Its importance is illustrated by the fact that two countries concerned, Ceylon and Pakistan, have become selfgoverning Dominions; a third country, Burma, has become a sovereign Republic; and Indonesia is in the process of negotiating a peaceful settlement of its sovereign status. The sovereign dignity of independence is not consistent with the practice of radial discrimination as embodied in our existing immigration and naturalization legislation.

I am accompanied by a group of State Department officers who are thoroughly famillar with all the details of the bill: Mr. Snow, assistant legal adviser, chairman of the special committee which have been working on the problem for many months; Mr. Flournoy, assistant legal adviser who has charge of matters in the State Department concerning immigration and naturalization; Mr. Alexander, Assistant Chief of the Visa Division; and Mr. Boggs, State Department geographer.

Mr. GOSSETT. I believe there are some 600 states or principalities scattered throughout the Asiatic area, particularly in India. What would we do if those countries started or little entities started declaring their independence? Would that have the effect of enlarging over-all quotas?

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I do not think so. Mr. Boggs, will you answer that?

Mr. BOGGS. My name is Boggs, geographer of the State Department. That is a hypothetical question and difficult to answer, but there appears to be no prospect of any great fragmentation of India. The States that are not yet in one or the other, India or Pakistan, are Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Jammu, and a minor unit of Junagadh. As they are already in, any possibility of fragmentation, I think, is so hypothetical that it is difficult to say.

The question of what may happen with reference to additional countries in the whole triangle area is pertinent and in the same character. The intent, however, of this bill is to keep the list of quota areas on the same basis as it now is under existing law, so that there is no increase in number of quotas or no change in the list of quota countries.

It is more clearly and succinctly stated when provision is made for discretion by the Secretary of State in cases of doubt in making up the list, which is a difficult thing to do and especially in view of the increase toward independence of which Mr. Butterworth has spoken. But the only difference is that with some slight increase-and it can only be slight in the number of quota areas within the triangle areathe total number who might come in of Asian ancestry from such countries will remain small, because in most cases any unit that comes in, that achieves independence, will have a small population and would not even use a minimum quota of a hundred almost certainly.

Mr. FELLOWS. May I ask this question: Your duties are what, in the Department?

Mr. BOGGS. Well, with reference to this, may I say that I have been in the Department since 1924 and worked on the determination of the national-origin quotas which are now in effect beginning in 1926, and over a period of 3 years of hard labor. And the problem of the revision of the present quotas for Europe will fall on my desk quite independently of anything like this legislation. The problems of computing the oriental quotas are very simple.

Mr. FELLOWS. Will you state for the record, so that we can all understand it, just what this bill is designed to do, just what it is, so that, not article by article, but in substance, we will have the important features of it?

Mr. BOGGS. Well, I think Dr. Judd summarized those very well. With reference to the immigration part there are gentlemen here who know the legal end of things as I do not and they can speak on those better. But, the intent is briefly to carry out the purpose of the national-origin provision of the present act without change, taking into account that by making Asian peoples eligible to citizenship, and the fact that in the 1920 census with 105,000,000 people in the United States the present quotas are determined on the basis of the white population only attributable by birth or ancestry to the quota countries, this would add the Asian peoples who constitute, in the 1920 census, a fraction of 1 percent of the total population.

And, the intent is carefully to preserve that proportion as well as it can be done, and this device of putting on the map or on the globeand I have it on the globe and I would be glad to show it to you-an area within which special provisions are worked out that takes care of the quota countries in the area, the quota countries outside the area in Europe and the nonquota countries, guarantees that the sum total who would come in would be somewhat in proportion, very closely in proportion, to the population of Asian origin in the 1920 census of the United States.

Mr. FELLOWS. And you feel, do you not, as Dr. Judd stated that he felt, that if people are going to stay in this country permanently it would be and is much better for the country itself that they become naturalized if they can fulfill the qualifications and thereby come to have a keener and deeper sense of their obligations to the country in which they are going to live, namely, this country? That it is better for us to have them naturalized than to have them in the country unnaturalized?

