Mr. JUDD. Yes. For instance, looking at the table, 1,413 can come from Austria now. Under this new formula, one-sixth of 1 percent, 1,405 could come in. That is a reduction of eight in the Austrian quota, which is about half a percent. The number of people that could come in from each cuntry would be about half a percent less than under existing law.

Mr. GOSSETT. Oh, I see what you mean.

Mr. JUDD. There is another restriction in the bill-on immigration from colonies. For example, take Jamaica which is a British colony. The ancestry of the people is in part attributable to Caucasians, but more to peoples of African descent. Now, they can come in under the British quota of 65,000 plus, which is almost never filled with people from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So that at present a very large number of people of non-British ancestry could come in from Jamaica under the British quota.

Under this bill the number of immigrants from any colony or dependent area will be limited to 100. That is, a colony cannot use more than 100 of the quota of its governing country. And, therefore, actually there will be a considerable further reduction in the total number of immigrants who will be coming.

Mr. GOSSETT. If your bill is passed, no person is excludable per se because of race?

Mr. JUDD. That is right. It takes care of the foreign body of aliens already in our country. Second, no person is excludable solely because of race. He can be excluded because of his personal qualifications or lack thereof, which is proper, but nobody is absolutely forbidden because of race; and at the same time we prevent any sizable number of people coming in from any of the countries heretofore or at present excluded.

I think there are moral reasons and there are legitimate political and military reasons-security reasons is perhaps better-why we should leave no stone unturned in demonstrating that we really believe, as I said, in the things that we profess.

This bill does not remove our immigration barriers. It removes inequalities and discriminations from our immigration barriers.

It does not destroy the quota principle. It extends the quota principle.

And, once this bill is enacted into law it ends most of the individual and the piecemeal bills that come before Congress every year. It will give us a comprehensive, sound, consistent immigration and naturalization policy that, as far as I can see now, will have no need for changes in its basic principles in the years ahead.

I will be glad to answer any questions, or I will be happy now to discuss the bill paragraph by paragraph if you wish.

Mr. GOSSETT. I think we can get that probably from Mr. ShaughHe is the final authority anyway.

nessy.

Mr. FELLOWS. You can tell us anything you want to.

Mr. CHELF. If there are any particular features you care to point out, I would be happy to hear them.

Mr. JUDD. Maybe there are three or four other things I should point out.

In section 1 we changed the word "right" to "privilege." Heretofore the language has always been the "right" of a person to become naturalized. I do not believe any alien has a right to become a

naturalized citizen of the United States. We change it to "privilege." That is what it is and ought to be. The bill provides that the privilege shall not be denied or abridged because of race.

Then, section 2 repeals some things in existing law that are no longer needed if this bill is enacted into law.

Section 3 corrects an incompatibility in the existing law with respect to the preferences within quotas. The laws that established the Chinese and the Indian quotas are in conflict with the general law that sets up the other quotas. This eliminates the conflict so as to make the present laws more easily and fairly administrable.

Section 4 is an amendment to section 11 of the Immigration Act of 1924. It is a mechanical simplification of the procedures by which the quotas are determined and used. It adopts the one-sixth of 1 percent formula.

Section 5 is an amendment to the various subdivisions of section 12 of the 1924 act. We change the term "geographical area" to "quota area." Everyone who has studied this believes that is a good change. We get away from nationality, which is so hard to define or determine in many instances, and set up specific quota areas, to which immigrants are to be chargeable.

Mr. GOSSETT. Doctor, your eligibility is still determined by place of birth, is it not?

Mr. JUDD. No; in the case of the people covered in this section it is determined by the country to which their ancestry is attributable. That is to avoid the entry as nonquota immigrants of their descendants born in nonquota countries.

There are three groups of countries in our present Immigration Act. First, the Western European countries, the western Asia countriesthat is, the Middle East-the African countries, plus China, India, and the Philippines. They are on the quota basis.

Second, the Western Hemisphere-Canada, Newfoundland, and Latin-American countries-are on the nonquota basis. Their citizens can come in without limitation.

The third group is countries whose people are excluded on a basis of race.

This bill moves the class 3 countries up into class 1 and gives them quotas, but the indigenous peoples use them on the same basis as the Chinese, Indians, and Filipinos do. With those countries, the person is not chargeable to the quota area where he is born. If his ancestry is Asian by as much as a half

Mr. GOSSETT. Hold that just a second. Mr. Shaughnessy, is he right about that?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I think that the answer is that except for Orientals the place of birth still governs. Was that your question?

