section 29 of whom we shall welcome. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Patrick McAfee, Merritt Island. Whom we shall welcome. Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Part 5, Chapter 16b. Disruption of Family Unity. Our nationality policy has always sought to foster the unity of families among American citizens. However, in some important respects, the law today disrupts such family unity by its action in connection with citizenship. Birth outside the United States to American citizen parents. Since 1790, the laws of the United States have provided for acquisition of United States citizenship by children born abroad to parents who were American citizens. The obvious purpose was to maintain unity of citizenship between American parents and their children. For many years, only the father could transmit United States citizenship, but since 1934 citizenship may be derived through either parent. When both parents are citizens, the statute plainly sanctions transmission of citizenship to their child at birth abroad. However, when only one parent is a citizen, the statutory conditions have become increasingly restrictive. The Act of 1952 requires actual physical presence in the United States for 10 years by the citizen parent prior to the child's birth, at least five years of which were after attaining the age of 14. The purpose of requiring prior residence of the parent to ensure identification with the United States appears sound. But the requirement of physical presence apparently would exclude a parent who had been out of the United States temporarily, even for a few days. The Act of 1952 also continues the provision of the 1940 Act, which precludes transmission of citizenship by a Native American parent under 19 years of age who has lived in the United States his entire life, but whose child happened to be born outside the United States. Thus, the statute does not confer American citizenship upon the child born outside the United States to an 18-year-old Native American soldier stationed overseas or to an 18-year-old Native American girl temporarily in an adjacent foreign country. The Commission recommends that the crucial factor in transmitting citizenship to a child born outside the United States should be the American citizen parents, previous residents, rather than continuous physical presence in the United States. The Commission recommends that a child born abroad to a Native American parent should acquire United States citizenship at birth without regard to the age of the parent or the length of time such parent has resided in the United States. Alien Spouses of Citizens. Until 1922, the naturalization laws of the United States provided for the citizenship unity of husband and wife. An alien woman who's married an American thereby became an American citizen. An American woman who married an alien lost her American citizenship. Since September 22, 1922, the citizenship status of husband and wife have been independent of each other. At the same time, our national policy has continued to take into account the need for promoting unity and family citizenship status on a voluntary basis. This has been done by granting liberal benefits under the nationality laws to the spouses of American citizens. The act of 1952 has continued this policy but has introduced undesirable limitations. For example, it increases the requirements for naturalization of spouses of American citizens, many of whom may be the brides of American servicemen. The required probationary period is lengthened to three years and additional residence requirements including one of physical presence are imposed. These added restrictions were criticized by witnesses at the Commission's hearings. The Commission recommends that the spouse of an American citizen should be eligible to become naturalized upon completing one year of residence in the United States in marital union with the citizen spouse following lawful admission for permanent residence. Alien children of citizens. The same considerations of family unity underlie the derivation of citizenship by children of naturalized citizens. It is desirable that a minor child living with his parents in the United States should acquire American citizenship with his parents. The law always has provided for such derivation of citizenship by minor children automatically upon the naturalization of their parents. In 1940 the maximum age at which such a child could derive such citizenship was lowered from 21 to 18 years and derivation occurred only when both parents or the sole parent were naturalized. The act of 1952 lowered the maximum age of derivation to 16 years. There seems to be no valid reason for such curtailment of the rights of children. The child cannot himself apply for naturalization until he reaches the age of 18 and it seems entirely proper that until then his citizenship status should be governed by that of his parents. The commission recommends that the maximum age for acquiring derivative citizenship through the naturalization of alien parents be restored to the age of 18 years. Handicaps to acquiring and maintaining citizenship. Other unreasonable provisions for the acquisition and loss of citizenship are prescribed in the act of 1952. Definition of good moral character. The requirement that naturalization applicants must show good moral character during the required probationary period of residence has been part of our naturalization laws since 1795. Until 1952 however the statute did not define good moral character but left the definition to the courts to interpret. It was ruled that the statute did not insist on moral excellence but required conduct that measured up to the prevailing standard of behavior in the community. Although opinions differed on some issues this formula was a flexible one which on the whole seemed satisfactory in operation. Although the statutory qualifications for citizenship have undergone relatively few changes for nearly 150 years the interpretations placed upon the statute by the courts have been subjected to many changes. Long-established precedents have been discarded in favor of newer concepts generally more liberal to the applicant for citizenship. During the last decade the courts increasingly have seemed to interpret the statutes in the light of moral trends as conceived by them. The result has been a gradual relaxation of earlier more rigorous standards. The act of 1952 does not undertake a full definition of good moral character but the statute attempts to describe certain patterns of conduct that are not to be regarded as fulfilling the requirement of good moral character. In each instance the new law usually attempts to negate a specific court decision. Thus for example the statute provides that a person who has committed adultery during the prescribed period of good behavior cannot establish good moral character. In testimony before the commission the immigration and naturalization service urged amendment of this provision for the reason that the variations among different states in defining adultery would make this provision difficult to administer. Experience in administration has revealed matrimonial relationships of long stability and respectability entered into in complete good faith which are irregular only because of some technical defect. The declaration by law that instant participants affected are not persons of good moral character may be contrary to the facts. This is merely one illustration of the results of the narrow definition of moral character in the act of 1952. The commission recommends that the statute continue to require applicants for naturalization to establish good moral character without defining that term. The interpretation of this requirement should be left to the courts as it was before the act of 1952. Requirement of Continuous Residence. In requiring specified periods of continuous residence by applicants for naturalization the statute always has taken into account the needs of aliens whose homes were in the United States but who were necessarily absent from time to time. The act of 1952 made some improvements in the provisions affecting such aliens but in other respects the statutory benefits seem unnecessarily curtailed. The principal objection seems to be to the requirement for periods of fiscal presence in the United States aggregating at least two and one-half years as a prerequisite to eligibility for citizenship. Representatives of Coca-Cola Export Corporation and International General Electric have pointed out to the commission that this limitation reduces the value of the statute. In their overseas operations American institutions of research and business concerns frequently employ aliens who reside in the United States. It is to the advantage of such organizations to the aliens and to the government of the United States to permit such aliens to become citizens. But the nature of their employment often requires such aliens to remain away from the United States for long periods of time. The restrictive provisions of the act of 1952 in effect would deny them the benefits of American citizenship. The commission recommends that the requirement of the act of 1952 for continuous physical presence be eliminated in the cases of aliens necessarily absent from the United States in the employment of an American research or business organization. Naturalization of aliens with military service. For many years the naturalization laws awarded citizenship benefits to aliens who served in the armed forces of the United States. The benefits varied for different periods of service and the statutes were confused and obscure. The act of 1952 introduced conditions of increased severity. Among these are the new requirements that the veteran must prove lawful admission to the United States for permanent residence and five years good moral character. A separate section benefits veterans of World War One and World War Two. But carries forward an earlier requirement that they must have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence if they were not enlisted or inducted in the United States. No special benefits have as yet been extended to the veterans of the conflict in Korea. The commission recommends that the following group of alien veterans be permitted to become American citizens without being subjected to any additional requirements other than current proof of good moral character and attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. One, aliens who have served honorably for three years in the armed forces of the United States at any time or two, aliens who served honorably in the armed forces of the United States during World War One or World War Two or three, aliens who have served honorably in the armed forces of the United States in the military operations in Korea. Denaturalization for concealment or misrepresentation. The naturalization act of 1906 provided that naturalization could be revoked on the ground that it was fraudulently or illegally procured. These grounds for revocation were retained in the law until 1952. In the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which preceded the act of 1952, it was stated that there was confusion in the court decisions on what constituted fraud, and the committee therefore recommended that the statute authorize revocation for concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. That formula was adopted in the act of 1952. Fraud is a term found in many statutes. The courts have ruled that a naturalization is illegally procured when one of the essential statutory requirements for naturalization is lacking. The administration of the prior law seems to have presented no real difficulty, and there was no suggestion from any administrative source that the statute's language needed revision. Moreover, for 46 years the Department of Justice had followed a policy of not instituting denaturalization proceedings where the violations were minor and where it would not be to the interest of the United States to revoke citizenship. Consequently, denaturalization for fraud or