Speech #820210860

I should like to know about that. Why should the law have to be changed to require. as it does. that such persons must go to the district of their former residence? That would mean refusing entry to thousands of refugees from communism or fascism who want to come to this country. It would mean that they would have to walk right back into the jaws of the dictatorright back into the trapin order to get a visa. Of course. it would mean that they could not come. This provision is a strange one because right there at section 222 (a) is a special exemption from this residence requirement to aliens coming in under the Displaced Persons Act. This exemption seems to recognize that displaced persons would not have residence in the country in which they are physically located. The framers of the McCarran bill thought it necessary to give them special exemption. This could mean. therefore. only one thing: If a man is a displaced person or a refugee and does not qualify under the Displaced Persons Act. he is not exempt from the residence requirement. I submit that if an exemption were given through a general provision in the law which spells out that those qualified to come in under the Displaced Persons Act are exempt. that would mean that all others are not exempt. That is a logical deduction and that is exactly what this bill provides. The bill is telling him: "Go backgo back to Warsaw or to Prague or to Budapest. Go back there and if you ever get to see our consul there he will give you a visa." These aliens have not been able to qualify under the Displaced Persons Act. and the Displaced Persons Act is given special exemption. Now. possibly this is but an inadvertent error and may be corrected. but this is the kind of inadvertent error which is discovered in this bill repeatedly.