Mr. GOSSETT. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Place of birth is not changed except for Orientals, and the Oriental follows the strain of the country to which he is indigenous.

Mr. GOSSETT. Insofar as he is of half-blood or more?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is correct. Take, for instance, a halfJapanese and a half-Brazilian born in Brazil. He is traceable to the quota for Japan, the country to which his race is indigenous. If he were a quarter Japanese and three-quarters Brazilian, he would be nonquota.

75614-48

Mr. GOSSETT. Are we not going to get into trouble eventually? Are they not going to come in and say, "That is discrimination against us"?

Mr. JUDD. No. That has been in the law.

Mr. GOSSETT. I know it has been in the law, but some of these other exclusive features?

Mr. JUDD. No; this merely determines to what quota they are to be chargeable. For example, on pages 8 and 9 of the bill there are six formulas that will take care of, as nearly as we can work it out, every conceivable combination.

Take those who are attributable by a quarter of their ancestry to one or two or even three Oriental countries. Say you have a quarter Filipino, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter Indonesian. Now, those persons are not a half of any race, so they would not be chargeable to the Chinese, Filipino, or Indonesian quotas. The bill makes them chargeable to the new quota assigned to the Asia-Pacific triangle. The whole area is given a quota of 100.

It is a means of unscrambling all those of mixed bloods and giving them the privilege, if they qualify as individuals, of being admitted on a permanent basis to the United States. But the number will be kept to that minimum quota of 100.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Could we answer the question this way, Doctor if I may?

Mr. JUDD. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. For 5 years the Chinese have been chargeable in the manner you described. For 2 years the Indians and Filipinos have had that peculiar and particular form of charging to quotas. They have expressed no dissatisfaction, and I think they have been very happy to get the recognition we have given them. We have put them on a par of racial eligibility.

Mr. GOSSETT. If there is a Chinese born in Brazil and one born in China, and they both want an immigration visa, how do you determine the priority, if any, as between those two individuals?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. The date of application.

Mr. GOSSETT. The date of application? They are on absolutely equal footing under this bill?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is correct. Where they are neither nonquota nor nonpreference immigrants, the date of application determines. Of course, we are carrying the 75-percent preference for those born in those countries and resident in them.

Mr. GOSSETT. That is carried forward from this bill?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is existing law.

Mr. GOSSETT. Doctor, what do you think about applying quotas to the countries of the Western Hemisphere? We are now applying quotas to all other countries, but we still say that the countries of the Western Hemisphere are nonquota. Apparently we have not been deluged with immigration from these countries, but it may start in time.

Mr. JUDD. Sir, I have not had occasion to study that, but I have never heard that there has been serious difficulty from it. Down through the years under the Monroe Doctrine and the good-neighbor policy, the combination of those two, it has come to be accepted that the Western Hemisphere is on a different basis from the rest of the world. If difficulties should develop, I think it would have to be

considered by your committee. To my knowledge there have been no difficulties, but I have not studied it so I am not qualified to state an opinion.

Mr. GOSSETT. Do you have definite figures, Mr. Shaughnessy, on the number of immigrants to this country from the Western Hemisphere? Will you tell me about how many have been coming in?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Now, I have not viewed the figures for some time. Except for Canada and Mexico, our Western Hemisphere friends do not send us any immigrants to speak of. As a matter of fact, your Latin-American countries are receiving nations and not sending nations. But, for the purpose of the record, I will be very happy to send up the number of immigrants that have been admitted from each and every one of the countries from the Western Hemisphere. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Miller, who is the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, says about 35,000 last year.

Mr. MILLER. It is my recollection it was 18,000 the first 6 months. Mr. GOSSETT. Do not bother. Anyway, it is not of sufficient. volume to be the cause of any concern in your judgment?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Not at all.

Mr. JUDD. There is one further thing to say. If all the quotas that are made available to the people who are indigenous in these Asiatic countries are used up, it will still amount to less than 1 percent. of the total number of immigrants possible in a year, which, as you know, is roughly 150,000. As I said earlier, it is fantastic to assume that they will all be filled.

