Speech #820201720

Mr. Chairman. the bill before us contains 165 pages of text. and the accompanying committee report to explain the bill is a 328 page book. It is almost inevitable that in a bill of such magnitude. which attempts to revise and to codify all of our laws relating to immigration and naturalization. there should be a great deal of good. and there is bound to be a good deal that is bad. The gentleman from Pennsylvania . his committee. and his staff have performed a monumental task. and among many accomplishments. one of the most important is that the bill makes Asiatics eligible for quota immigration and citizenship on a nondiscriminatory basis. This repairs. after too many years. the enormous damage which was done by the Japanese Exclusion Act. which was an unnecessary insult to a proud people. and in my judgment was a substantial factor in causing the recent war between Japan and the United States. Within the last few weeks I heard Mike Masaoka. the Washington representative of the Japanese American Citizens League. make an inspiring address on this subject to a convention of JapaneseAmerican citizens in my congressional district. It is obvious that any bill we pass must contain this good provision in the present bill removing discrimination against Japanese and other Asiatic peoples. This and dozens of other fine provisions should be retained. but as I have said. in a bill of this character and scope. many mistakes have been made which ought to be corrected before this bill is passed. Something must be wrong with some parts of this bill when we recall that there has been opposition testimony offered from the American Bar Association. the American Federation of Labor. the New Jersey Welfare Council. the American Friends Service Committee. the Jewish War Veterans of the United States. the National Catholic Welfare Conference. the Young Womens Christian Association. the Order of Sons of Italy in America. and many other organizations of similar good character and reputation. For example. the Order of Sons of Italy in America and the Jewish War Veterans and many other organizations have signed a joint statement in which they say. among other things: Within the next few days you will be asked to vote on a bill. H. R. 5678. which would make farreaching and unprecedented changes in the existing law governing American citizenship and immigration. This bill would greatly affect millions of American families. subjecting their members or some of them to searches and seizures without court warrants. deprivation of citizenship by reason of foreign travel and other innocent acts. deportation without hearing. and the indefinite postponement of immigration visas on present waiting list. Now. if this is soand my examination of the bill indicates that it isthe situation must necessariiy be corrected if we want to pass a fair lawfair not only to future American citizens but fair to present American citizens. The American Friends Service Committee has said: While recognizing the tremendous job of codification embodied in the McCarranWalter bills. and the improvements in the direction of elimination of racial and sex discrimination that they contain. we are troubled by the fact that so large a proportion of their provisions are negative. and that they place more restrictions than ever on immigration into this country and securing United States citizenship. The merits of this bill are plain. but the objections to it are equally plain and very numerous. Now. the amendment which I have offered is certainly not designed to correct all the evils of the bill. It will require a series of amendments to do that. nevertheless. this single amendment is. I think. of some importance. Under existing law we have applied to immigration cases and to deporfation cases the familiar principle of the statute of limitation. and have provided that if the Government did not act to deport an alien within 5 years deportation proceedings should not commence thereafter. As I understand section 241. subsection A. of the bill. this familiar protection of the statute of limitation is removed in a great many cases. In some cases I think it should be. but in others it clearly should not. The purpose of my amendment is to provide that. notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection. deportation shall not be ordered in the case of any alien on the grounds that he entered the United States without Inspection. or at some improper time or place. unless deportation proceedings be commenced within 5 years. which seems to me to be reasonable. The amendment makes the same general provisions with respect to section 212A. paragraphs 21. 24. and 26. Where aliens get into the country on a visa which perhaps contains a technical defect. or do not have just the kind of a bordercrossing identification card that they should have. they are both excludable and deportable under this act. and I have no quarrel whatever with that. except that I think that they are entitled under these circumstances to the protection of the statute of limitation. If we are going to deport them at all. we should deport them within 5 years. After that period. they have a right to feel secure. it seems to me. and not to have some technical defect brought up some 10. 15. or 20 years later after they have fully established themselves in this country. As I have said. this is only one of a series of amendments. which I think are required in order to make this bill fair. and while I am anxious to support a general revision of immigration laws. unless this and a series of other amendments are adopted. it occurs to me that this bill should properly be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary for further and more detailed study. I cannot escape the feeling that the bill in its present form. despite some of the strides that it has made in the right direction. is unduly discriminatory and ought not to be passed without major Improvements.