Speech #780224296

In 1938 Morocco exported cattle. sheep. and pigs to the value of 45.952.000 francs. eggs. 62.647.000 francs. wheat 192.849.000 francs: barley. 32.511.000 francs: dried vegetables. 59.498.000 francs. and fish. 90.373.000 francs. It will be observed that the combined area of these sparsely settled provinces of North Africa is substantially greater than a third of the area of continental United States. and that it is not merely potentially an important source of foodstuffs but that prior to the outbreak of war it was a large exporter of these commodities to markets which are now closed. That is to say. these provinces are capable now of supporting a large population of refugees from their own resources provided that the allied military establisnments are maintained by supplies shipped in from overseas. In this connection it must not be forgotten that the United States is now importing foodstuffs from the Argentine (cf. New York Sun. June 14. 1944) to supplement our domestic supplies. Inasmuch as the steaming distance from Buenos Aires to Algiers is only 5.453 miles as compared with a steaming distance of 5.871 miles to New York. it is wholly illogical to import refugees to the United States on the theory that it is easier to feed them here than in Africa. When to these facts are added the hazards of shipping refugees 4.200 miles from Naples to New York in time of war. as compared with transporting them only 300 miles to Tunis and less than 600 miles to Algiers. the humanitarian argument is completely demolished. The second question raised by the Presidents order to admit 1.000 refugees "outside of the regular immigration procedure" presents to the Congress and to the American people a problem of constitutional law of the first magnitude. That question is this: Has the President the power to set aside an act Pr any part of an act of Congress restricting or prohibiting the entrance of aliens or certain classes of aliens into the United States on the theory that in time of war he has an unlimited reservoir of constitutional and statutory powers which are sufficient to sustain such extraordinary action? Here Is what the President says: "You should bear In mind that since these refugees are to be placed in a camp in the United States under appropriate security restrictions. the procedure for the selection of the refugees and arrangements for bringing them here should be as simple and expeditious as possible. uncomplicated by any of the usual formalities involved in admitting people to the United States under the immigration laws." Excerpt from Presidents cable to Ambassador Murphy.) It will be recalled that in the autumn of 1942. the President. in a special message to Congress. asked that the power be delegated to him to annul any immigration law or part thereof wholly. or to such extent as he deemed necessary. in order to facilitate his conduct of the war. In one of the introductory paragraphs of this memorandum it has been pointed out that when a bill providing for such a delegation of power came before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives for consideration. that committee unanimously declined to report the bill to Congress. This request from the President for a delegation of power and the testimony of the Attorney General before the Ways and Means- Committee in support of what was called the third war powers bill would seem to establish beyond dispute that all preceding grants of authority did not go so far as to authorize any such order as the President has now issued in respect to the entry of the 1.000 refugees referred to in his special message to Congress on June 12. 1944. In a letter to a United States Senator of which the substance is set forth In the New York Daily News of June 27. 1944. the Attorney General appears to have completely reversed the opinion that he gave to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on November 18. 1942. respecting the necessity of additional legislation to relieve the President from mandatory provisions of the immigration laws. He now seeks to draw an analogy between the admission of refugees under the Presidents .rder and the detention of prisoners of war outside of the requirements of these statutes. No such analogy is justified because the status of prisoners of war has definite statutory recognition and the conditions of their detention are specifically provided for in a series of international conventions to which the United States is a party. The most recent of these conventions is set forth in a United States Government publication.