illegality has been sought in comparatively few cases in recent years. In 1950 and 1951, a total of only 42 naturalizations were canceled for fraud or illegality. The following table from the annual report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for 1951 lists the causes for such revocations during that year. Table 15, naturalizations revoked during 1951 for fraud or illegality. Failed to meet residence requirements, false allegations. Five, bad moral character, fraud involved. One, misrepresentations and concealments relating to marital and family status. Three, bad moral character, no fraud involved. Two, dishonorable discharge following naturalization based on military service during World War II. Two, unwilling to bear arms, oath taken with mental reservation. One, naturalization fraudulently or illegally procured. Two, other grounds. Three, instead of eliminating supposed confusion, the requirements of the Act of 1952 are likely to result in confusion. In place of a definite widely understood formula, it substitutes a new one, concealment of a material fact and willful misrepresentation, which is bound to engender uncertainty and provoke litigation. In eliminating illegality as a ground for denaturalization, the new Act may make it possible for aliens who actually were subversives or criminals at the time of their naturalization to escape denaturalization on a claim that they were not asked about their subversive or criminal activities and consequently made no misrepresentation. The Commission recommends that the previous grounds for denaturalization be restored so that naturalization obtained by fraud or illegality be subject to cancellation. Absence of statute of limitations. The Act of 1952, like previous naturalization laws, provides no statute of limitations restricting the time during which action may be brought to revoke naturalization. There have been instances in which denaturalization suits have been brought 20 or 30 years after the granting of naturalization. Elsewhere, Chapter 13, the Commission recommends that a 10-year statute of limitations be established for the commencement of deportation proceedings against aliens who enter the United States illegally. The same considerations are controlling in relation to denaturalization. A person who obtains citizenship wrongfully should be subject to revocation of his citizenship. The possibility that naturalization may be revoked at any time is a threat against the stability of status of all naturalized citizens. Obviously too, the lapse of time may cause significant changes in circumstances as a result of which the rights of innocent third persons may become involved. The Commission recommends that no proceedings for denaturalization be instituted after the expiration of 10 years following the date of naturalization. Loss of derivative rights. The naturalization of an alien may result in the automatic vesting of citizenship rights in such aliens, spouse, and children. The revocation of the naturalization of the person through whom such citizenship was derived may have a decisive effect on their claim to derivative citizenship. The law in effect prior to 1940 made no mention of the effect of a denaturalization proceeding upon derivative rights. However, the courts generally ruled that if the basic right was found to have been improperly obtained, the derivative rights likewise were expunged, regardless of the number of years during which the derivative citizen had innocently continued to exercise the rights of American citizenship. The stringency of this rule was modified by the Nationality Act of 1940, which provided that the citizenship of the derivative citizen was extinguished only upon a denaturalization for actual fraud and that the derivative rights were not affected when the naturalization was revoked for illegality or presumptive fraud. The Act of 1952 modified the rule of the 1940 Act. Hereafter, derivative rights will fall whenever naturalization is canceled on the ground that it was procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. When citizenship is canceled for presumptive fraud, all derivative rights will be extinguished, except where the derivative citizen is residing in the United States at the time the naturalization was revoked. No public interest seems to be served by withdrawing citizenship of a derivative citizen where he himself is free from fault. The rule of the 1940 Act was sound and workable and sought to avoid excessive disturbance of the status of persons whose American citizenship had become vested and often had endured for many years. The Commission recommends that the rule of the law prior to the Act of 1952 be restored and that derivative rights of citizenship shall be extinguished only when the naturalization from which they are derived is revoked on the ground of actual fraud. Naturalization procedures. Although the witnesses at the Commission's hearings did not refer as often to problems of naturalization as to immigration, there was evidence of a belief that the last decade marked a steady improvement in the procedures of naturalization cases in the cooperation maintained with schools and social agencies aiding the applicant for naturalization and in the attitude of the administrative officers in dealing with naturalization applicants. Satisfaction has been expressed with the efforts of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the promotion of education and training for American citizenship and for encouraging aliens who seek to qualify for naturalization. However, the procedure for naturalization written into law still seems open to objection. Procedure in court. Since 1926 provision has been made by statute for appointment of naturalization examiners known as designated examiners to conduct preliminary examinations of naturalization applications and to make formal recommendations to the naturalization courts. Originally such designations were made by the courts themselves. Since 1940 the designations have been made by the naturalization officials. The designated examiner system proved a great convenience to the courts the applicants and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Where the examiner's recommendation is favorable the applicant is usually admitted to citizenship without any further inquiry. In questionable cases or in cases where the examiner's recommendation is adverse the facts are fully presented to the court. In 1943 the Immigration and Naturalization Service instituted centralized review of the recommendations of the designated naturalization examiners. The purpose was to produce uniformity and improvement in such recommendations. The Act of 1952 continues a requirement introduced by the Internal Security Act of 1950 that where the Attorney General's recommendation to the court disagreed with that of the designated examiner both recommendations should be submitted to the court. Besting such authority in the examiner in opposition to the views of his department head results in conflicting recommendations to the court and in unsound administration. The Commission recommends that the only recommendation on naturalization made to the court should be the one approved by the head of the agency administering the naturalization law or by an officer designated to make recommendations on his behalf. Neighborhood investigation. Another new provision introduced in the Internal Security Act of 1950 and continued in the Act of 1952 requires a personal investigation of each naturalization applicant in the neighborhood of his residence and employment during the past five years. The Attorney General may waive such investigation in any case or class of cases. In the past such investigations have been conducted in particular cases when preliminary examination has indicated the need for further inquiry. The new requirement that there be such investigation in every case places a tremendous burden on naturalization officials. Moreover, experience has demonstrated that such investigations achieve little or no results to justify the effort and cost and cause unnecessary delays in considering the naturalization petition. The Commission recommends the elimination of the requirement that a neighborhood investigation be conducted as a matter of routine in every naturalization case. The naturalization officers should be authorized to conduct such investigations whenever they deem them necessary on the basis of information developed in individual cases. Judicial proceedings to establish citizenship. The immigration laws of the United States deal only with aliens and a person who establishes that he is a citizen of the United States is removed from their sphere of operation. But the claim to American citizenship by an applicant for entry into the United States does not preclude examination by immigration officers in conducting what the Supreme Court called quote the preliminary sifting process in quote to determine whether a citizenship claim is properly substantiated upon an adverse determination the claimant is barred from the United States. The decision of the immigration officers is subject only to the same limited court review as to legality and fairness of the hearing that prevails in regard to other immigration determinations. Persons whose claim to American citizenship were rejected in deportation proceedings were held entitled to an independent judicial determination of their citizenship status. The Nationality Act of 1940 established a new right to bring an action for a declaratory judgment determining a claim to American citizenship. It provided that a person outside the United States whose application for a passport was rejected could obtain a certificate of identity upon showing that he had a bona fide claim which would enable him to come to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting his action for a declaratory judgment. He also was given a right to appeal to the Secretary of State if he were refused a certificate of identity C Chapter 11. The passport division of the Department of State has supplied the information that since 1945 and through September 1952 a total of 1346 suits for such declaratory judgment were instituted against the Secretary of State. Of these 855 claimants came from China, generally involving claims to citizenship derived through American parents and 491 from other countries preponderantly involving questions of whether American citizens had lost United States citizenship through expatriation. The administrative authorities have stated that many persons were using the declaratory judgment device as a means of improperly obtaining entry into the United States. However, in such proceedings courts have often considered only the evidence of the claimant and not the countervailing evidence compiled by administrative officers both here and abroad. The Act of 1952 made substantial revisions in the declaratory judgment procedure in the Nationality Act of 1940. Persons who are within the United States may still maintain an action for a judgment declaring them to be nationals of the United States except that such suits may not be maintained when the citizenship claim previously was adjudicated in an exclusion proceeding. Persons whose claim to American citizenship is denied by an agency of the United States government but who are not within the United States may apply for a certificate of identity to come to the United States to attempt to establish their claim. Such a certificate of identity may be issued upon a finding that the application is made in good faith and is made on a substantial basis. The applicant is entitled to an appeal to the Secretary of State from a denial of application for a certificate of identity. However, a certificate of identity may be granted only to a person who previously has been physically present in the United States or to a person under 16 years of age who was born abroad to a United States citizen parent. A person who receives a certificate of identity may proceed to the United States and apply for admission at a point of entry where his status