Mr. MILLER. There were 70,000 quota immigrants admitted in the fiscal year 1947, and I have examined the figures for the first 6 months of the current year and, somewhat to my surprise, there is no increase of significant character.

Mr. FELLOWS. Doctor, are you offering your analysis for the record? Mr. JUDD. Yes; I will. It was just mimeographed. There are some typographical changes, but I will get it to the stenographer. Mr. FELLOWS. That will be incorporated.

(The analysis referred to is as follows:)

ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF H. R. 5004

SECTION 1. NATURALIZATION

This section provides that the privilege of becoming a naturalized citizen shall not be denied or abridged because of race. It eliminates all racial tests to citizenship, yet retains all other requirements for naturalization.

In doing so, it follows a pattern developed by the Congress. American citizenship or eligibility to naturalization has been extended over the years to include: 1790: Free white persons.

1870: Persons of African nativity or descent.

1900: Inhabitants of Hawaii.

1917: Inhabitants of Puerto Rico.

1924: American Indians.

1927: Inhabitants of the Virgin Islands.

1940: Races indigenous to North or South America.

1943: Chinese.

1946: Filipinos and natives of India.

According to the 1940 census, there were 87,933 persons in the United States and Hawaii who were barred from citizenship because of racial origin. Most of these were Japanese-47,305 in the United States and 37,353 in Hawaii, a total of 84,658. The Koreans, the second largest group, had 749 here and 2,390 in Hawaii, a total of 4,139; 145 were Polynesians and "other Asians." Because there has been no new immigration since the date of the census, a good many have died

and some have returned to Japan or Korea, these figures may be taken as the maximum number who will be made eligible by the bill.

This section seeks to bring an end to the piecemeal process of extending the naturalization privilege. It does so by a logical completion of that process at a time when such action will richly serve American interests.

In writing the acts of December 17, 1943, covering the Chinese, and of July 2, 1946, covering races indigenous to India, Congress found a means to authorize use of quotas by these peoples, and at the same time to insure conformity with the national-origins quota idea. The general formula developed then has been extended in H. R. 5004 to cover all areas of the Far East and the Pacific Ocean. This formula, which is contained in section 5 of this bill, will be referred to in detail later.

SECTION 2. REPEAL

This section repeals the present section 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940 which provides the legal basis for ineligibility to citizenship because of race.

SECTION 3 PREFERENCES WITHIN QUOTAS

Existing law covering the Chinese and "races indigenous to India" provides for a 75-percent preference within each quota for such persons born and living within these countries.

This principle has been carried forward to H. R. 5004, with certain modifications designed to overcome the administrative difficulty in existing law resulting from two sets of preferences which cannot be legally reconciled. The wording of H. R. 5004 is designed to cure this difficulty.

SECTION 4. ANNUAL QUOTA BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN

This section improves the method for computing and establishing national origin quotas, within the general framework of existing law.

Under both the old and the proposed quota formulas, quotas are based upon the "number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920." Excluded from the number of inhabitants counted for this purpose in existing law were those derived from countries of North and South America, slave immigrants, aliens ineligible to citizenship, and American aborigines.

The evidence is that in 1924 when the Immigration Act was drawn, it was not known what proportion of the American population in 1920 had been derived from countries of North and South America. Hence the method for prorating the predetermined 150,000 total immigration among the various countries of the world could not be accomplished through the use of a simple fraction.

The quota formula of the 1924 act provided a cumbersome fraction, the numerator of which was 150,000 and the denominator the 1920 inhabitants of the United States who were counted for this purpose. According to Senate Document 259, Seventieth Congress, the figure as finally computed was 89,506,558.

The fraction then became

150,000

=

89,506,558 0.001675854857.

Thus, for example, since the number of inhabitants of the United States in 1920 who were derived from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as finally computed by a committee of experts in the Senate, Commerce, and Justice Departments, was 39,216,333, the quota for Great Britain and Northern Ireland became the result of 39,216,333×0.001675854857, or 65,721.

Since the "number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920" is now fixed, it is possible to replace the above cumbersome formula by a simple fraction, "one-sixth of 1 per centum," which will result in quotas not subject to further change and only very slightly smaller than those now in force.

A general and unofficial comparison of the quotas under the present law and under H. R. 5004 is as follows. It covers only those quota areas having a quota greater than the minimum of 100, and is based on the latest quota proclamations: