigration, quote, an important contribution can be made to our agricultural economy, end quote, it asserted. Major farm organizations presented similar views. The National Grange declared in a statement to the commission that, quote, it has been increasingly difficult for farm operators to find competent and reliable hired men. And if the present trend away from the farm continues, the American people might have to reduce the quality and level of their present diet. This would be undesirable from the standpoint of the American people as a whole and also from the standpoint of farmers who need and can use extra labor if it is of high quality, end quote. The National Farmers Union testified that it, quote, believes that this nation could readily welcome and assimilate more than 154,000 immigrants each year, end quote. The commission noted, however, that those who urge the need for more people to meet manpower shortages have also insisted that if immigration is to help meet this need, there must be careful selection of competent farmer immigrants if they are to meet the rather specialized requirements of American agriculture. In connection with the needs of agricultural manpower, it is important to note that a basic change is taking place in our agricultural economy. In some cases due to labor shortages and other instances, because of economy of operations and greater profit yield, farming is becoming mechanized. To the degree that mechanization and technological advances are applied to farming, experience has shown the possibility of a greater agricultural output with less manpower. This factor has variable application in different areas of the country and to different kinds of farming. It seems to have reached its greatest development on the wide grain fields of the Great Plains with an increasing size of the farm and an industrialization of agriculture. In such areas and for such farming, the commission heard far less of need for more manpower. On the other hand, as has been indicated, the commission's hearings disclosed a consistent and responsible claim of labor shortages for dairy, vegetable, livestock, poultry, and other such farming. The commission found that the agricultural manpower situation was spotty. In some areas there is a surplus of agricultural labor as judged by wage rates, per capita output, and other measures of underemployment. In some areas there is a relative balance of supply and demand. But in many other areas of the country there is both a need for agricultural labor and a demand that it be satisfied through immigration. Industry. The need for manpower is more general and acute in non-agricultural occupations, as evidenced by the fact that these occupations have attracted many hundreds of thousands of workers from farming in the past few years. The commission received convincing testimony that the country is enjoying a condition of full employment with ample opportunities and needs for additional workers in many quarters. The New York State Industrial Commissioner, Edward Corsi, testified that, quote, we are suffering from a very great labor shortage in this state both on the farm and in the factory, end quote. He stated that there are 350,366 unfilled non-agricultural jobs and 4,500 unfilled farm jobs in New York State alone. The commission found that witnesses were convinced of the continued needs for more manpower in the future. The Secretary of Labor of the United States, Maurice J. Tobin testified as follows, quote. As an overall conclusion, I would say that the future holds for us a continuing fairly tight situation, so far as manpower resources are concerned, and that we may safely gauge our immigration policies accordingly, end quote. The United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Ewan Clegg, testified in a similar vein, quote. Although we cannot rule out the strong possibility of short-term fluctuations in employment conditions, we may confidently look forward to a continued uptrend in our nation's manpower needs. This sustained demand for manpower for national defense will be superimposed on our expanding normal peacetime requirements, end quote. He also pointed out that despite the continuing need for more manpower, the immediate future labor supply may well be declining. This is due to the fact that the number in the age group which would normally provide the main addition to the nation's workforce during the next decade has actually declined. In 1950 there were 2 million fewer young people in the age group 10 to 19 years than in 1940, or a decrease of 8%. As a result, the annual inflow of young workers into the labor force is currently at the lowest point in many years, and will continue low until the larger numbers of children born after 1940 reach working age. Thus the best evidence available to the Commission shows that the United States will continue to need more manpower, both in agriculture and in industry. Our expanding economy needs an expanding labor force. The needs of our industries especially have proved to be and are likely to continue to be enormous. In view of the shortages of young adults over the next few years, the American economy will have to look even more than in the recent past to other domestic sources of labor supply. The Commission's study brings it to the conviction not only that the United States needs more manpower, but that the United States needs more immigration to fill this demand. End of section 4