is determined by immigration officers. If such officers rule against his claim to American citizenship he is entitled to judicial review only in habeas corpus proceedings and not through any other form of action. The fact that some claimants have abused their privileges does not seem to warrant a blanket deprivation of protection to an American citizen who happens to be outside the United States. If there are abuses such abuses should be corrected. No American citizen should be deprived of his day in court to support his claim against unjustified challenge. The limitations of the 1952 Act will shut off from many American citizens the opportunity to invoke the aid of the courts in resisting erroneous denials of their rights of citizenship. The Commission believes that there should be opportunity for a full court review on issues of United States citizenship even where the citizenship claim is made by a person seeking entry to the United States. On such review the court should consider the evidence available to the administrative officers. End of section 29 recording by Patrick McAfee Merritt Island. Section 30 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 Andy Glover whom we shall welcome report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization part 5 chapter 17 additional matters for consideration. The brief time at the Commission's disposal made it impossible to give detailed study to many matters brought to its attention during the course of the hearings and subsequently in oral or written communications. The Commission's primary concern was with broad questions of policy affecting the more important phases of immigration and naturalization. The Commission has made an effort to discuss such other problems as in its judgment warranted treatment in this report. It has collected a wealth of information most of which is incorporated in the printed record of its hearings. If the Commission's recommendations should be favorably received the next step will be the preparation of a bill to carry them into effect. The draftsmen must then assume the task of designing the legislative details of the recommendations and of determining what, if anything, should be done about the matters which the Commission was unable to reach. The Commission hopes that the President or the appropriate committees of Congress or perhaps by a joint arrangement will form a group to draft a bill for early consideration by Congress. The Commission suggests that additional consideration should be given among others to the following matters. The role of the voluntary agencies. The great American voluntary agencies have played an important and increasing role in immigration matters. Non-governmental organizations representing the principal faiths in the United States, nationality groups, social service, and civic agencies and others are taking part in the process of identifying and selecting aliens overseas for immigration to the United States and obtaining sponsorships and resettlement opportunities for them in the United States. Their activities touch upon immigration at all stages and involve close cooperation with consular officers overseas. Immigration and customs officials at the ports of entry and public and private agencies seeking to aid the effective integration of the new American to his new life. During the past several decades the American voluntary agencies have been particularly concerned with the problems caused by war. The conclusion of World War II left a vast homeless mass of refugees and displaced persons in Europe. The United States made an important contribution to the solution of this unfinished business of World War II by helping to form the international refugee organization and by accepting a share of such refugees and displaced persons under the Displaced Persons Act. The American voluntary agencies took an active part in providing supplementary food and clothing and other necessities of life for refugees, displaced persons, expellees, escapies, and other victims of the war and post-war upheavals. From this their interests expanded to the attempt to help with a permanent solution of the problem both in integration of such persons into the local economies of the countries where they resided and by immigration elsewhere for a new start in life. Perhaps the greatest flowering of this new and important activity took place in the Displaced Persons Program. In its final report the DP story the Displaced Persons Commission says the American voluntary agencies played an indispensable part in the success of the DP program. Without their continuous and active participation the program would never have been able to succeed. The voluntary agencies were one of the main ways in which recent immigration programs to the United States became instruments of positive, constructive, and humanitarian national policy. In the kind of an immigration policy envisaged by the Commission the American voluntary agencies must continue to play an increasing role. The precise form of the relationship between the government in administering the immigration law and the American voluntary agencies in providing supplementary and complementary services needs to be developed more fully. The part to be played by the voluntary agencies in connection with overseas selection of prospective immigrants, their transportation, reception, distribution, and resettlement, and the subsequent responsibility within the United States are all important factors for determination. Until some of the issues raised by the Commission's recommendations are resolved it may not be fruitful to attempt a final determination of these other issues. However the Commission believes that they are of utmost importance and should be reached as soon as possible. The Commission suggests that in the determination of such questions the fundamental objective should be the most effective joint utilization of public and private efforts and resources in developing and administering our immigration laws. Investigations. The suggestion has been made to the Commission that the investigating responsibilities of the immigration and naturalization service, particularly in so far as they deal with subversive activities, be transferred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As of October 15, 1952 the Immigration and Naturalization Service had an authorized force of 7,204 of whom 907 were assigned to investigations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has responsibility for the protection of the international security of the United States, except where the entry or deportation of aliens is involved, in which case the Immigration and Naturalization Service has the responsibility. The advisability of placing all such investigative functions in one agency has been discussed frequently. There should be a review of the question of responsibility for immigration investigations, especially in view of the Commission's proposal for a Consolidated Immigration Agency. Migrant Labor. One of the most troublesome problems arising out of the administration of the immigration laws concerns the hundreds of thousands of wetbacks who illegally cross the border from Mexico each year. Because of the recent survey by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor, this problem was not studied by the Commission, although some of the witnesses at the Commission's hearings addressed themselves to this question and urged that adequate appropriations be provided by Congress to ensure maximum effectiveness in administering the immigration laws. Procedural Problems. Witnesses during the Commission's hearings called attention to particular procedures or requirements, which would seem to be worthy of further study. A few examples are one, the requirement that the Immigration and Naturalization Service establish a centralized list of all aliens admitted to the United States. The Attorney General of the United States testified that this requirement would place a heavy burden on enforcement officials. Two, the apparent error pointed out in the testimony of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, by which the act of 1952 in effect eliminates the proceedings for registry of lawful entry of aliens who entered the United States prior to July 1st 1924, although the new act continues to provide for such proceedings. This occurred through the enactment of the provision of the Act of 1952, which retroactively made all such aliens subject to deportation, and thus automatically disqualified them from the benefits provided by the registry statute. This error should be corrected. Three, the procedure for selecting persons with special skills in granting preferred status under the established quotas. It was said that this procedure is dilatory and ineffective, and may defeat the purpose for which it is established. The regulations issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service confirm the prediction of that service to the Commission that this provision would be troublesome and difficult. In this connection, as elsewhere indicated, Chapter 12, the Commission suggests that study be given to the proposals to restore the contract labor prohibition eliminated by the Act of 1952. Four, the provision of the law for rescission without a hearing of suspension of deportation previously granted upon a finding that it was improperly granted. Five, the adequacy of notice by publication in proceedings to revoke naturalization or to cancel citizenship documents. Six, the problem of travel documents. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called attention to the difficulties encountered by stateless refugees or displaced persons who are unable to obtain official travel documents. It was suggested that the United States issue a travel document to such lawfully resident aliens. Legal problems. Certain difficulties may involve constitutional issues. One, the Attorney General of the United States called attention to the reenactment in the Act of 1952 of a criminal provision relating to transporting into or harboring within the United States of certain aliens, which the United States District Court had declared void for vagueness. He urged that this provision be clarified. Two, the failure to grant a hearing when a deportable alien claims he will be subjected to physical persecution in the country to which he was being deported. It was said that the failure to grant a formal hearing is unfair. Three, the authorization for conducting a deportation hearing in the absence of the alien, if it is found that he unreasonably fails or refuses to attend or remain in attendance at the hearing. Business Problems. Various representatives of important business enterprises criticized provisions of the Act of 1952 as being contrary to national commercial objectives in the interest of the United States. One, representatives of maritime and airlines brought to the Commission's attention various alleged inequities of the immigration laws in imposing on them obligations for detention and deportation costs, and in subjecting them to penalties for violations of the immigration laws by their passengers. They also called attention to other provisions which they regard as being detrimental to the proper flow of international trade and commerce. Two, shipping representatives protested the procedure for individual examination of alien semen under the new law. It was said that this would create additional financial burdens and would unnecessarily hamper maritime operations. The governments of Great Britain and France formally objected to the Department of State that this requirement would cause serious delay in the operation of ocean liners. Great expense and deterioration of service to passengers. Three, a new requirement in the 1952 Act apparently requires a ten dollar fee for each worker who is permitted to enter for temporary work. The Immigration and Naturalization Service pointed out to the Commission that this provision would put a heavy and apparently unintended burden upon employers who import thousands of temporary seasonal workers for timber cutting, fruit, and vegetable harvesting, processing, and canning. End of section 30. Section 31 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 Larry Wilson. Whom we shall welcome report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Conclusions and Recommendations. Chapter 18. Conclusions. The Immigration and Nationality Law embodies policies and principles that are unwise and injurious to the nation. It rests upon an attitude of hostility and distrust against all aliens. It applies discriminations against human beings on account of national origin, race, creed, and color. It ignores the needs of the United States in domestic affairs and foreign policies. It contains unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions and penalties against individuals. It is badly drafted, confusing, and in some respects unworkable. It should be reconsidered and revised from beginning to end. Recommendations. Throughout this report are various recommendations appearing in the chapters in which particular subjects are discussed. The more important ones are briefly restated here, without reference to the order in which they appear elsewhere. The Quota System. 