Mr. BOGGS. Yes; if they have the personal qualifications it would seem to me much better; yes.

Mr. CHELF. How many countries here are affected within this chart? Mr. BOGGS. At the present time there are in the triangle 12 quota countries and 13 quotas, there being two separate quotas for China and Chinese.

Mr. CHELF. And what is the minimum quota number? How is the number arrived at for the individual countries?

Mr. BOGGS. You mean the individual quota?

Mr. CHELF. Yes.

Mr. BOGGS. It is the same as it is in all other parts of the world— a minimum of 100 under the present law. And the countries which have and can have quotas larger than that in the triangle are China, which now has a quota of 105, special legislation of 1943 as you know, and Japan, which would have the largest which would be 185. That is because in the 1920 census there were 111,000 persons of Japanese ancestry in the 1920 census. It has a larger number and it has a larger number partly because of the restrictions preceding which kept the Chinese immigration down for some time so that the Chinese in 1920 were much less numerous than the Japanese in the United States. Mr. CHELF. Did I understand you correctly when you said there were 12 quota and 13 nonquota?

Mr. BOGGS. No, 13 quotas is what I mean; because of the provision for Chinese persons having a separate quota there in a thirteenth quota.

Mr. GossETT. I think that the Congress will probably feel as we do about the naturalization feature of this bill, but they are going to be a little skittish, so to speak, about the immigration features.

Now, I have a statement here which says there are 652 states within the old Indian Empire. Is that correct? Is that approximately correct as far as you know?

Mr. BOGGS. Well, it would be some large number in the five or six hundreds.

Mr. GOSSETT. And this statement refers to specifically Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Junagadh as possibly states that will subsequently set up their independence. And if these states do set up their independence, will they then be entitled to additional quotas than those we have listed in this statement here?

Mr. BOGGS. I would suppose that any that actually established their independence and it was recognized by the United Stateswould be so entitled, as Burma is now. It has not actually received a quota by proclamation, but Burma and Ceylon have already reached a status such that when present quotas are revised, as they must be soon, they will receive quotas undoubtedly. The same would be true of any which actually became independent in India.

Mr. GOSSETT. I wonder if the author of the bill would have any objection to amendment to the bill saying that the over-all quotas permissible at this time cannot be enlarged administratively or could not be increased without authorization of Congress?

Mr. JUDD. Well, of course, they cannot be increased under the present law except administratively. It is only when the Secretary of State issues a proclamation assigning a quota to a country, Burma for example, when it gets its independence, that it is eligible under the law.

There is no right involved. But it is assumed under the law that the United States Department of State would issue ultimately a proclamation assigning a quota to each of these major countries.

If it is felt there is sufficient likelihood that India may break up into dozens of states, I would certainly have no objection to such a restriction, because it is not my purpose, as the gentleman well knows, to bring in whole groups of people. It is not to remove the barriers to immigration, but, as I said awhile ago, it is merely to remove racial discrimination from the barriers.

I think myself it is most unlikely that the Department of State would grant an immigration quota of 100 to each of these little countries that conceivably could become independent states. And, even if they did, I do not think it would be too alarming for most of the countries. For instance, New Guinea and Samoa have each had a quota of 100 for years and have used only two or three a year, because the population of some of those countries is only a few thousand.

Mr. GOSSETT. That is not true of India.

Mr. JUDD. No; that is different, that is true.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, the provisions of 12 (a) as revised, in section 5 of this bill, are designed to describe the list of quota areas in the intent of present law, but much more clearly. It is now scattered through three subdivisions-(a), (b), and (c) of section 12. And, as

it became clear in attempting to work out the list of quota countries in administering the present law, it was evident that it was the intent that all populated parts of the world outside the nonquota countries of the Americas should be divided up somehow into quota areas, so that there are some things that are not clear in the law that have been taken care of from administrative necessity.

