legislation should be passed which might even partially negative the present splendid results of that achievement. Our foreign trade with Canada in the calendar year 1936 amounted to $760,000,000, of which $384,000,000 represented exports to Canada and $376,000,000 our imports from Canada.

Between the United States and our two neighbors are boundary lines totaling over 7,000 miles, pierced in many places by railways, rivers, and increasingly numerous highways. These boundary lines often run through homogeneous communities with a constant necessary interchange of commercial, educational, and cultural activity. Hardly a day passes that some problem arising out of our intercourse with these countries is not presented to the Secretary of State for solution through discussions with their representatives, making cordial relations between the two countries of the greatest practical importance to the majority of our people.

All these objections to the passage of S. 1803 merit the most careful consideration.

Sincerely yours,

CORDELL HULL. Mr. HOBBS. We are familiar with the Secretary's observations in that regard and will be glad to consider the letter.

Mr. HARRINGTON. I also wish to refer briefly to section 15————
Mr. HOBBS. What about section 25?

Mr. HARRINGTON. I am merely commenting on section 15, which requires every alien in the United States 18 years of age or older to register. I assume that the drafters of this bill contemplated exempting foreign government officials, and I believe that the committee should consider such an exemption as being desirable. That is all I have to say.

Mr. BOBBS. All government officials?

Mr. HARRINGTON. All foreign government officials.

Mr. HOBBS. Are you at liberty to comment on section 25? We would welcome an expression from the State Department as to that section.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to comment on that. The State Department has not been asked to submit a report on this bill, but if one were requested we would be very glad to give you our opinion.

Mr. HOBBS. Would you be good enough to, informally—that is, without a written communication, would you be good enough to ask the State Department to give us an opinion on section 25?

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOBBS. And any other section that they care to comment upon. Mr. HARRINGTON. Very well. Particularly section 25.

[Letter from the Secretary of State appears below.]

Mr. SATTERFIELD. And particularly whether or not the law in its present form renders a man not a citizen of the country from which he comes, if he does not register with his consul.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrington. Are there any other witnesses who desire to be heard? I understand the American Federation of Labor has a representative here, of will have.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it seems that we have about run out of witnesses. I do not know of anyone else who wants to appear except Colonel Taylor, of the American Legion, and myself.

Mr. HOBBS. If the Commissioner of Immigration is ready, we will be glad to hear him, and if he is not ready, we will be glad to hear him at any time that suits his convenience.

The Honorable HATTON SUMNERS,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, April 14, 1939.

Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. SUMNERS: At the hearing on April 12, 1939, by the subcommittee designated to consider H. R. 5138 it was indicated to the representative of this Department that the views of the Department of State would be welcomed with respect to section 25 and any other portions of the bill on which I might desire to comment.

Section 25 of H. R. 5138 proposes the suspension of the immigration quota of any foreign country which should refuse to permit the return of any of its citizens or nationals who may have been ordered deported under the provisions of the act, notwithstanding any other existing law, regulation, or treaty, until such time as such foreign government shall permit the reentry into that country of such deported person or persons. It is understood that a change in wording of section 25 is contemplated so that the suspension of quotas will be applicable in the case of any foreign government which should refuse to permit the return of persons who were citizens or nationals thereof at the time of their entry and who may have been ordered deported under the provisions of the act.

For purposes of analysis it seems desirable to consider section 25 from two points of view: (1) From that of persons who, at the time of deportation, are citizens or subjects of the foreign country to which deportation is sought and (2) from that in which the persons to be deported have lost their former nationality without acquiring any other citizenship. At the time of deportation an alien's nationality must be established to the satisfaction of the authorities of the country to which the alien is to be deported. Cases in which it has not been possible to deport an alien are usually the result of a finding that the alien is not a citizen or subject of the country to which deportation is sought, according to the laws of that country. It is, of course, the inerent right of any sovereign nation to apply its own nationality laws in all such cases and a finding that the person to be deported is not a citizen or subject of the country to which he is to be deported must be respected.

The suspension of the immigration quota of a foreign country which refuses to accept one of its citizens or subjects whose deportation is sought by this country is not considered desirable for a number of reasons. I have in mind, first of all, the separation of families to which such action would unavoidably lead. Under the law, as you will recall, first-preference quota status is accorded to the alien husband of an American citizen by marriage after July 1, 1932, as well as to the alien parents of American citizens. The wives and unmarried minor children of aliens lawfully residing in this country are given second-preference quota status and these relatives in addition to other more distant_nonpreference relatives, would be debarred by the suspension of the quota. I am sure that you will agree with me that quota suspension in such cases would involve a real and unmerited hardship upon American citizens and aliens lawfully residing here.

I do not believe that any foreign nation would relinquish its sovereign right to interpret and apply its nationality and immigration laws in order to prevent the suspension of the immigration quota assigned to it by the laws of this country. On the contrary, it is my feeling that the proposed action by this country would invoke retaliatory action against American citizens residing in the foreign country in question in the legitimate interests of American industrial, financial, and cultural pursuits.