1. The national origin's quota system should be abolished. 2. There should be a unified quota system which would allocate visas without regard to national origin, race, creed, or color. 3. The maximum annual quota immigration should be one-sixth of one percent of the population of the United States as determined by the most recent census. Under the 1950 census, quota immigration would be open to 251,162 immigrants annually, instead of the 154,657 now authorized. All immigration and naturalization functions now in the Department of State and the Department of Justice should be consolidated into a new agency to be headed by a Commission on Immigration and Naturalization whose members should be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 5. The maximum annual quota visas should be distributed as determined by the proposed Commission on Immigration and Naturalization on the basis of the following five categories. The right of asylum, reunion of families, needs in the United States, special needs in the free world, general immigration. 6. For the next three years within the maximum annual quota, there should be a statutory priority implementing the right of asylum for the admission annually of 100,000 refugees, expellees, escapees, and remaining displaced persons. 7. The allocation of visas within the maximum annual quota should be determined once every three years by the proposed Commission on Immigration and Naturalization subject to review by the President and the Congress. Fair hearing and procedure. 8. Enforcement functions should be exercised under the Commission's supervision and control by an administrator. Quasi-judicial functions should be exercised under the Commission's supervision by a statutory Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals. 9. The same officials should not be permitted to exercise both enforcement and judicial functions. Aliens should be accorded a fair hearing and procedure in exclusion and deportation cases. Hearings in deportation cases should conform with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Hearing officers should be responsible only to the proposed Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals, which should have authority to exercise final administrative review of their decisions, subject to further review in limited cases by the Commission. Aliens should have the right of administrative review before the Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals from denials of visas, and have a clearly defined method of seeking court review of orders of deportation. 10. The conditions for admission of aliens into the United States should bear a reasonable relationship to the national welfare and security. Be definite in their meaning and application. Include discretionary authority to waive specified grounds of inadmissibility in meritorious cases. Provide for exclusions without hearing for reasons of security only upon direction of the Board of Immigration and Visa Appeals, and not be based on the so-called criminal judgments of totalitarian states. 11. The grounds for deportation of aliens already in the United States should bear a reasonable relationship to the national welfare and security. Not be technical or excessive. Not be retroactive so as to penalize aliens for acts which were not prohibited when committed, and not require the deportation of aliens who entered the country at an early age, or those who have been residents for such a long period as to become the responsibility of the United States. 12. In connection with the deportation of aliens, there should be discretionary authority to allow them to depart voluntarily instead of deportation. Adjust their status within the United States if they are currently qualified to re-enter. Suspend deportation under reasonable conditions, and adjust the status of bona fide official defectors from totalitarianism. 13. A resident alien who is not otherwise deportable should not by reason of a brief absence from the United States be subject to exclusion or deportation. 14. Unless proceedings for deportation and denaturalization are brought within 10 years, they should be barred. 15. Arrangements should be made to expedite the processing of visas for temporary visitors, including leaders in art, scientific, and business fields. And the law should apply to such non-emergent aliens only such restrictions as are directly concerned with the health, safety, and security of the United States. 16. The security of the United States should be protected by continuing to bar the entry of spies and saboteurs. Aliens who are present members or affiliates of any totalitarian party, including Communists, Nazis, and Fascists, should be denied admission into the United States except where their membership is involuntary, or affiliation is not knowingly or willingly to further the aims and principles of such parties. 17. They should be deported except where they entered the United States at an early age, or have been residents for such a long period of time as to have become the responsibility of the United States. Aliens who are former members or affiliates of any totalitarian party may be admitted provided, they have repudiated, and are now opposed to such totalitarian ideologies, and the responsible administrative officers make a finding that the admission of such aliens would not be contrary to the public interest. They should be deported unless they have repudiated such doctrines for at least five years. 17. The law should not discriminate against naturalized citizens, but should place them in the same status as native-born citizens except where citizenship was procured by fraud or illegality. The law should minimize or remove restrictions which create statelessness, disrupt family unity, or impose unreasonable conditions or procedures upon the acquisition or retention of citizenship. End of Section 31 Section 32 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 Larry Wilson Whom We Shall Welcome Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization Appendix 1 and 2 Additional Views of Adrian S. Fisher Order Creating the Commission Additional Views of Adrian S. Fisher I concur wholeheartedly in the policy recommendations in the report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. I believe that their prompt adoption would be in the interest of the United States, both in the conduct of its foreign relations and in the continued vigorous growth and development of its economy and its society. However, in only one small aspect of the report, that dealing with the administrative arrangements for the issuance of visas overseas, I cannot see eye to eye with my colleagues. The report proposes to set up, in effect, another separate foreign service by authorizing the Administrator of Immigration and Naturalization to set up visa offices overseas as part of the Unified Program. In view of the importance which the report places on the foreign policy of the United States, a view in which I wholly concur, I cannot see what is to be gained by separating the administration of the proposed program from the agency which is charged with the administration of the foreign policy of the United States. It may well be that the Department of State is subject to legitimate criticism in its activities under the present system for not having paid enough attention to the foreign policy aspects of the administration of the visa issue in function. But in my judgment, the remedy for that defect is not to be found in divorcing it entirely from this function. It may well be true that in its administration of the visa function overseas the Department of State has relied excessively upon experts, that is, persons who spend a large proportion of their time doing nothing but visa work. If the Department, however, has erred in this respect, this tendency should be corrected, not accentuated, and the participation in the visa function of officers who have an overall responsibility for the conduct of foreign relations should be encouraged, not made impossible. The same can be said with reference to the problem of placing an additional group of United States officials in foreign countries to represent the United States of America. I am aware that my colleagues are led to their concept of administration by the view that a visa once issued should be final and not subject to review at the port of entry except for identity, physical condition, and security status. From this they deduce the maxim of no responsibility without authority, the conclusion that the visa issue in function must in turn be under the proposed commission. I wholly agree that a visa once issued should be final and not subject to review at the port of entry except for identity, physical condition, and security status. I wholly agree also that there should be an independent commission on immigration and naturalization. I am completely in accord with the recommendation that there should be a formal procedure for review of consular decisions with respect to visas. However, I do not agree that these desirable ends require that persons other than consular officers should issue the visas. I am reinforced in this view by the fact that in over 200 foreign service posts there is not an adequate workload of visa cases to justify the establishment of a separate visa office. By examination of the statistics show that almost 50% of all visas are issued in posts of this kind. The proposed solution, that is to have the consul in effect act as a hearing officer but without any power of decision, even in a clear case, does not seem to me to be a satisfactory one. Certainly it does not seem to be satisfactory to have two separate systems, one disposing of 53% of the visas and the other disposing of 47%. I believe the proposed commission should avail itself of the very real advantages of using the foreign service to accomplish its requirements abroad, as do some 45 United States government agencies at the present time. The proposed commission would thus have a widespread flexible operating service with the particular advantage of utilizing its broad experience in foreign affairs. This experience will be invaluable in evaluating the intent of the alien and his social, economic and political background and in estimating the effect of the alien's admission to the United States upon our foreign relations and domestic security and development. The proposed commission would have the same responsibility and authority, the same freedom and the issuance of subjective guidance and direction as it would enjoy with its own employees. It could now participate with other government agencies under procedures now established under the Foreign Service Act of 1946 in the selection, training, assignment and promotion of foreign service personnel and could participate in the day-to-day administration of the service by the Department of State to the extent necessary to