The best example of that is in the case of the Arabian Peninsula. It does not come under an independent country or a self-governing dominion or any category. Yet, people coming from there have to be charged to a quota. So, there was originally set up a quota for the Arabian Peninsula. When Saudi Arabia became independent, it was excluded. The intent is to take care of everything like San Marino.

Independent states everywhere, wherever they are, would have to be provided for. But, it is put in here particularly that the list of quota countries shall be made up in a manner consistent with the intent of the act and approved by the Secretary of State. I think that would take care of any questions. Page 6, at the top, lines 4 to 7, which I think the Congressman has.

There can not be many in India that might become independent under any condition. Practically all of them are in one or the other right now.

Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Butterworth, does this bill as drawn meet with the approval of the State Department?

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOSSETT. You have no suggested amendments to the bill?
Mr. BUTTERworth. No.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, the State Department submitted a report with certain technical changes, clarification of language, but suggestions for no substantive changes, we have gone over them and I think every one of the suggested amendments is appropriate. They are merely clarifying amendments. The Justice Department also, in its report made similar recommendations regarding certain language. Mr. FELLOWS. Any further questions?

(No response.)

We thank you very much.

Hon. Joseph C. Grew, former United States Ambassador to Japan. Mr. GREW. Shall I make my statement, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FELLOWs. Yes.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH C. GREw, former UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN

Mr. GREW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, although I come before you as a private citizen, the matter which you are now considering is one which has commanded my attention many times during my years as a Foreign Service officer of the United States. This was particularly true during the 10 years spent in Japan just prior to and during · World War II.

I have gone over the measure before you with a good deal of care, not as a technican, but to seek out its broad objectives and to determine to my own satisfaction the manner in which enactment of this

bill would affect American policies and American interests. This bill seeks

to provide the privilege of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States to all immigrants having a legal right to permanent residence and to make immigration quotas available to Asiatic and Pacific peoples.

This measure embraces two important questions-the extension of the privilege of naturalization to all qualified immigrants without reference to racial origin, and the extension of the use of national origin based immigration quotas to the peoples of all areas of the Far East.

Concerning the first of these questions, it seems to me there can be little room for disagreement that any immigrant who is allowed to remain permanently in the United States should not only be perImitted to seek citizenship, but should be encouraged to do so. If. before the war, there were doubts concerning the deportment in time of crisis of the Japanese, Koreans and other far eastern people living in America, we have now had a conclusive answer.

All of those made immediately eligible to apply for naturalization papers under the first section of H. R. 5004 came to this country prior to July 1, 1924. Their children born here are citizens; it is a source of hardship and humiliation to both parents and children that the former may not gain citizenship. Without granting any special privileges whatsoever, passage of this measure will provide immediate relief at this point. It is wholly in keeping with American tradition that in so deeply important a matter as citizenship, admission or denial be made only on grounds of individual behavior and qualification. The second question, that of allowing universal use of immigration quotas by all peoples, including those of the Far East, is an issue with which I have long been familiar. It is my considered opinion that American relationships in the part of the world which this bill defines as the Asia-Pacific triangle can never be expected to become entirely sound until this country eliminates the humiliation inflicted by our exclusion laws.

These laws were based on two premises which time has proved to be in error:

(a) That the people of the Far East, and especially the Japanese, are not assimilable and therefore would not be loyal to the United States in the event of war with Japan; and

(b) These people maintained a lower standard of living than other ethnic groups and therefore created economic problems.

The war effectively disposed of the first contention. High military and civilian authority agree that there was no act of sabotage or espionage committed by a Japanese resident in Hawaii or the United States, before or during the war. Although forced by the circumstance of their ineligibility to American citizenship to remain citizens of Japan, the Japanese aliens resident in the United States and Hawaii proved themselves law abiding and cooperative during the entire war period. A considerable number, in point of fact, served the country of their adoption as language instructors, translators, and in the preparation of maps.

Their sons, the nisei, proved themselves as loyal and effective troops, not only in the European theater but in the Pacific as well. You may recall that General Marshall's report as Chief of Staff singled out the nisei Four Hundred and Forty-second Infantry combat team for