Section 25 provides for the suspension of a quota under the conditions stated therein, notwithstanding any treaty obligation. Although our immigration quotas are not established by treaties, the suggestion that a treaty obligation might be ignored, as is implied in section 25, seems inadvisable.

The suspension of the immigration quota of a country in the case of an alien who no longer is a citizen of that country likewise does not seem desirable. The laws of foreign countries with respect to the expatriation of their citizens are varied. An alien who expatriates himself by some affirmative or other act as, for example, by entering a foreign army or remaining abroad for a specified period, would be subject, upon his return to his native country, to the immigration laws of that country. His ability to enter under those laws would depend upon the circumstances and facts in each individual case. This country could not accept a former American citizen who had expatriated himself unless he should be admissable under the immigration laws. Our laws in this respect are mandatory and for this reason I do not perceive any equitable basis for expecting a foreign nation to do otherwise in similar circumstances.

In view of the foregoing considerations I am of the opinion that the enactment of section 25 of H. R. 5138 would be inadvisable.

Inasmuch as the subcommittee is now holding hearings on H. R. 5138 this report is being forwarded without prior reference to the Bureau of the Budget to ascertain its relationship to the President's program.

Sincerely yours,

CORDELL HULL.

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. HOUGHTELING, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Mr.HOUGHTELING. Mr. Chairman, I have presented in writing a memorandum submitted by the Secretary of Labor, making certain comments and suggestions on the text and the practice involved in the proposed measure. As that memorandum is available to the members of the committee, I stand ready either to read it in this meeting for immediate discussion and comment or to leave it for the committee to study at their pleasure. It is for you to decide whether you want me to read this memorandum with comments or to simply put it in the record. There is just one thing I would like to say: One of the witnesses has been attacking the practices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in very much the same terms in which he attacked them before the Immigration Committee of the Senate and has attacked them on a number of other occasions. He has referred to a certain 34 cases from which he has drawn out one or two facts which are not favorable to our handling of those cases.

We submitted to the Immigration Committee of the Senate the entire file of each of those 34 cases, for their consideration of all the facts. Selected facts can always be twisted.

For instance, certain cases which the witness designated as "hardship cases," which he called by name, had nothing to do with hardship cases. These were the cases of aliens who had been led into naturalization frauds by racketeers, and who had turned around and helped us very materially in our fight against the naturalization racketeers; had given testimony, had gone to a great deal of effort and perhaps personal danger in testifying; and had enabled us to consummate the conviction of the real people who were really at the back of the racket in which these aliens became involved. These aliens were all known to be persons of good moral character, who had been in this country for a number of years, and in consideration of their help we permitted them to leave the country without a warrant of deportation, so as to give them a chance to present themselves before an American consul abroad, and to prove whether they could qualify under the 1917 act, and the 1918 act, and the 1924 act for readmission to this country. The questions in those cases were not whether the aliens were "hardship cases" because they had close citizen relations in this country. It was a question of discretion, a practice which is often resorted to, I believe, when law-enforcing agencies are trying to break up a racket, of getting testimony and then of showing some favor to the people who have helped out.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Houghteling, the committee is not concerned with that phase of the testimony. Of course, you realize that.

Mr. HOUGHTELING. It had nothing to do with the bills under consideration.

Mr. HOBBS. The only possible purpose of that testimony was to give illustrations of the need, or the alleged need, for strengthening the power as provided by this act, and we understand fully, as you do, that it is beyond the province of this hearing to criticize or to defend the administration of the Secretary of Labor or the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.

Mr. HOUGHTELING. Thank you, sir. As far as the amplification of the law for the deportation of aliens who have been convicted of crime is concerned, we are on record in support of the so-called Dies bill, the first clause of which considerably amplifies the number of bases for the deportation of aliens who have been convicted of crime. We agree that the present law can be greatly strengthened. You will find in the memorandum which I will either leave with you in writing or read, as you prefer, that we have suggested certain points in the wording of this bill which we think may well be corrected. We have also made other comments.

Now, I am at your disposal. I seem to be the last witness, and I am at your disposal either to read this or leave it with you. (The paper referred to follows:)

Memorandum on H. R. 5138 entitled, "A bill to make unlawful attempts to overthrow the Government of the United States; to require licensing of civilian military organizations; to make unlawful attempts to interfere with the discipline of the Army and Navy; to require registration and fingerprinting of aliens; to enlarge the jurisdiction of the United States circuit court of appeals in certain cases; and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. Smith of Virginia on March 20, 1939.

Title I of the bill, which contains four sections, is applicable not only to aliens but also to citizens of the United States. In substance, the sections of this title make it unlawful to advocate or be a member of or affiliated with any group advocating the overthrow of the Government of the United States, the government of any State of the United States, or the government of any subdivision thereof, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of the United States, or any officer of any State of the United States, or any officer of any subdivision thereof, or by any other unlawful means. An alien who violates, and is convicted of violating any of these provisions, under section 24 of the bill must be deported in the manner provided by existing law immediately upon his release from the custody of the court in which he is tried.

Under the act of October 16, 1918, entitled "An act to exclude and expel from the United States aliens who are members of the anarchist and similar classes,' as amended by the act of June 5, 1920 (40 Stat. 1012; 41 Stat. 1008, U. S. C., title 8, sec. 137), aliens guilty of the acts prescribed in this title of the bill are now subject to deportation. It would appear, therefore, that title I, insofar as it prescribes grounds for the deportation of aliens, is superfluous legislation and unnecessary at this time.

Title II of the measure, which comprises sections 5 to 11, inclusive, is not applicable to aliens only. Citizens of the United States are also within its purview. In substance, these sections make it unlawful for any person to organize, participate in the organization of, conspire with any other person for the purpose of organizing, join or be a member of any civilian military organization unless such organization shall have obtained from the Secretary of War a permit to function as such civilian military organization. These sections also make it unlawful for any person to advise any member of the Army or the Navy of the United States to disobey the laws or regulations of the Army or the Navy, or to disobey the lawful orders of a superior, or to publish any writing which so advises.

If an alien violates the provisions of this title, section 24 of the bill requires that upon conviction he shall be deported immediately upon his release from the custody of the court in which he is tried. This title creates an entirely new class of deportable alien. Whether or not deportation of the alien who violates the provisions of this title should be made mandatory is a matter of policy for congressional determination.

I have not deemed it necessary to discuss in detail the various acts made offenses by titles I and II. Dealing as both titles do with acts made crimes, a discussion of their effect and scope is properly a matter for the consideration of the Department of Justice.

Title III, which comprises sections 12 to 22 of the bill, applies to aliens only. Section 12 of the bill amends section 7 of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, as amended, by adding at the end thereof the provision that no person shall be naturalized or made a citizen of the United States who believes in any form of government for the United States contrary to that now existing in the United States, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization which advocates any form of government for the United States contrary to that now existing in the United States.

Under the fourth subdivision of section 4, of the act of June 29, 1906, no alien may be admitted to citizenship unless for a period of at least 5 years immediately before applying for citizenship such alien has been attached to the principles of the Constitution and has been well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. The proposed amendment of section 7 does not define the phrase "form of Government for the United States." The phrase is vague, difficult to interpret, and lacking statutory definition-capable of various constructions. The purpose of the amendment is not clear. It would seem that the present requirement of law as to attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the United States by a prospective citizen should suffice to exclude from citizenship any alien whose views as to government are considered to be inimical in character to our Government as it exists.

Section 13 makes it unlawful for any alien resident of a country touching the boundaries of the United States to habitually cross said international boundary line for the purpose of seeking employment or engaging in any employment, vocation, or trade, either as skilled or unskilled laborers, in the United States, to and from their residence or residences which are outside of the borders of the said continental United States. Excepted from this clause are bona fide employees of common carriers operating between the United States and foreign contiguous territory. At the present time an alien may reside in Canada or Mexico and enter the United States for daily employment provided that prior to the beginning of such employment he obtains and presents at a port of entry an immigration visa and in all respects qualifies for admission to the United States as an immigrant for permanent residence. It is presumed that the purpose of section 13 of the bill is to prevent the continuance of that practice. However, inasmuch as the practice is legal under existing law, it would seem to be incongruous to make it a crime by another law punishable by a severe penalty, without at the same time repealing the statute making the practice a legal one. If it is desired to stop the practice of permitting alien residents of Canada to commute to the United States for employment purposes, the immigration laws should be so amended as to prohibit that practice. As to the wisdom or desirability of such an amendment I wish to all to your attention that at the end of the last fiscal year, June 30, 1938, there was a total of 3,061 aliens who lived in Canada or Mexico and who commuted to this country for employment, while 1,906 citizens of the United States or resident aliens entered adjoining countries for daily work. It will be seen, therefore, that the number of aliens of the so-called commuter class is not very great. Moreover, it must be remembered that any prohibition to the entry of commuters to this country will undoubtedly result in similar bars being placed upon our citizens commuting to foreign contiguous countries by the governments of such countries. Every indication is that while the commuters from our neighboring countries are of the laboring class, our nationals going to those countries are principally employed in supervisory or executive position. The enactment of retaliatory measures would be our loss financially.

Section 14 of the bill establishes eight new classes of deportable aliens. One of the evident purposes of this section, i. e., to rid the country of the undesirable alien criminal, is laudable. However, as drawn, some of the provisions of the measure create injustices which it is believed should be avoided in some manner, if possible.

Subdivision 1 renders subject to deportation any alien who at any time after entry is convicted of an offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or more, or, of a crime involving moral turpitude, deportation to be effected when the alien is released from confinement, placed upon probation, or pardoned. This subdivision is retroactive. No matter how long an alien has been in the United States, irrespective of the family ties he may have in this