meet its requirements. Except for this single administrative detail, I am in complete accord with the commission's conclusions and recommendations. Order creating the commission. Executive order 10392. Establishing the president's commission on immigration and naturalization. By virtue of the authority vested in me as president of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows. Section 1. There is hereby established in the executive office of the president the commission to be known as the president's commission on immigration and naturalization, which shall be composed of a chairman, a vice chairman and five other members, all of whom shall be designated by the president. Section 2. The commission is authorized and directed to make a survey and evaluation of the immigration and naturalization policies of the United States, and shall make recommendations to the president for such legislative, administrative or other action as in its opinion may be desirable in the interests of the economy, security and responsibilities of this country. The commission shall give particular consideration to, a. the requirements and administration of our immigration laws with respect to the admission, naturalization and denaturalization of aliens and their exclusion and deportation, b. the admission of immigrants into this country in the light of our present and prospective economic and social conditions and of other pertinent considerations, and c. the effect of our immigration laws and their administration, including the national origin quota system, on the conduct of 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. Section 3. In performing its functions under this order, the commission may prescribe such rules of procedure and may hold such public hearings and hear such witnesses as it may deem appropriate. Section 4. All executive departments and agencies of the federal government are authorized and directed to co-operate with the commission in its work and to furnish the commission such assistance, not inconsistent with law, as it may require in the performance of its functions. Section 5. The expenditures of the commission shall be paid out of an allotment made by the president from the appropriation-entitled Emergency Fund for the President, National Defense. Entitled one of the Independent Office's Appropriation Act 1953, Public Law 455, 82nd Congress, approved July 5, 1952. Such payment shall be made without regard to the provisions of a. Section 3681 of the revised statutes, 31 U.S.C. 672, b. Section 9 of the Act March 4, 1909, 35 Statute 1027, 31 U.S.C. 673, and c. Such other laws as the president may hear after specify. The members of the commission shall receive such compensation and expense allowances, payable out of the said allotment, as the president shall hear after fix, except that no compensation shall be so fixed with respect to any persons while receiving other compensation from the United States. Section 6. The commission shall make a final written report to the president not later than January 1, 1953, including its recommendations for legislative, administrative, or other action. The commission may also make such earlier reports to the president as it may deem appropriate. The commission shall cease to exist 30 days after rendition of its final report to the president. Harry S. Truman, the White House, September 4, 1952. Statement by the President I have today established a special commission on immigration and naturalization to study and evaluate the immigration and naturalization policies of the United States. Our immigration and naturalization policies are of major importance to our own security and to the defense of the free world. Immediately after the war ended, we recognized the plight of the displaced persons. We acted to cooperate with other nations and to admit a share of these victims of war and tyranny into our own country. The Displaced Person Program has now been successfully concluded, but the free world faces equally grave and equally heart-rending problems in the continual stream of refugees and escapees from the iron curtain countries into Western Europe. These peoples add to the pressures of overpopulation in certain countries. Overseas migration from Europe has been damned up by years of war and international economic disorder. While we have joined with other nations to meet such problems as these, our own immigration laws based on conditions and assumptions that have long ceased to exist present serious obstacles in reaching a satisfactory solution. Humanitarian considerations as well as the national interests require that we reassess our immigration policies in the light of these facts. The United States must remain true to its great traditions and have an immigration policy that strengthens our nation at home and furthers our world leadership. The 82nd Congress devoted much time and effort to this problem, but the bill which it passed was so defective in many important provisions that I could not give my approval. In my veto message I expressed the hope that the Congress would agree to a careful re-examination of the entire matter. I suggested that the Congress create a representative commission of outstanding Americans to make a study of the basic assumptions of our immigration policy, the quota system, and all that goes into it, the effect of our immigration and nationality laws, and the ways in which they can be brought into line with our national ideals and our foreign policy. The Congress did not act upon these suggestions. I do not believe that the matter should remain where the Congress left it. The problems of immigration policy grow more pressing, and the inequities fostered by the new law require careful examination. I am therefore appointing this commission in the belief that its recommendations will enable the next Congress to consider the subject promptly and intelligently. The commission will have the benefit of much information already drawn together in the field of immigration, including that developed by the committees of Congress in their long study of the problem. It should therefore be in a position to complete its study before the reconvening of the next Congress. I have directed the commission to give particular consideration to, a, the requirements and administration of our immigration laws with respect to admission, naturalization, and denaturalization of aliens and their exclusion and deportation, b, the admission of immigrants into this country in the light of our present and prospective economic and social conditions and of other pertinent considerations, and c, the effect of our immigration laws in their administration, including the National Origin quota system, on the conduct of 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. The members of the commission are as follows. Philip B. Perlman of Maryland, Chairman, formerly Solicitor General of the United States, formerly City Solicitor of Baltimore, Secretary of the State of Maryland, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland. Earl G. Harrison of Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman, Attorney, formerly United States Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, and formerly Dean of the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania. Monsignor John O'Grady of Washington, D.C., Secretary, National Conference of Catholic Charities. Reverend Thaddeus F. Gilickson of Minnesota, President, Lutheran Theological Seminary of St. Paul, Minnesota, Chairman, Minnesota State Displaced Persons Commission. Clarence E. Pickett of Pennsylvania, Honorary Secretary, American Friends Service Committee. Adrien S. Fisher of Tennessee, Legal Advisor to State Department, formerly General Counsel of Atomic Energy Commission, and Solicitor of the Department of Commerce. Thomas G. Fenucane of Maryland, Chairman, Board of Immigration Appeals, Department of Justice. In the section 32. Section 33 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 Larry Wilson. Whom We Shall Welcome. Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Appendix 3. The President's Veto Message. Message from the President of the United States. Returning without approval the bill HR 5678 to revise the laws relating to immigration and nationality and for other purposes. June 25, 1952. Ordered to be printed. To the House of Representatives. I return herewith without my approval HR 5678, the Proposed Immigration and Nationality Act. In outlining my objections to this bill, I want to make it clear that it contains certain provisions that meet with my approval. This is a long and complex piece of legislation. It has 164 separate sections, some with more than 40 subdivisions. It presents a difficult problem of weighing the good against the bad and arriving at a judgment on the whole. HR 5678 is an omnibus bill which would revise and codify all of our laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality. A general revision and modernization of these laws unquestionably is needed and long overdue, particularly with respect to immigration. But this bill would not provide us with an immigration policy adequate for the present world situation. Indeed, the bill taking all its provisions together would be a step backward and not a step forward. In view of the crying need for reform in the field of immigration, I deeply regret that I am unable to approve HR 5678. In recent years our immigration policy has become a matter of major national concern. Long-dormant questions about the effect of our immigration laws now assume first-rate importance. What we do in the field of immigration and naturalization is vital to the continued growth and internal development of the United States, to the economic and social strength of our country, which is the core of the defense of the free world. Our immigration policy is equally, if not more important to the conduct of our foreign relations and to our responsibilities of moral leadership in the struggle for world peace. In one respect this bill recognizes the great international significance of our immigration and naturalization policy and takes a step to improve existing laws. All racial bars to naturalization would be removed and at least some minimum immigration quota would be afforded to each of the free nations of Asia. I have long urged that racial or national barriers to naturalization be abolished. This was one of the recommendations of my civil rights message to Congress on February 2nd, 1948. On February 19, 1951 the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to carry it out. And now this most desirable provision comes before me embedded in a massive legislation which would perpetuate injustices of long-standing against many other nations of the world, hamper the efforts we are making to rally the men of the East and West alike to the cause of freedom and intensify the repressive and inhumane aspects of our immigration procedures. The price is too high and in good conscience I cannot agree to pay it. I want all our residents of Japanese ancestry and all our friends throughout the Far East to understand this point clearly. I cannot take the step I would like to take and strike down the bars that prejudice has erected against them without at the same time establishing new discriminations against the peoples of Asia and approving harsh and repressive measures directed at all who seek a new life within our boundaries. I am sure that with a little more time and a little more discussion in this country the public conscience and the good sense of the American people will assert themselves and we shall be in a position to enact an immigration and naturalization policy that will be fair to all. In addition to removing racial bars to naturalization the bill would permit American women citizens to bring their alien husbands to this country as non-quarter immigrants and enable alien husbands of resident women aliens to come in under the quota in a preferred status. These provisions will be a step toward preserving the integrity of the family under our immigration laws and are clearly desirable. The bill would also relieve transportation companies of some of the unjustified burdens and penalties now imposed upon them. In particular it would put an end to the archaic requirement that carriers pay the expenses of aliens detained at the port of entry even though such aliens have arrived with proper travel documents. But these few improvements are heavily outweighed by other provisions of the bill which retain existing defects in our laws and add many undesirable new features. The bill would continue practically without change the National Origins quota system which was enacted into law in 1924 and put into effect in 1929. This quota system always based upon assumptions that variance with our American ideals is long since out of date and more than ever unrealistic in the face of present world conditions. This system hinders us in dealing with current immigration problems and is a constant handicap in the conduct of our foreign relations. As I stated in my message to Congress on March 24, 1952 on the need for an emergency program of immigration from Europe. Our present quota system is not only inadequate to meet present emergency needs it is also an obstacle to the development of an enlightened and satisfactory immigration policy for the long-run future. The inadequacy of the present quota system has been demonstrated since the end of the war when we were compelled to resort to emergency legislation to admit displaced persons. If the quota system remains unchanged we shall be compelled to resort to similar emergency legislation again in order to admit any substantial portion of the refugees from communism or the victims of overcrowding in Europe. With the idea of quotas in general there is no quarrel. Some numerical limitation must be set so that immigration will be within our capacity to absorb. But the overall limitation of numbers imposed by the National Origins quota system is too small for our needs today. And the country by country limitations create a pattern that is insulting to a large number of our finest citizens irritating to our allies abroad and foreign to our purposes and ideals. The overall quota limitation under the law of 1924 restricted annual immigration to approximately 150,000. This was about one seventh of one percent of our total population in 1920. Taking into account the growth in population since 1920 the law now allows but one tenth of one percent of our total population. And since the largest national quotas are only partly used the number actually coming in has been in the neighborhood of one fifteenth of one percent. This is far less than we must have in the years ahead to keep up with the growing needs of our nation for manpower and to maintain the strength and vigor of our economy. The greatest vice in the present quota system however is that it discriminates deliberately and intentionally against many of the peoples of the world. The purpose behind it is to cut down and virtually eliminate immigration to this country from southern and eastern Europe. A theory was invented to rationalize this objective. The theory was that in order to be readily assumable European immigrants should be admitted in proportion to the numbers of persons of their respective national stocks already here as shown by the census of 1920. Since Americans of English, Irish, and German descent were most numerous immigrants of those three nationalities got the lion's share more than two-thirds of the total quota. The remaining third was divided up among all the other nations given quotas. The desired effect was obtained. Immigration from newer sources of southern and eastern Europe was reduced to a trickle. The quotas allotted to England and Ireland remain largely unused as was intended. Total quota immigration fell to a half or a third and sometimes even less of the annual limit of 154,000. People from such countries as Greece or Spain or Latvia were virtually deprived of any opportunity to come here at all simply because Greeks or Spaniards or Latvians had not come here before 1920 in any substantial numbers. The idea behind this discriminatory policy was to put it boldly that Americans with English or Irish names were better people and better citizens than Americans with Italian or Greek or Polish names. It was thought that people of West European origin made better citizens than Romanians or Yugoslavs or Ukrainians or Hungarians or Baltes or Austrians. Such a concept is utterly unworthy of our traditions and our ideals. It violates the great political doctrine of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.  It repudiates our basic religious concepts, our belief in the brotherhood of man, and in the words of St. Paul that there is neither June or Greek, there is neither bond nor free for a year all won in Christ Jesus. The basis of this quota system was false and unworthy in 1924. It is even worse now. At the present time, this quota system keeps out the very people we want to bring in. It is incredible to me that in the year of 1952 we should again be enacting into law such a slur on the patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large part of our citizenry. Today we have entered into an alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty, with Italy, Greece, and Turkey, against one of the most terrible threats mankind has ever faced. We are asking them to join with us in protecting the peace of the world. We are helping them to build their defenses and train their men in the common cause. But through this bill we say to their people, you are less worthy to come to this country than Englishmen or Irishmen. You Italians who need to find homes abroad in the hundreds of thousands, you shall have a quota of 5,645. You Greeks struggling to assist the helpless victims of communist civil war, you shall have a quota of 308. But you Turks, you are brave defenders of the eastern flank, but you shall have a quota of only 225. Today we are protecting ourselves as we were in 1924 against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic. The countries of Eastern Europe have fallen under the communist yoke. They are silenced, fenced off by barbed wire and minefields. No one passes their borders but at the risk of his life. We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries. On the contrary, we want to stretch out a helping hand to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to sucker those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again. But this we cannot do as we would like to do because the quota for Poland is only 6,500 as against the 138,000 exiled Poles all over Europe who are asking to come to these shores, because the quota for the now subjugated Baltic countries is little more than 700 against the 23,000 Baltic refugees imploring us to admit them to a new life here. Because the quota for Romania is only 289 and some 30,000 Romanians who have managed to escape the labor camps and the mass deportation of their Soviet masters have asked our help. These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law. In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and satisfied by the dead hand of the past as we are in this field of immigration. We do not limit our cities to their 1920 boundaries. We do not hold our corporations to their 1920 capitalizations. We welcome progress and change to meet changing conditions in every sphere of life except in the field of immigration. The time to shake off this dead weight of past mistakes is now. The time to develop a decent policy of immigration, a fitting instrument for our foreign policy and a true reflection of the ideals we stand for at home and abroad is now. In my earlier message on immigration I tried to explain to the Congress that the situation we face in immigration is an emergency, that it must be met promptly. I have pointed out that in the last few years we have blazed a new trail in immigration through our Displaced Persons program. Through the combined efforts of the government and private agencies working together not to keep people out but to bring qualified people in we summoned our resources of goodwill and human feeling to meet the task. In this program we have found better techniques to meet the immigration problems of the 1950s. None of this fruitful experience of the last three years is reflected in this bill before me. None of the crying human needs of this time of trouble is recognized in this bill, but it is not too late. The Congress can remedy these defects and it can adopt legislation to meet the most critical problems before adjournment. The only consequential change in the 1924 quota system which the bill would make is to extend a small quota to each of the countries of Asia. But most of the beneficial effects of this gesture are offset by the other provisions of the bill. The countries of Asia are told in one breath that they shall have quotas for their nationals and in the next that the nationals of other countries if their ancestry is as much as 50% Asian shall be charged to these quotas. It is only with respect to persons of Oriental ancestry that this invidious discrimination applies, although the persons are charged the country of their birth. But persons with Asian ancestry are charged to the countries of Asia, wherever they may have been born, or however long their ancestors had made their homes outside the land of their origin. These provisions are without justification. I now wish to turn to the other provisions of the bill, those dealing with the qualifications of aliens and immigrants for admission with the administration of the laws and with problems of naturalization and nationality. And these provisions too, I find objections that preclude my signing this bill. The bill would make it even more difficult to enter our country. Our resident aliens would be more easily separated from homes and families under grounds of deportation, both new and old, which would specifically be made retroactive. Admission to our citizenship would be made more difficult. Expulsion from our citizenship would be made easier. Certain rights of native-born, first-generation Americans would be limited. All our citizens returning from Abad would be subjected to serious risk of unreasonable invasions of privacy. Seldom has a bill exhibited the distrust, evidence for her citizens and aliens alike, at a time when we need unity at home and the confidence of our friends abroad. We have adequate and fair provisions in our present law to protect us against the entry of criminals. The changes made by the bill in those provisions would result in empowering minor immigration and consular officials to act as prosecutor, judge and jury in determining whether acts constituting a crime have been committed. Worse, we would be compelled to exclude certain people because they have been convicted by courts in communist countries that know no justice. Under this provision, no matter how construed, it would not be possible for us to admit that many of the men and women who have stood up against totalitarian repression have been punished for doing so. I do not approve of substituting totalitarian vengeance for democratic justice. I will not extend full faith and credit to the judgments of the communist secret police. The realities of a world, only partly free, would again be ignored in the provision flatly barring entry to those who made misrepresentations in securing visas, to save their lives and the lives of loved ones, still imprisoned. Refugees from tyranny sometimes misstate various details of their lives. We do not want to encourage fraud, but we must recognize that conditions in some parts of the world drive our friends to desperate steps. An exception restricted to cases involving misstatement of country of birth is not sufficient. And to make refugees from oppression forever deportable on such technical grounds is shabby treatment indeed. Some of the new grounds of deportation, which this bill would provide, are unnecessarily severe. Defects and mistakes in admission would serve to deport at any time because of the bill's elimination retroactively as well as prospectively of the present humane provision barring deportations on such grounds five years after entry. Narcotic drug addicts would be deportable at any time, whether or not the addiction was culpable, and whether or not cured. The threat of deportation would drive the addict into hiding beyond the reach of cure, and the danger to the country from drug addiction would be increased. I am asked to approve the re-enactment of highly objectionable provisions now contained in the Internal Security Act of 1950. A measure passed over my veto shortly after the invasion of South Korea. Some of these provisions would empower the Attorney General to deport any alien who has engaged or has had a purpose to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest, or subversive to the national security. No standards or definitions are provided to guide discretion in the exercise of powers so sweeping. To punish undefined activities departs from traditional American assistance on established standards of guilt. To punish an undefined purpose is thought control. These provisions are worse than the infamous Alien Act of 1798 passed in a time of national fear and distrust of foreigners, which gave the President power to deport any alien deemed dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. Alien residents were thoroughly frightened and citizens much disturbed by that threat to liberty. Such powers are inconsistent with our democratic ideals. Conferring powers like that upon the Attorney General is unfair to him as well as to our alien residents. Once fully informed of such vast discretionary powers vested in the Attorney General, Americans now would and should be just as alarmed as Americans were in 1798 over less drastic powers vested in the President. Here to fore for the most part deportation and exclusion have rested upon findings of fact made upon evidence. Under this bill they would rest in many instances upon the opinion or satisfaction of immigration or consular employees. The change from objective findings to subjective feelings is not compatible with our system of justice. The result would be to restrict or eliminate judicial review of unlawful administrative action. The bill would sharply restrict the present opportunity of citizens and alien residents to save family members from deportation. Under the procedures of present law the Attorney General can exercise his discretion to suspend deportation in meritorious cases. At the present time the exercise of administrative discretion is subject to the scrutiny and approval of Congress. Nevertheless the bill would prevent this discretion from being used in many cases where it is now available and would narrow the circle of those who can obtain relief from the letter of the law. This is most unfortunate because the bill in its other provisions would impose harsher restrictions and greatly increase the number of cases deserving equitable relief. Native-born American citizens who are dual nationals would be subjected to losses citizenship and grounds not applicable to other Native-born American citizens. This distinction is a slap at millions of Americans whose fathers were of alien birth. Children would be subjected to additional risk of loss of citizenship. Naturalized citizens would be subjected to the risk of denaturalization by any procedure that can be found to be permitted under any state law or practice pertaining to minor civil law suits. Judicial review of administrative denials of citizenship would be severely limited and impeded in many cases and completely eliminated in others. I believe these provisions raise serious constitutional questions. Constitutionality aside I see no justification in national policy for their adoption. Section 401 of this bill would establish a joint congressional committee on immigration and nationality policy. This committee would have the customary powers to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses, books, papers, and documents. But the committee would also be given powers over the executive branch which are unusual and of a highly questionable nature. Specifically Section 401 would provide that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General shall without delay submit to the committee all regulations, instructions, and all other information as requested by the committee relative to the administration of this act. This section appears to be another attempt to require the executive branch to make available to Congress administrative documents, communications between the President and his subordinates, confidential files, and other records of that character. It also seems to imply that the committee would undertake to supervise or approve regulations. Such proposals are not consistent with the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers. In these and many other respects the bill raises basic questions as to our fundamental immigration and naturalization policy and the laws and practices for putting that policy into effect. Many of the aspects of the bill which have been most widely criticized in the public debate are reaffirmations or elaborations of existing statutes or administrative procedures. Time and again examination discloses that the revisions of existing law that would be made by the bill are intended to solidify some restrictive practice of our immigration authorities or to overrule or modify some ameliorative decision of the Supreme Court or other federal courts. By and large the changes that would be made by the bill do not depart from the basically restrictive spirit of our existing laws, but intensify and reinforce that. These conclusions point to an underlying condition which deserves the most careful study. Should we not undertake a reassessment of our immigration policies and practices in the light of the conditions that faces in the second half of the 20th century? The great popular interest which this bill has created and the criticism which it has stirred up demand an affirmative answer. I hope the Congress will agree to careful re-examination of this entire matter. To assist in this complex task I suggest the creation of a representative commission without standing Americans to examine the basic assumptions of our immigration policy, the quota system and all that goes with it, the effect of our present immigration and nationality laws, their administration and the ways in which they can be brought into line with our national ideals and our foreign policy. Such a commission should I believe be established by the Congress. Its membership should be bipartisan and divided equally among persons from private life and persons from public life. I suggest that four members be appointed by the President, four by the President of the Senate and four by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The commission should be given sufficient funds to employ a staff and it should have adequate powers to hold hearings, take testimony and obtain information. It should make a report to the President and to the Congress within a year from the time of its creation. Pending the completion of studies by such a commission and the consideration of its recommendations by the Congress, there are certain steps which I believe it is most important for the Congress to take this year. First I urge Congress to enact legislation removing racial barriers against Asians from our laws. Failure to take this step profits us nothing and can only have serious consequences for our relations with the peoples of the Far East. A major contribution to this end would be the prompt enactment by the Senate of HR 403. That bill already passed by the House of Representatives would remove the racial bars to the naturalization of Asians. Second, I strongly urge the Congress to enact the temporary emergency immigration legislation which I recommended three months ago. In my message of March 24, 1952, I advised the Congress that one of the greatest problems arising from the present world crisis is created by the over population in parts of Western Europe. That condition is aggravated by the flight and expulsion of peoples from behind the Iron Curtain. In view of these serious problems, I asked the Congress to authorize the admission of 300,000 additional immigrants to the United States over a three-year period. These immigrants would include Greek nationals, Dutch nationals, Italians from Italy and Trieste, Germans and persons of German ethnic origin, and religious and political refugees from communism in Eastern Europe. This temporary program is urgently needed. It is very important that Congress act upon it this year. I urge the Congress to give prompt and favorable consideration to the bills introduced by Senator Hendrickson and Representative Seller, S3109 and HR7376, which will implement the recommendations contained in my message of March 24. I very much hope that Congress will take early action on these recommendations. Legislation to carry them out will correct some of the unjust provisions of our laws, will strengthen us at home and abroad, and will serve to relieve a great deal of suffering and tension existing in the world today. Harry S. Truman, the White House, June 25, 1952. End of Section 33. End of whom we shall welcome report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization.


If I Die Tonight, by A. L. Galen, narrated by Sarah Borges. Prologue. From the Facebook page of Jacqueline Merrick Reid. October 24 at 2.45 a.m. By the time you read this, I'll be dead. This isn't Jackie. It's her son Wade. She doesn't know where I am. She doesn't even know I can get on her Facebook page, so don't ask her. This isn't her fault. I am not her fault. I'm writing to tell my mom and Connor that I'm sorry. I never meant to hurt anyone. I wish I could tell you the truth of what happened, but it's not my truth to tell. And anyway, it doesn't matter. What matters, what I want you both to know, is that I love you. Don't feel sad. Everything you did was the right thing to do. I'm sorry for those things I said to you, Connor. I didn't mean any of it. Funny. I'm thinking about you right now, Connor. I used to follow me around all the time when you were a little kid. I used to copy everything I did. You probably don't remember this, but when you were about four, I taught you the middle finger. And you did it to that mean babysitter we had. What was her name, mom? Loretta? Lerlene?  Real housewives of the seventh circle of hell. She wouldn't let us watch the Mets game and called us nasty little brats and told us we had no business talking at all because children should be seen and not heard. Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. So Connor gets off the couch, walks up to Lerlene and flips her the bird. It was so little he needed two hands to do it. He used the left hand to hold down the fingers on the right. Do you remember this, mom? Because I'm pretty sure she ratted us out without explaining the context of forcing us to watch her crap TV show.  We didn't get dessert for two weeks. I remember thinking how unfair the whole thing was and how quick grown-ups were to believe the lies of other grown-ups. Especially when it came to their own kids. But looking back on it now, all I can remember is how red Loretta's face got and how hard we both laughed, even with her shrieking at us. It was one of those moments. My English teacher, Mrs. Crawford, called them memory gifts.  And when you need them, when you're feeling really bad, you can unwrap them and remember all the details and feel that moment all over again.


It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is an urgent question. I call Sue Webber. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the statement that NHS Lothian services are under extreme pressure and that patients should not attend the emergency department unless it is life threatening. Our health and care system is under extreme pressure due to the pandemic and NHS Lothian. Like all health boards, it is experiencing significant pressure, including workforce challenges, a high level of delayed discharge, which is inevitably affecting waiting times in the A&E. We recognise that some people aren't getting the services they are they are, or indeed we would expect to apologise to anyone that has suffered as a result of that. It is our ambition to ensure that more patients receive person's sense of care in the right place, in the right time and in a way that helps staff to deliver high quality care in treatment. That is why we invested £23 million this year to support the development of the redesigned version of urgent care. I recently also announced a £300 million package of winter measures that includes a focus on bolstering the caring workforce by increasing the numbers and providing them with additional support. Along with my senior officials, I have met the executive team at NHS Lothian this morning and we have agreed a set of immediate actions that will support improvements and minimise delays for patients. The figures released yesterday confirmed that we have the worst A&E waiting times on record. Since the cabinet secretary's NHS recovery plan was published in August, more than 55,000 people have waited over four hours to be seen in A&E and more than 11,000 of those people have been from NHS Lothian. After the advice from NHS Lothian last night, there has rightly been a lot of concern from people about having to self-diagnose whether something is life-threatening or not. Some injuries are not life-threatening but are serious. A broken ankle may not kill, a stroke left untreated can have life-changing consequences. Does the cabinet secretary now accept that the Government's recovery plan was not sufficient and does he endorse the advice from NHS Lothian? If so, how can people access treatment that they need? I thank whoever for what is an important question. All health boards and all clinicians would say that if you think that your condition is critical or life-threatening, do not hesitate for a second to call 999 or get yourself to your A&E department. Of course, if you do not think that it is critical or life-threatening, there are other alternative pathways such as calling NHS 24, for example. Of course, people should err on the side of caution if they feel that their injury condition or that of a family member or a friend is critical or life-threatening. However, it is important that people listen to the advice of clinicians of the health board, because all of us would accept and understand that those who are working in our hospitals and right across our NHS only want the best for the people that they treat. However, it is a time of extreme pressure. What I would say to Sue Weber is that this Government will continue to invest. Of course, we are facing the most significantly challenging winter that the NHS has ever suffered. Of course, that is going to be of cold comfort to people who are waiting in A&E departments. Our performance is not where I want it to be, but it is the case that our A&E departments are the best-performing in the entire UK. The reason that I mentioned is just to highlight that those are common challenges that are being faced right across the UK. We will continue to invest in my £300 million winter package that I announced. I know that health boards are working around the clock to try to maximise capacity by safely discharging those who are clinically safe to discharge back into community settings. Sue Weber. Thank you. This morning, a constituent of mine got in touch with me by text. She was too scared and upset to go into work at the Royal Infirmary because she knew that people had been waiting for over 30 hours in A&E due to the lack of beds. In the announcement, NHS Lothian chief executive Callum Campbell admitted that NHS Lothian hospitals are close to capacity and the hospital system is under extreme duress. NHS Lothian has asked for mutual aid to help ease the sustained pressures on their teams and their patients. Will the Government provide this aid and what message does the cabinet secretary have for hard-working NHS front-line staff who are having similar fears as that of my constituent? First and foremost, I thank Sue Weber's constituent for all that they have done during the pandemic, but particularly at the moment during this very significant period of challenge. I also spoke to a clinician this morning who works in one of the Edinburgh hospital sites. Again, he reiterated how challenging and pressured the system is. I spoke to Callum Campbell as well as NHS Lothian's chair, John Conaghan. This morning, NHS Lothian has had urgent and rapid discussions with the local authority partners, with the HSEPs in the region, and they feel that they can make exceptionally good progress in order to safely discharge those people who are clinically safe to discharge from hospitals into community. Of course, the effect that will have is freeing up capacity, which will also help to flow within the hospital. That is what the winter announcement package was there to help. I will not pretend otherwise, even with that increased investment, that will still be a very challenging winter ahead. Performance will continue to be difficult, but, of course, where boards ask for aid, and that aid can be provided, we will leave no stone unturned in helping our health boards at this difficult time. Alex Cole-Hamilton The cabinet secretary asked people to think twice before calling an ambulance. Now patients are being told in Lothian to hold off completely unless it is life-threatening. This winter, the NHS is reaching the crux of years of under-resourcing and mismanagement. It is in genuine jeopardy. I personally do not have a medical degree, so I would be grateful for some advice from the cabinet secretary. What exactly does life-threatening mean? Will the health secretary accept that asking people to judge for themselves whether or not their condition is life-threatening will possibly prove deadly? As I have already said to Sue Webber, if people feel that their condition is critical or life-threatening, they should pick up the phone, call 999, get an ambulance, or, indeed, if they are able to get someone to transport them to an A&E department, then get them to an A&E department. Of course, there are other pathways available if you are not critical or life-threatening, and that would be, for example, to call NHS 24, which is a 24-7 helpline to be able to get that assistance. However, every health board in the country is under pressure, and we know that. Therefore, if we are able to be assist by using alternative pathways, if your condition is not critical or life-threatening, that is the advice that has been given right across the board. NHS Lothian made absolutely clear in the most recent briefings to MSPs in the Lothians that one of the major pressures that hard-working staff are facing in the enduring pandemic, alongside high levels of staff illness and self-isolation, is the acute staff shortages in social care, which is impacting on the whole health and care system, vacancies elsewhere and shortage of EU workers. Can the minister state what the very recently produced adult social care winter plan can do to help those pressures? I thank Fiona Hyslop for again what is an incredibly important question. Again, the adult social care winter plan plus the winter plan that was produced in relation to the £300 million winter package really does focus on social care, because we know if we can bolster the social care workforce, we can help at both the front door and the back door of our acute services. We can prevent people from going to hospital, hopefully, if they have the care at home and care home packages that they need. Of course, we can help at the delayed discharge end by safely discharging people to community settings again, where that is clinically safe to do so. The £300 million that I announced is being made available to increase the hourly rate of social care staff. That will match NHS band 2 staff. It will also help to recruit 1,000 additional NHS staff to support MDTs, multi-disciplinary teams. Over £60 million of that investment was to maximise capacity of care at home services. There is a significant amount of investment going into that. Of course, it will take some time to recruit the workforce that I have mentioned, but I know that every single health board is looking to do that as a matter of urgency and pace. Cabinet Secretary, people urgently need front-line health support, and many are going to A&E because they or their family members are having a health crisis and they cannot get the support locally. I have been inundated with patients in the riverside surgery area in Musselborough, for example, who have heartbreaking stories about not being able to access GP services, predating the pandemic, but the issue has been raised by other constituents across the region. Can the cabinet secretary say what he is doing now to ensure that patients have the local medical services that they need, as well as the support that they need when they attempt to access accident emergency services? I met Colin Beattie MSP, who raised the issue with me around riverside medical practice, and I have offered to continue the dialogue with him. I would also offer to Sarah Boyack to see how we can assist in that. It is for the local health board to take forward those issues. On local services, I wrote jointly with the BMA recently that every single GP practice in the country, including those in the Lothian health board region, where I laid out quite explicitly my expectation that, given the changes in guidance, there would be an increase in face-to-face GP appointments, which we know may well help in that regard. I thank GPs for the incredible hard work that they are doing at this time. Of course, when it comes to other local services, the investments that I have already mentioned have helped to bolster some of those local services and, hopefully, take that pressure off acute settings. Sorry, but we can hear you now. Thank you. NHS Lothian's chief executive has said that the board has requested neutral aid, but I am concerned about other health boards' capacity to fulfil that request. As we know, the issues that NHS Lothian faces are impacting health boards across the country, and just a few days ago NHS Lanarkshire moved to its highest risk level. What assurance can the cabinet secretary provide that requests for neutral aid can be met, and that health boards that are struggling will be provided with the assistance that they need? The cabinet secretary is absolutely correct that every health board area is under pressure and under strain. Where they can get potentially neutral aid is, for example, reaching out to the golden jubilee, and they can help, for example, with planned care. We know how important it is to try to address issues with planned care, particularly where there has been postponement of P2, P3 and P4 groups of surgery. We know that, if those backlogs continue to increase, we are just storing up problems for the future. It is for each health board to discuss with other health boards what neutral aid may well be available. Of course, where a request comes in for other support, such as military support, we will also give that serious consideration and pass that on to the military and the armed forces where appropriate and necessary. That concludes the urgent question. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1797, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you. No member has asked to speak on the motion. The question is that motion 1797 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motions 1798 on code of conduct for councillors, 1799 on model code of conduct for members of devolved public bodies, 1800 on approval of an SSI and 1801 on designation of a lead committee. The questions on those motions will be put at decision time and there are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is amendment 1769.4, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 1769, in the name of Michael Matheson, on global ambitions for COP26, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.